Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2019-03-20

Docket: M49877 (C64239)

Motion Judge: Lauwers J.A.

Between

AMT Finance Inc. Plaintiff (Responding Party/Respondent)

and

Sonia LaFontaine, 2186704 Ontario Inc. and 1843286 Ontario Inc. Defendants (Moving Parties/Appellants)

Counsel

Steven Sinukoff, for the moving parties

Edward D'Agostino, for the responding party

Heard: March 13, 2019

Reasons for Decision

[1] The corporate appellants move to have their appeal restored to the hearing list and heard on the merits together with Sonia LaFontaine's appeal.

[2] The problem with this case seems to have arisen from the fact that Arthur Froom, who was not a lawyer, was seeking to represent the corporate appellants. By order dated October 11, 2017, Huscroft J.A. refused Mr. Froom permission to represent the corporate appellants, and gave them 30 days to retain counsel and perfect the appeal. Mr. Froom sought panel review of this decision, which was dismissed by the panel on February 28, 2018. Mr. Sinukoff now acts for the corporate appellants and that particular irregularity has been resolved.

[3] On June 7, 2018 Hourigan J.A. endorsed a motion record of Ms. LaFontaine:

There appears to have … been error made by court staff. The appeal was perfected. However, court staff "unperfected" the appeal when leave was not granted for certain individuals who are not lawyers to represent the corporate defendants/appellants. While that order was correct regarding the corporate defendants/appellants, it was not correct as regards to Ms. LaFontaine who was sued in and appeals in her personal capacity. The order of the registrar dismissing her appeal is set aside. I am granting Ms. LaFontaine 30 days to review and re-perfect her material as requested by her counsel. The purpose of this exercise is to remove from the record any unnecessary material that relates to the corporate defendants/appellants, to make things easier for the panel that hears the appeal.

[4] It is not clear to me by what authority the registrar "unperfected" an appeal previously found to be perfected. The basis appears to have been the corporate appellants' lack of legal representation. That has now been remedied.

[5] As noted, in this motion, Mr. Sinukoff seeks to revive the corporate appellants' appeal and have it listed for hearing together with Ms. LaFontaine's appeal. Counsel for the respondent argues that delay and the lack of merit in the corporate appellants' appeal should cause me to decline the order sought by Mr. Sinukoff.

[6] Given the way in which their appeal was "unperfected," in my view it would be more efficient and more just for the corporate appellants' appeal to be restored to the hearing list and for that appeal and Ms. LaFontaine's appeal to be heard together. The panel hearing Ms. LaFontaine's appeal should be fully apprised of all of the relevant facts, including those relating to the corporate appellants' appeal.

[7] So ordered.

[8] Counsel agreed that the costs of the motion before me would be fixed at $5,000 and awarded to the successful party. I award $5,000 in costs, all inclusive, to the corporate appellants to be paid by the respondent.

P. Lauwers J.A.