Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 20220310 Docket: C68321

van Rensburg, Nordheimer and Harvison Young JJ.A.

Between

Nisar Ahmed and 1492480 Ontario Inc. Plaintiffs (Respondents)

and

Albina DePaulis also known as Albina De Paulis, Claudio DePaulis also known as Claudio De Paulis and Washmax (Weston) Ltd. Defendants (Appellants)

Counsel: No one appearing for the appellants Eric Blau, former counsel for the appellants S. Michael Citak and Dara Hirbod, for the respondents

Heard: March 8, 2022 by video conference

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Lorne Sossin of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 2, 2020, with reasons reported at 2020 ONSC 2550.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellants appeal from the trial judgment that awarded the respondents damages for, among other things, illegal distress, conversion, and defamation. At the hearing, we dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow. We now provide our reasons.

[2] The appeal was scheduled to be heard on March 8, 2022. On March 4, 2022, the appellants’ former counsel obtained an order from Pardu J.A. removing them as the lawyers of record for the appellants. They had previously obtained an order removing them as lawyers of record from the Superior Court of Justice on February 23, 2022. The appellants had notice of and did not respond to the motions to remove their counsel.

[3] We were advised that both orders were served on the appellants. The order of Pardu J.A. was sent by email, as she directed, and also by registered mail. We were also advised that the appellants’ former lawyers had previously advised the appellants of the hearing date of March 8 and then subsequently provided them with the link to the virtual hearing. At the hearing on March 8, neither of the appellants appeared nor did they communicate in any way with the court. The appellants also did not communicate with their former lawyers.

[4] The respondents obtained their judgment almost two years ago. The appellants have not demonstrated any interest in proceeding with their appeal. In particular, knowing that their counsel was seeking removal from the record and had obtained orders in this regard, they did not appear to ask for an adjournment of the hearing or otherwise address the status of their appeal. In those circumstances, we determined that the appeal should be dismissed.

[5] The respondents are entitled to their costs of the appeal which we fix in the amount requested, that is, $17,561.90, inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T.

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”

“Harvison Young J.A.”