Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 20220505 Docket: M52976 (C67953)

Before: Benotto, Miller and Copeland JJ.A.

Between:

Hafeez Fazl a.k.a.Fazl Hafeez Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Home Trust Company, 2256157 Ontario Ltd., Giuseppina Marchese and Allen Wellman Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel: Hafeez Fazl, appearing in person Alexander Melfi, for the respondent Allen Wellman Dina Peat, for the respondent 2256157 Ontario Ltd. James Riewald, for the respondent Home Trust Company James S.G. Macdonald, for the respondent Giuseppina Marchese

Heard: April 28, 2022 by video conference

Reasons for Decision

[1] On November 17, 2021, Huscroft J.A. dismissed Mr. Fazl’s motion to set aside the Registrar’s dismissal of the appeal for delay. Mr. Fazl moved before a panel for a review of that decision. The panel motion was set for April 28, 2022.

[2] On April 7, 2022, Mr. Fazl requested an adjournment of this motion so that he could travel to Pakistan to complete a religious pilgrimage for Ramadan. Lauwers J.A. refused the request, adding:

…this case has been mouldering for years and needs to be resolved without causing the respondents to incur more expense.

[3] Mr. Fazl now asks again for an adjournment, this time on a different ground. He wanted Mohammed Aslam Khan, a lawyer, to speak to his new adjournment request. Mr. Khan had previously contacted the court saying he was “agent” for Mr. Fazl and had assisted him by filing a motion record in support of the adjournment.

[4] Mr. Fazl completed a counsel slip for this hearing. Mr. Khan did not. Parties to an appeal are required to submit a completed counsel slip at least ten business days before the hearing.

[5] Mr. Khan has not been retained and is not on the record. Mr. Khan said he has not been retained because he said Mr. Fazl needs a litigation guardian. We declined to allow Mr. Khan to speak for Mr. Fazl although we have the documentation filed in support of the adjournment.

[6] The adjournment request is because Mr. Fazl now claims to be a party under a disability and unable to make submissions at present; he also claims to need a litigation guardian because in 2019 he was diagnosed with back problems. He relies on a doctor’s letter from 2019 which refers to his back problem and a second, undated note from the same doctor saying he is “confused and incapable of managing his affairs.” No proper medical or psychiatric evidence is provided. Although Mr. Khan’s earlier letter to the court stated that he had documents showing that Mr. Fazl was “declared” a person with disability, there is no such declaration, and no application has been made under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30.

[7] There is therefore no basis for the adjournment.

[8] Mr. Fazl made no submissions on the merits of his motion. Huscroft J.A. determined that the appeal had no merit. The underlying action was dismissed on summary judgment because a previous action by Mr. Fazl had dealt with the same issues. The motion judge found his action was “without a scintilla of merit”. This review is not a hearing de novo. Huscroft J.A. considered the relevant factors and concluded that the justice of the case did not require the extension of time. Mr. Fazl points to no error made and we see no reason to warrant intervention.

[9] The motion for review is dismissed.

[10] Although the four respondents sought only nominal costs, we see no purpose in an award of costs and make no order.

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“B. Miller J.A.”

“J. Copeland J.A.”