Court File and Parties
CITATION: Classic Pos Inc. v. Hinic, 2019 ONSC 3105
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NOS.: 106/17 and 141/17 DATE: 20190521
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
THORBURN, D. EDWARDS, and FAVREAU JJ.
BETWEEN:
COURT FILE NO. 106/17
CLASSIC POS INC. Moving Party/Appellant
Ineke Sutherland, in person and for Classic Pos Inc.
– and –
GORAN HINIC AND BUSINESS #322526412 Respondent
John No, for the Respondent
COURT FILE NO. 141/17
CLASSIC POS INC. Moving Party/Appellant
Ineke Sutherland, in person and for Classic Pos Inc.
– and –
BUSINESS #828126714 O/A HOLLY AND HOLLY LOGGIE Respondent
John No, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: May 21, 2019
Oral Reasons for Judgment
THORBURN J. (Orally)
[1] The moving party (applicant) seeks to adjourn the request for reconsideration on the basis that the transcripts from the cross-examination of Ruth Welland and Meghan Rand are not available. She claims that information from those cross-examinations is relevant to her request for reconsideration.
[2] The respondent objects to the request for an adjournment on the basis that nothing in these affidavits is relevant to the request for reconsideration and that the applicant did not move expeditiously to conduct the cross-examination as required by Rule 39.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
[3] We agree with the respondent that nothing in the above two affidavits is relevant to the request to reconsider Perell J.’s Order nor was the applicant able to articulate what evidence from the cross-examination would be adduced on the hearing on the merits of this request for reconsideration.
[4] Ruth Welland’s affidavit addresses service issues contained in the first registrar’s dismissal. This Order was set aside by Myers J. As such, Ms. Welland’s evidence is not relevant to this request for reconsideration.
[5] Meghan Rand’s affidavit was not prepared until after Perell J. made his order. Her affidavit addresses what happened at the hearing before Perell J.; however, Backhouse J. in her Order of May 14, 2019 has already determined that “The applicant was not able to point to what arguments she was prevented from making before Justice Perrell [sic] that may have affected the result. It is clear that what she really objects to is the outcome of the motion.”
[6] Given our finding that the affidavits are not relevant to this request for reconsideration, we need not address the timeliness of the cross-examination.
[7] For these reasons, the request for adjournment is dismissed.
THORBURN J.
I agree
D. EDWARDS J.
I agree
FAVREAU J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 21, 2019
Date of Release: May 23, 2019
CITATION: Classic Pos Inc. v. Hinic, 2019 ONSC 3105
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NOS.: 106/17 and 141/17 DATE: 20190521
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
THORBURN, D. EDWARDS, and FAVREAU JJ.
BETWEEN:
COURT FILE NO. 106/17
CLASSIC POS INC. Moving Party/Appellant
– and –
GORAN HINIC AND BUSINESS #322526412 Respondent
COURT FILE NO. 141/17
CLASSIC POS INC. Moving Party/Appellant
– and –
BUSINESS #828126714 O/A HOLLY AND HOLLY LOGGIE Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THORBURN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 21, 2019
Date of Release: May 23, 2019