Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Royal Bank of Canada v. Groscki, 2020 ONSC 1198
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 49/20 DATE: 20200220
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA Plaintiff (Respondent in Appeal)
– and –
JOHN GROSCKI CA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION RYT HOSPITALITY LTD., 1120044 ONTARIO INC., JOHN GROSCKI Defendants (Appellants)
COUNSEL:
Rachel Moses for the Plaintiff
John Groscki, acting in person
HEARD at Toronto: February 20, 2020
Oral Reasons for Judgment
D.L. CORBETT J. (Orally)
[1] Mr. Groscki is very unhappy with the way his case is unfolding in the Commercial Court. It is not for this court to weigh in on those concerns. Mr. Groscki brought a motion to extend the time to seek leave to appeal orders of Pattillo and Penny JJ. The Bank filed extensive responding materials. Mr. Groscki then abandoned his motion. The Bank seeks costs. The Loan Agreement entitles the Bank to full recovery of actual and reasonable costs to enforce its security.
[2] Penny J. noted in his handwritten endorsement of December 18, 2019, that the proposed appellant’s “conduct in the course of these proceedings have greatly add to the legal costs incurred by the Bank.” So it is with this abandoned motion.
[3] Mr. Groscki asked rhetorically how I would feel if the Bank seized my property without affording a reasonable opportunity to refinance. He told me that he has sought advice from senior lawyers, learned in the law. He told me that the underlying property is worth about $2 million. These are all matters to be considered at first instance in the court below. Today’s appearance simply concerns costs for legal steps initiated by Mr. Groscki, then abandoned by him, which have put the Bank to expense. Ordinary principles of indemnity apply, including enforcement of the Loan Agreement’s terms respecting indemnity for enforcement costs. If the moving parties have so much at stake, they would be wise to retain one of the learned counsel of which Mr. Groscki spoke, to avoid, in future, the costs of unnecessary litigation steps.
[4] The costs of this abandoned motion, including the appearance to address costs, fixed at $10,052.71, payable jointly and severally by the defendants/proposed appellants. Approval as to form and content dispensed with. I have signed the order.
[5] Mr. Groscki stood up and left the courtroom while the court was reading this endorsement. As a professional person, an accountant, one would have expected Mr. Groscki to respect proper decorum, even though he may be unhappy with the court’s decision. This provides a further basis for supposing that the defendants/moving parties would benefit from the professional detachment and judgment that would be brought to bear by one of the senior counsel learned in the law, consulted but not retained by them.
D.L. CORBETT J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: February 20, 2020
Date of Release: February 26, 2020
CITATION: Royal Bank of Canada v. Groscki, 2020 ONSC 1198
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 49/20 DATE: 20200220
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA Plaintiff (Respondent in Appeal)
– and –
JOHN GROSCKI CA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION RYT HOSPITALITY LTD., 1120044 ONTARIO INC., JOHN GROSCKI Defendants (Appellants)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D.L. CORBETT J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: February 20, 2020
Date of Release: February 26, 2020