Court File and Parties
CITATION: Know Your City v. Brantford (City of), 2020 ONSC 5878
COURT FILE NO.: 214/20
DATE: 20200929
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Know Your City v. Brantford (City of)
COUNSEL: Eric Gillespie, Kathleen Coulter and Veronica Martisius (student-at-law) for the Applicant
Brian Duxbury and Joshua Perrell, for the Respondent
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
DATE: September 29, 2020
CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT
D.L. Corbett J.
[1] This endorsement reflects a case management teleconference held on September 29, 2020.
[2] The court has been advised in writing by Ontario that the Province will not be participating in this application.
[3] This matter shall be heard by Zoom videoconference by a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court on December 11, 2020, for an estimated 1.0 day. Counsel shall agree on a schedule among themselves that sees all materials provided to the court by way of a file sharing platform no later than November 23, 2020. This schedule shall be provided to the court by October 9, 2020.
[4] The hearing of this appeal shall be streamed by YouTube and the Registrar is asked to make the necessary arrangements for this streaming.
[5] The court anticipates transitioning to “Caselines” as its data-sharing platform starting in mid-October. The parties are directed to use Caselines for this case, subject to the directions that may be given in this regard by the Registrar. If the Registrar directs that Caselines not be used, because it is not yet operational for the court, then the moving party shall establish a file sharing platform to provide all materials to the court. Any issues respecting this direction may be raised with the court by the parties by email.
[6] The return date for this matter is contingent upon the respondent agreeing not to close the sale of the property prior to the conclusion of the hearing on December 11th. If the decision on the application is reserved, the respondent may be asked to continue its undertaking not to close the sale pending release of the court’s decision, failing which the applicant may seek a stay from the panel pending release of the court’s decision.
[7] The parties requested confirmation of the file number for this case. It is shown in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this endorsement.
[8] Mr Duxbury confirmed that the respondent has given notice of this application to the prospective purchaser of the property.
[9] The parties are discussing security for costs. If agreement cannot be reached and the respondent wishes to pursue such relief, it shall serve motion materials and then request a motion date from the court by email. The respondent should advise the court of when it can serve responding materials on this motion as soon as possible so that the motion may be scheduled well in advance of the return date of the application. This court has indicated some provisional views on the issue of security for costs, so if a motion is scheduled on this issue, it should not be returned before D.L. Corbett J.
D.L. Corbett J.
Date: September 29, 2020