Court File and Parties
CITATION: Dixon v. Lindsay, 2020 ONSC 6456
COURT FILE NO.:
DATE: 20201022
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Dixon v. Lindsay
COUNSEL: Ms Dixon, self-represented Moving Party Stephen Codas and Courtney Palmer, for the Responding Party
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
DATE: October 22, 2020
CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT
[1] This endorsement reflects a case management conference held on October 22, 2020.
[2] A prior case management conference was held on August 21, 2020, reflected in an endorsement released on September 18, 2020 (2020 ONSC 5629). Directions were given to the parties orally on August 21st, effective at the time they were made orally. The parties were expected to follow those directions even though they had not received the court’s written endorsement. The court is managing its docket in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis. The end of August and beginning of September coincided with a resumption in residential tenancy evictions, leading to a substantial increase in urgent matters before the court, with the result that non-urgent administrative matters, such as release of written endorsements was delayed.
[3] The moving party did not comply with the directions given orally on August 21st, and by the time she received the written endorsement dated September 18, 2020, her deadline for filing materials had passed.
[4] The moving party is self-represented. The court declines to inquire into her bona fides in missing the deadline, in all the circumstances, and instead will impose a revised schedule to bring these matters before a panel for adjudication.
[5] The moving party shall serve all the materials on which she relies for her motions for leave to appeal and to extend the time for leave to appeal, by November 16, 2020.
[6] The responding party shall serve all his responding materials by December 15, 2020.
[7] The parties shall provide the court with all of their materials, including costs materials, using the court’s Caselines software, by December 18, 2020.
[8] The moving party’s motions shall be placed before the panel for decision during the week of January 11, 2021, or as soon thereafter as the motions may be reached.
[9] As has been explained to the moving party, on the motions for leave to appeal the materials properly before the court are the materials that were before the judge making the subject order. Ms Dixon takes the position that there are additional materials that should be before the panel considering her motions. I have explained to her that she needs to provide an affidavit explaining why these additional materials should be before the court. This affidavit should address (a) why these materials were not placed before the judge at first instance; and (b) why these materials would make a material difference to the decision she seeks to appeal. It is only if the materials meet the very high test for “fresh evidence” that they would ordinarily be admitted at the appellate level.
[10] The responding party may address the issue of fresh evidence in its responding materials to the motions for leave to appeal.
[11] The responding party is concerned that the moving party will include documents protected by solicitor-client privilege in her motion materials. The responding party may address this issue in his responding materials and may ask that any materials that he says ought not to be disclosed be struck from the motion materials, sealed, or otherwise be protected. It will be for the panel deciding the leave motions to decide how to deal with this issue.
D.L. Corbett J.
Date: October 22, 2020