CITATION: Shieff v. City of Toronto, 2022 ONSC 1692
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 804/21 DATE: 20220317
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
Cory Shieff
Cory Shieff, self-represented
Appellant
– and –
City of Toronto and Lifetime Developments Inc.
Matthew B. Lerner and Samantha Hale, for the Respondent, Lifetime Developments Mark Siboni, for the Respondent, City of Toronto Stan Floras and Ariel Chih, for the Ontario Land Tribunal
Respondents
HEARD at Toronto (by videoconference): March 17, 2022
Matheson J. (Orally)
[1] The moving party has requested an adjournment of the hearing of his motion for leave to appeal for a number of reasons, including technical challenges that he has had, illness and a proposed cross-examination of a responding witness. The adjournment that he requests is not lengthy. He requests an adjournment to a date on or after April 20, 2022.
[2] The Ontario Land Tribunal and the City of Toronto take no position on this adjournment request. The respondent, Lifetime Development, opposes the adjournment request.
[3] The moving party indicates that he received the responding parties’ materials on March 7, 2022, and they are very lengthy. I note that those responding parties’ materials were timely, but they were received recently.
[4] The moving party has explained various technical challenges that he has had leading up to today including with respect to CaseLines. I note that the moving party is now aware of and is able to upload his documents on CaseLines and a number of his documents are on CaseLines as of this morning.
[5] The moving party notes that he has had difficulty with respect to his own affidavit and exhibits, which, as served, were unsworn. I understand that the responding parties have agreed, subject to the Court’s preference, to accept the unsworn materials from the moving party as if sworn, including the affidavit and the exhibits. I thank the responding parties for accommodating the moving party in that fashion and I confirm today that the moving party’s affidavit and exhibits are in a satisfactory form as of now. He does not need to take further steps to get those materials sworn. They will be treated going forward as if he has taken an oath to swear the affidavit is true.
[6] With respect to the proposed cross-examination (of Mr. Bronskill), I appreciate that it is coming late in the game. However, given the recent delivery of the responding materials, I must accept the prospect that there may be proper questions that could be put to that witness that are relevant to the motion. The moving party has committed to doing that cross-examination promptly subject to it being scheduled, which we will do this morning. He has also committed to expediting the transcript so that it is available in a timely way.
[7] The moving party also indicates that he has prepared a factum and book of authorities, but they need to be finalized and they are not presently on CaseLines or before this Court.
[8] Lastly, I note that the issue of prejudice is a live issue on this motion. It is also disputed. The opposing party asserts that there will be prejudice and the moving party disputes that assertion.
[9] The opposing counsel understandably raises a concern about further delay in these proceedings, specifically further delay with respect to the moving party’s motion for leave to appeal the decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal. I too am concerned about delay. I agree that this motion must move forward and must be dealt with without undue delay.
[10] Having considered all the submissions, I have decided to grant the requested adjournment on terms. Those terms are as follows:
This motion is adjourned to be heard on April 25, 2022.
This date is preemptory to the moving party. No further adjournments may be sought by him.
The cross-examination of Mr. Bronskill shall be conducted on one of these three dates, all of which I understand are available - March 28, March 29, or April 1, 2022 - between 10 a.m. and 4:30 pm for a total of up to 4.5 hours. The date shall be fixed by March 22, 2022, at 4PM.
Any refusal of questions that are asked on that cross-examination, shall be addressed, if the moving party wishes to do so, at the hearing of his motion on April 25, 2022. There shall not be an intervening motion with respect to refusals.
The moving party’s factum and book of authorities shall be served and uploaded on CaseLines no later than April 14, 2022.
Any amended responding factums shall be served and uploaded no later than April 20, 2022.
The hearing shall proceed on April 25, 2022, despite any problems that may occur with the cross-examination, any refusals and any issues with transcripts, subject only to the discretion of the judge hearing the motion on that day or as otherwise ordered by the court.
The costs of today shall be reserved to the judge hearing the motion on that day.
___________________________ Matheson J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: March 17, 2022
Date of Written Release: March 18, 2022
CITATION: Shieff v. City of Toronto, 2022 ONSC 1692
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 804/21 DATE: 20220317
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
Cory Shieff Applicant
– and –
City of Toronto and Lifetime Developments Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Matheson J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: March 17, 2022
Date of Written Release: March 18, 2022