Court File and Parties

CITATION: Richards v. Louison Automotive Inc., 2022 ONSC 5902

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 198\22

DATE: 20221017

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: CURTIS RICHARDS, Plaintiff (Respondent)

AND:

LOUISON AUTOMOTIVE INC., (Appellant)

BEFORE: O’Brien J.

COUNSEL: A. Varro and M. Garland for the Appellant, Louison Automotive

M. Odumodu for the Respondent, Curtis Richards

HEARD at Toronto: October 6, 2022

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This appeal was scheduled to be heard this morning. At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the Respondent advised that he became aware yesterday of a potential conflict. Specifically, he learned that one of the counsel representing the Appellant on the appeal, Mr. Jakubiak, had acted for his client at an earlier stage of the same dispute between the same parties. Mr. Jakubiak was not in attendance today, but his name does appear on the Appellant’s materials on the appeal. I was told that Mr. Jakubiak was retained by the Respondent to write a demand letter to the Appellant. Counsel appearing today for the Appellant were not in a position to provide further details as to their firm’s previous involvement, as they had only learned of this issue late yesterday.

[2] I instructed counsel for the Respondent that if the Respondent wished to raise an issue with the Appellant’s law firm, he would be required to bring a motion, rather than simply raising the issue on the record. Counsel for the Respondent advised that he did not have instructions to bring a motion, as he had only discussed the issue with his client for the first time this morning. However, given that he also was not conceding the issue, a schedule for a conflict motion was agreed-upon. The schedule includes a date for the Respondent to confirm he will be bringing the motion.

[3] Both parties took the position that they should be entitled to costs for today’s attendance. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent should have raised this issue prior to the eve of trial. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s law firm should have been aware of its prior involvement. As I do not have sufficient information, the costs of today’s attendance and any related thrown-away costs are reserved to the judge hearing the conflict motion.

[4] The schedule for the exchange of motion materials is as follows:

(a) By October 18, 2022, the Respondent shall advise the Appellant whether he is proceeding with the motion.

(b) By October 27, 2022, the Respondent shall serve his motion record.

(c) By November 10, 2022, the Appellant shall serve its responding record.

(d) By November 24, 2022, the Respondent shall serve his factum.

(e) By December 1, 2022, the Appellant shall serve its factum.

[5] The Toronto Registrar of the Divisional Court is asked to provide the parties with a motion date before a single judge of the Divisional Court for an estimated half day motion no earlier than December 15, 2022 and to advise the parties of the date by November 4, 2022.

[6] If the Respondent is not proceeding with the conflict motion, the parties shall advise the Court of this by October 24, 2022 and request a new date for a half day appeal before a single judge of the Divisional Court. In the event there is no motion, costs of today’s adjournment are reserved to the judge hearing the appeal.

Date: October 17, 2022