Court File and Parties
CITATION: Furney v. CIBC, 2024 ONSC 5156
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 538/24
DATE: 20240917
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: MARYAM FURNEY, Applicant
-and-
CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, AND CIBC MORTGAGES INC., AND TRADING AS FIRSTLINE MORTGAGES, AND ADRIAN BESLEAGA, AND FLORIN BESLEAGA, AND CHRISTOPHER STAPLES, AND JOHN DOE 1, AND JANE DOE 2, Respondents
BEFORE: FL Myers J
COUNSEL: Maryam Furney, for herself Adam Zasada, for the Besleaga defendants Heyla Vettyvel, for CIBC
HEARD at Toronto: September 17, 2024 (By video and telephone conference)
Endorsement
[1] On September 4, 2024, Matheson J directed that this matter be heard at a case conference before me today.
[2] Ms. Furney is suing the bank and others for improvident realization on mortgaged property. The bank and other defendants are moving for summary judgment to dismiss the claim. The motion is scheduled to be heard on September 26, 2024.
[3] On August 14, 2024, Koehnen J. denied Ms. Furney’s request to adjourn the summary judgment motion. Ms. Furney seeks leave to appeal that decision to the Divisional Court.
[4] The moving parties for summary judgment do not want to lose their motion date. The parties discussed an expedited schedule for the leave to appeal motion. They were not able to agree. Matheson J. described the purpose of today’s case conference as follows:
Having unsuccessfully attempted to agree on an expedited schedule for the motion for leave to appeal, the defendants ask for a case conference. They do not want to lose their return date for the summary judgment motion.
[5] Ms. Furney says that as an unrepresented party, she should not be bullied into an early hearing of her motion for leave to appeal.
[6] I raised with Ms. Furney a question about an allegation she had made against me previously in a related matter concerning her contact with my brother (who a lawyer in Toronto). Ms. Furney politely reiterated her concern that any decision I might make in this matter may be tainted by her view of my brother’s conduct and how it might have impacted a prior matter that I heard.
[7] While there is no substance to Ms. Furney’s alleged concern about anything I may have done, ultimately, there is no reason for me to hear this matter today. There is no possibility of an expedited leave to appeal motion being heard in this (and another related matter) before the summary judgment motion is heard on September 26, 2024.
[8] In directing the case conference to proceed today, Matheson made the following points expressly:
- There is no automatic stay of the above decision, pending this case conference.
- This Court does not ordinarily schedule Motions for a stay pending motions for leave to appeal, but may consider an expedited leave to appeal motion.
- If the moving party is seeking to have an expedited leave motion, they should move immediately to prepare and deliver their motion materials.
- The moving party should not assume, in any way, that the commencement of this motion for leave to appeal will have the result of causing an adjournment to the upcoming hearing on September 26, 2024.
[9] Ms. Furney does not want to expedite her motions for leave to appeal. She wants time to retain counsel and to exercise her right to perfect her motions in accordance with the times set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Ms. Furney understands that she bears the risk that her motions for leave to appeal may become moot if summary judgment is granted.
[10] While I am not ruling on any allegation that I may have a conflict of interest in this matter, I will not take any steps at this case conference. Any party may seek a renewed case conference to discuss scheduling of the motions for leave to appeal, if necessary, after the summary judgment motion is heard.
FL Myers J
Date: September 17, 2024