Pronesti v. 1309395 Ontario Inc., 2015 ONSC 1977

CITATION: Pronesti v. 1309395 Ontario Inc., 2015 ONSC 1977
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-514640
DATE: 20150325

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE:

Vincenzo Pronesti

Applicant

• and -

1309395 Ontario Ltd., 1794566 Ontario Ltd., 1794565 Ontario Ltd., Shakeel Balroop, Satt Balroop and Sham Balroop also known as Shamshad Balroop

Respondents

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

Heard: March 25, 2015

Counsel:

Kevin D. Toyne for the defendants Shakeel Balroop, Satt Balroop and Shamshad Balroop

Oscar Strawczynski for the plaintiff

ENDORSEMENT

[1] By Reasons for Decision dated February 23, 2015, reported at 2015 ONSC 1139, I sentenced the three Balroop defendants for contempt of court. My reasons for holding them in contempt are reported at 2014 ONSC 7303. In para. 47 of my reasons for sentencing, I put the contemnors on notice that they were to return to court on March 23, 2015, to establish that they had fully complied with the sentencing orders that I made that day and the prior orders incorporated therein. Para. 57 of my sentencing reasons says:

This is important. At the hearing on March 23, 2015, the court will consider whether the respondents have fully complied with the court’s orders including this order. The court will hear submissions by any of the parties, based on evidence to be delivered for that hearing, concerning modifications to the sentences pronounced today – to increase or to lessen sentences based upon performance or non-performance of the terms as ordered as at that time.

[2] The matter was thereafter adjourned to March 23, 2015. I subsequently amended the date to March 31, 2015 by endorsement dated March 17, 2015.

[3] Shakeel Balroop was sentenced to a conditional sentence including house arrest for 30 days to March 23, 2015. I am advised by his counsel that he was arrested on March 20, 2015 for breach of his conditional sentence and that he spent one night in jail prior to being released on bail. The status of his bail terms and whether he has been charged with an offence is currently unknown to the court.

[4] Shamshad Balroop spent two days in jail in accordance with my sentencing. She has been sentenced to serve a further four days in jail after the next hearing unless that sentence is changed at the hearing. Her counsel advises that she requests an adjournment so that she will not be in jail for a religious holiday that is upcoming.

[5] All of the defendants have apparently appealed some or a number of orders in this proceeding including the contempt finding and sentence. They initially brought proceedings challenging some or all of the orders in the wrong court(s). They have yet to schedule a motion for a stay pending appeal in Court of Appeal. They say that they intend to do so in mid-April once their religious holiday is over. They therefore ask for an adjournment of the upcoming resumption of the sentencing hearing until after the Court of Appeal has heard that motion.

[6] The plaintiff opposes the adjournment request. Mr. Strawczynski says that his client will argue that the Balroops have not complied with the sentencing order. There should not be a delay to accommodate their roundabout effort to get to the Court of Appeal. They were advised last week that under the applicable rules, they could bring a stay motion returnable tomorrow in the Court of Appeal. They have chosen to wait another several weeks to do so.

[7] In my view there is some urgency to understand the current status of the matter. The court has yet to hear evidence that the court’s orders have been complied with. That remains a serious matter which the court is overseeing. The court has no information as to the status of Shakeel Balroop’s bail conditions or how his arrest and release are impacting on the court’s orders. If there is a lack of clarity, that should be resolved. Mrs. Balroop’s religious observances can be taken into account in anything that the court might order. As Mr. Strawczynski notes, if she is found to have complied with the sentencing order and the prior orders incorporated therein and the court commutes her remaining sentence, a later motion for a stay may be unnecessary.

[8] Accordingly the motion for an adjournment is dismissed. All parties should attend on March 31, 2015 prepared to argue for further sentencing based on the evidence in the record and any further evidence filed for that hearing in accordance with para. 57 of my sentencing reasons quoted above.

[9] Mr. Toyne advises that his limited retainer has come to an end. The Balroops have chosen to be unrepresented at various times in this proceeding. They have also twice had counsel move for and obtain orders releasing funds for a retainer. In the circumstances, I leave to Mr. Toyne and his clients how their relationship is to be conducted.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: March 25, 2015