Kotaki v. Zaraineh, 2015 ONSC 945

COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-507851
DATE: 20150213

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE:

MOHAMMAD H. KOTAKI

Plaintiff

-AND-

KUMARAZ ZARAINEH aka KUIMARS (KEVIN) ZARAYENEH

Defendant

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

COUNSEL: J. Stanleigh for the plaintiff

L. Lu for the defendant

HEARD: February 9, 2015

CASE CONFERENCE #2 ENDORSEMENT

[1] This matter came before me originally for scheduling of a summary judgment motion at Civil Practice Court. The parties’ motion preparation had stalled due to procedural issues. There were issues among the parties concerning the availability and production of banking documents; conduct of cross-examinations; and scheduling. I took the motion was under case management in accordance with the Toronto Region Pilot Practice Advisory – Civil Practice Court (Regional – October 14, 2014, in effect until July 1, 2015).

[2] At the first Case Conference on December 16, 2014, a number of procedural issues were resolved so that a schedule could be implemented. At the request of the parties a second Case Conference was held to canvass settlement prospects.

[3] Although settlement was not achieved, the parties certainly understand each other’s position. Counsel advise that the matter will now proceed to the motion for summary judgment on March 11, 2015.

[4] In accordance with the Practice Advisory mentioned above, the type of case management applied in CPC will vary depending upon the case. That is, the CPC judge tries to help move things forward efficiently, but not all cases are taken under full case management under Rule 77.

[5] Having broken through the procedural logjam, the motion for summary judgment is ready to proceed and the case will either be resolved on the motion or sent to a mini-trial/trial if the judge has concerns about credibility that he or she cannot resolve then. In either case, there is nothing remaining for a CPC judge to do. This is an example of what has sometimes been referred to as “light touch” case management that can move a case forward toward a more efficient resolution without taking a major commitment of judicial resources.

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: February 13, 2015