CITATION: Groshaus v. Farooque, 2016 ONSC 2573
COURT FILE NOS.: CV-12-458420; CV-13-495528; and CV-14-504828
DATE: 20160415
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JAVIER GROSHAUS and ALICIA LEVICH Plaintiffs
– and –
BAYEZID FAROOQUE, TRISHA FAROOQUE, CHIRAGH AJWANI, SWATI TEKWANI, PAUL HARRINGTON, GEORGE VIOLANTE, VOLODYMR MARCHUK (also known as VLAD), EDGEWATER GROUP INC., EDGEWATER GROUP, STAR LAUNCH CORPORATION, MIDAN SOFTWARE CORPORATION, DOE 1 and DOE 2 Defendants
Self-represented and acting in person
Paul Robson, for the Defendants Edgewater Group Inc., Edgewater Group, Swati Tekwani, Bayezid Farooque, Trisha Farooque and Chragh Ajwani
-and-
VOLODYMYR MARCHUK Defendant
-and-
JOSEPH FIORE Defendant
Self-represented and acting in person
Robyrt Regan, acting for defendant, Joseph Fiore
HEARD: April 15, 2016
CASE CONFERENCE ENDORSEMENT
DIAMOND J.:
[1] In accordance with my endorsement released on March 18, 2016, a case conference proceeded before me this morning.
[2] In my Case Conference Endorsement dated January 26, 2016, I ordered Mr. Groshaus to deliver a Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim in the 2012 action with a view to combining all of the allegations, material facts and parties which he had previously “cut and pasted” between three separate proceedings. I indicated that the purpose of this exercise was to, inter alia, avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.
[3] Mr. Groshaus failed to deliver the Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim by the original deadline of February 29, 2016. Just prior to the commencement of today’s case conference, Mr. Groshaus emailed a draft Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim to the defendants. I have since had an opportunity to review this draft pleading, which totals approximately 130 pages. It does not in fact “combine” the allegations, material facts and parties from the three proceedings into one, but appears to simply amend and expand the existing 2012 proceeding.
[4] When I asked Mr. Groshaus why he proceeded as he did, Mr. Groshaus indicated that he did not understand my previous Endorsements to grant him “leave to amend” to “add parties” as he saw fit. In reviewing the contents of my said Endorsements, I am not sure how Mr. Groshaus came to that conclusion.
[5] The bottom line is that the state of pleadings must be addressed and finalized without further delay. These actions have existed for several years, and in the six months since I was assigned to case manage them, very little has transpired despite my efforts to the contrary.
[6] The defendants have not had an opportunity to review the Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim in detail. Mr. Regan advises that his client intents to bring a motion for summary judgment regardless of the contents of the Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim. Mr. Robson advises that his clients will likely provide him with instructions to bring a motion to strike under Rules 21 and/or 25 once he has had an opportunity to review the draft pleading.
[7] To the extent that Mr. Groshaus wishes to deliver a further Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim to “combine” the allegations, material facts and parties (as I originally ordered), he shall have until May 6, 2016 to do so. If no further Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim is delivered by that date, then the current Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim will be the governing pleading for the purpose of any potential motions to be brought by the plaintiffs. I am not prepared to schedule such motions with a potential “moving target” caused by Mr. Groshaus unilaterally delivering further draft pleadings.
[8] The defendants shall have ten days from the earlier of the date they receive a further Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim or May 6, 2016 to advise my assistant of their intentions with respect to potential motions. I hope that such motions can be scheduled without the need for a further in-person case conference.
[9] The defendants requested that costs of today’s attendance be ordered payable to them in the cause. I agree. While an attendance may have proven necessary in any event for the purpose of scheduling motions, Mr. Groshaus remained in breach of my order for approximately six weeks and has caused further delay to occur.
[10] I therefore order that Mr. Groshaus is liable for the attending defendants’ costs of today’s case conference in the cause.
Diamond J.
Released: April 15, 2016
CITATION: Groshaus v. Farooque, 2016 ONSC 2573
COURT FILE NOS.: CV-12-458420; CV-13-495528; and CV-14-504828
DATE: 20160415
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JAVIER GROSHAUS and ALICIA LEVICH Plaintiffs
– and –
BAYEZID FAROOQUE, TRISHA FAROOQUE, CHIRAGH AJWANI, SWATI TEKWANI, PAUL HARRINGTON, GEORGE VIOLANTE, VOLODYMR MARCHUK (also known as VLAD), EDGEWATER GROUP INC., EDGEWATER GROUP, STAR LAUNCH CORPORATION, MIDAN SOFTWARE CORPORATION, DOE 1 and DOE 2 Defendants
-and-
VOLODYMYR MARCHUK Defendant
-and-
JOSEPH FIORE Defendant
CASE CONFERENCE ENDORSEMENT
Diamond J.
Released: April 15, 2016