Court File and Parties

CITATION: Gupta v. 2075750 Ontario Inc. & RE/MAX Capital Inc., 2016 ONSC 7348

COURT FILE NO.: C-403-13

DATE: 2016/11/24

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Manish Gupta, 2357939 Ontario Inc. and Eb Investments Inc., Plaintiffs

AND:

2075750 Ontario Inc. and RE/MAX Capital Inc., Defendants

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice G. A. Campbell

COUNSEL: Romesh Hettiarachchi, for the Plaintiffs

John Adair, for the Defendant, 2075750 Ontario Inc.

Dante Gatti, for the Defendant, RE/MAX Capital Inc.

DETERMINED: November 24, 2016

REASONS FOR DENIAL OF LEAVE TO APPEAL

[1] Rules exist for a reason and are not mere suggestions.

[2] Counsel for the Moving Party/Plaintiffs (Gupta) must have stopped reading r. 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure after ss. (2) thereof, since he has not complied with r. 62.02(5) whatsoever. There is no motion record, factum nor book of authorities served or filed (see r. 61.03.1(4) to (19)).

[3] There should also be no question that the Order of Sloan, J. of September 16, 2016 sought to be appealed by Gupta is an interlocutory Order, as it addresses procedural issues of undertakings and refusals (the date for his Motion for Summary Judgment returnable that day having been vacated and adjourned to a date to be set by the Trial Co-ordinator “after they (the parties) have completed the cross-examinations and are ready to proceed.”).

[4] There is also absolutely no error in fact or in law (neither palpable nor over-riding) in the Sloan, J. Order. On the affidavit evidence before him, Sloan, J. correctly identified that the main issue in dispute was whether the January 17, 2013 closing date was extended to January 31, 2013 or not. Therefore, the Motions Judge’s finding of fact that “the relevant time period for production of documents would go up to at least February 2013” is correct and appropriate.

[5] Mr. Gupta, by seeking leave to Appeal and then to Appeal the question whether the Motions Judge “erred” in making that finding, strongly suggests that he is really seeking a “do-over” or is shopping for some other judge or forum to have another “kick at the can”.

[6] On the evidence, the Motions Judge did not err and should be entitled to a large degree of deference.

[7] It is my view therefore that Mr. Gupta should not be able to (further) delay this proceeding by injecting an entirely unnecessary additional process with an entirely predictable result onto the defendants and their counsel.

[8] The Motion for Leave to Appeal is denied.

G.A. Campbell J.

Released: November 24, 2016