Court File and Parties
Court File No.: 19-80642 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Brian Charbonneau, Plaintiff And: David Stewart, Sheila Griffin, Sheila Griffin, the Estate Trustee of the Estate of James Jessup, Mireille Charbonneau and Brian Smith, Defendants
Before: Master Kaufman
Counsel: Brian Charbonneau, representing himself Frances Shapiro Munn, for the defendants David Stewart Liam Cardill for the defendant Sheila Griffin. Allison Klymyshyn for the defendant by counterclaim, Brian Smith.
Heard: In writing
Endorsement
[1] This determination of urgency is made pursuant to the Notice to the Profession of the Chief Justice of Ontario dated April 2, 2020. Under that Notice, and the local Direction on civil matters that may be heard in Ottawa, also dated April 2, 2020, the regular operations of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have been suspended since March 15, 2020, and only urgent matters may be heard by the Superior Court until further notice.
[2] Mr. Charbonneau is the self represented plaintiff in this action. He requests that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was scheduled to be heard on May 14, 2020, proceed on an urgent basis. Mr. Charbonneau wishes the defendant’s motion to be dismissed and for a mediation to be scheduled.
[3] Mr. Charbonneau attached an affidavit and several exhibits to his requests. From what I can tell, in 2011, Mr. Charbonneau transferred a small parcel of land to his neighbour Mr. Jessup. Unfortunately, the deed conveyed more land than the parties originally intended, and Mr. Jessup received Parts 2 and 3 of Plan 49R-17847 instead of only Part 3. Mr. Charbonneau’s brought a claim in the small claims court resulting from this error. It appears that the Deputy Judge dismissed his action but recommended that the wrongly conveyed parcel be conveyed back to Mr. Charbonneau (because he did not have jurisdiction to make such an order).
[4] The defendants’ motion is for an order dismissing this action as an abuse of process or in the alternative, statute-barred as beyond the limitation period. Mr. Charbonneau claims that the defendant’s motion is a tactic to avoid the action.
[5] The property in issue consists of 10 acres of pasture lands. Mr. Charbonneau claims his farming business will lose another season of losses if the matter does not proceed on an urgent basis. Mr. Charbonneau says that these 10 acres could support 8 steer calves for the season. He estimates that he could earn revenues of $4,500 for the season.
[6] Under the Provincial Direction,“urgent” refers to “urgent and time-sensitive motions and applications in civil and commercial list matters, where immediate and significant financial repercussions may result if there is no judicial hearing”.
[7] On the basis of the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that this matter is urgent. Mr. Charbonneau has been attempting to rectify the erroneous conveyance of Part 2 since at least 2015. I cannot tell from the evidence presented that the potential loss of $4,500 represents a “significant” financial repercussion for him. I cannot conclude that there will be immediate and significant financial repercussion if the defendants’ motion is not heard forthwith.
[8] This request is denied.