Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-554708

DATE: 20220209

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Manoucher Baradaran, Fariba Baradaran, S.B., A Minor through Her Litigation Guardian Manoucher Baradaran and S.B., A Minor Through Her Litigation Guardian, Manoucher Baradaran, Plaintiffs

AND:

6325955 Canada Inc. O/A Elite Appliance Service and Frigidaire Canada Also Known As Electrolux Canada, Defendants

BEFORE: D.A. Wilson J.

COUNSEL: Manoucher Baradaran, Self-Represented Alana Daley, for the Defendant

HEARD via Zoom: February 9, 2022

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is an action that was originally commenced in the Small Claims Court and then transferred to the Superior Court of Justice. It arises from the work done by a technician from the Defendant store on the refrigerator of the Plaintiff, which allegedly resulted in water damage to the Plaintiff’s house and belongings. The Plaintiffs also claim damages for mental distress.

[2] The action proceeded through the usual steps, including productions and examinations for discovery. The Plaintiff Mr. Baradaran was represented by counsel. His lawyer set the action down for trial and a 10-day trial was set for February 28, 2022. A pretrial was held before Justice Sanderson on January 14, 2022.

[3] There was a breakdown in the solicitor/client relationship with his counsel, Mr. Lebowitz, so the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person in July 2021. Today’s case conference was requested by defence counsel as a result of Mr. Baradaran’s advice that he intended to bring a motion for an order adjourning the trial date. The Plaintiff served a motion for this relief. Consistent with our practice in Toronto, the request for a motion date was heard February 3, 2022 by Justice Dow, who sent the case to me in my capacity as the team lead for civil trials.

[4] The solicitor for the Defendant opposes any adjournment of the trial. Mr. Baradaran advises that he has only recently received his file from Mr. Lebowitz. Furthermore, he submits that there are documents he needs for trial, specifically the employment file of the technician who did the work at his house in 2013. Ms. Daley advised me that Mr. Baradaran has been told numerous times that despite searching for the employment file concerning the technician, the Defendant has been unable to locate any documentation. Ms. Daley indicated that full production has been made.

[5] Mr. Baradaran also tells me that he wishes to conduct an examination under oath of the representative of the Defendant, Mr. Donnelly, arising from an affidavit he swore in 2014.

[6] I advised Mr. Baradaran that in Toronto, fixed trial dates are only adjourned in extenuating circumstances and I saw no reason why this trial should be adjourned. This is an old action, arising from events that took place in 2013; memories fade with time and further delay in this case is not in any of the parties’ interests. Mr. Baradaran has had the benefit of representation from 2 counsel and most recently, his counsel has not been acting on his behalf since at least July 2021 when he filed the notice to act on his own behalf. There has been plenty of time to obtain productions or to conduct necessary examinations. It would be unfair to the Defendant to adjourn this trial and add further delay to the adjudication of the case on its merits. I also advised Mr. Baradaran that he had the right to request an adjournment of the trial from the trial judge.

[7] When I indicated to Mr. Baradaran that I was not prepared to adjourn the trial, he informed me that he intended to appeal my order to the Court of Appeal and that he would launch a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council. While Mr. Baradaran has the right to take whatever steps he deems appropriate, I have made the ruling that is fair in this case, taking into account the circumstances.

Date: February 9, 2022