Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-0000400-0000 DATE: 2023/03/01 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: BAHRAM SARVIAN, Plaintiff AND: CHARLOTTE BOUCKLEY, SUZETTE SUTTON, PETER STEWART, DONNA KOELTZ, DONALD MITCHELL and LONDON CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 12, Defendants

BEFORE: Justice I.F. Leach

COUNSEL: Laura M. Gurr, counsel for the moving Defendants, and as agent for L. Scott Smith, counsel for the responding Plaintiff

HEARD: March 1, 2023

Endorsement

[1] This matter was on the docket today for a scheduled three-hour special appointment. The requisite certificate of readiness for special appointment had been filed to reserve that hearing time.

[2] However, in the course of further preparations for the hearing, plaintiff counsel identified an unexpected potential conflict of interest, which is now being reviewed by independent counsel, Mr Kryworuk. In the circumstances, the parties agree, and I accept, that the hearing could not proceed today in such circumstances; i.e., until the potential conflict of interest has been addressed and resolved.

[3] On consent, this matter is adjourned to April 7, 2023, to be spoken to in regular motions court for the scheduling of a new special appointment hearing date, (3 hours), if the matter is ready to be heard then; i.e., if the potential conflict of interest issue has been addressed.

[4] The parties have reached an agreement regarding costs of preparation for today’s scheduled hearing that may have been thrown away, so no formal cost order will be made.

[5] As I indicated to counsel, I nevertheless also noted that the matter was not yet ready for hearing in other respects; e.g., insofar as no factum had been filed by the plaintiff, as required by the Consolidated Practice Direction for the Southwest Region, (which in Part 1-C-12 requires each party to deliver a factum in relation to any special appointment hearing), and neither party had filed a compendium, as now required by the combined effect of Rule 4.05.3(3) and the Chief Justice’s Notice to the Profession and Public dated August 2, 2023.

[6] Compliance with the latter requirement is not only now mandated but practically necessary, having regard to ever-expanding volumes of material now being filed after our court’s transition to electronic filing, (e.g., with 642 pages of material already having been filed by the moving defendants in this matter, not including the authorities referenced in the defendants’ factum), and ever-growing time constraints being placed on the judiciary.

[7] As indicated in Lepp v. Regional Municipality of York, 2022 ONSC 6978, and my own decision in 5 Star Dealers Inc. v. Dabaja, 2023 ONSC 721, parties and their counsel accordingly should not be surprised if failure to comply with the new mandated procedures for court filings, in relation to virtual hearings, results in the court declining to hear a matter and adjourning it until receipt of a confirmation that there has been such compliance.

Justice I.F. Leach Date: March 1, 2023