2024 ONSC 1387

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-1155-0000

DATE: 20240208

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

PEEL CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 170

Megan Molloy & Jonathan Wright, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

MITTEL, BONITA LYNNE

Self-Represented

Respondent

HEARD: February 8, 2024, by video conference/ IN PERSON

ENDORSEMENT

LEMAY J

[1] The Applicant, Peel Condo Corporation No. 170 seeks enforcement of the arbitration award of Arbitrator Colm Brannigan dated February 14th, 2023. The Respondent, Ms. Bonita Brush-Mittel seeks an adjournment of this hearing in order to obtain counsel. She is opposed to the enforcement of the arbitration award.

[2] The Respondent attended today and advised the Court that the other side knew that she had no telephone and no computer and was unable to attend electronically.

[3] This matter was originally before Chown J. on May 19th, 2023 and proceeded as a virtual motion. The Respondent attended electronically on that occasion, and asked for an adjournment in order to obtain counsel. Chown J. granted that adjournment on terms, including the enforcement of some of the terms of the Arbitration Award.

[4] The matter was originally scheduled to come back to Court on August 3rd, 2023. It was adjourned on consent as a result of the fact that the Respondent’s counsel was on vacation. The date chosen was October 24th, 2023. This date was also chosen on consent.

[5] The October 24th, 2023 date did not proceed because of a request for an adjournment by the Respondent’s counsel and because of an error that had been made in entering the date on Calendly. Today’s date was agreed to by both counsel.

[6] On or about November 30th, 2023, the Respondent’s counsel got off the record. The Respondent advised me in Court today that this was because of “interference” from the Applicant. The Applicant’s counsel advised me that she had been told that counsel was removing herself from the record as a result of a lack of communication.

[7] In Court today, I asked the Respondent what steps she had taken to find counsel. She advised that she had not found counsel because she had COVID for a few weeks. She also advised that she was in touch with an organization that was going to find her a lawyer. She sought a further adjournment on the basis that she was confused by the 22 points that had been raised by the Applicant’s counsel and that having a counsel to assist her would be helpful.

[8] The Respondent also alleged that the Applicant was engaged in an effort to try and obtain her property and remove her from it through the litigation process. This effort was being undertaken, in the Respondent’s view, in order to cover up the malfeasance of the Applicant and its agents.

[9] After hearing argument from both sides on the question of the adjournment request, I have determined that the request should be refused for a number of reasons.

[10] First, this matter has been before the Courts for a year. While I appreciate that the Respondent believes that it would be “fair” for her to have another adjournment to try and obtain counsel, fairness is the provenance of both sides. The Applicant is entitled to its day in Court as well. The Court should not unduly delay the hearings of matters and this matter has been delayed significantly.

[11] Second, and a related point, this matter is a simple one. There is no evidence of an appeal of the Arbitrator’s award before me. As a result, I accept the reasoning of Myers J. in Abbitan v. Wilcox 2020 ONSC 6836 that arbitration awards under s. 50 of the Arbitrations Act are enforced and that the Court is required to enforce these awards unless certain narrow conditions are met.

[12] The narrow conditions are that the appeal period has not expired, there is a pending appeal, there has been a declaration of invalidity or the arbitration award is in a family law matter. None of those conditions apply in this case and, as a result, it is difficult to see how providing the Respondent with counsel is going to change the outcome.

[13] Third, I am concerned that there has been a desire to delay and complicate this matter on the part of the Respondent. While the Respondent advised the Court today that Mr. Jutson (a non-lawyer who has acted as her “representative” in the past) is no longer assisting her, he is still corresponding with the other side and adding items to the Court file that suggest a desire to delay and complicate this matter.

[14] As a result, the request for an adjournment is refused.

[15] This brings me to the merits of the application. After denying the motion for the adjournment, I asked the Respondent to advise me to explain why I should not grant the request. She advanced four reasons. First, she claimed (without any evidence having been filed with the Court) that Mr. Brannigan was a disgraced former lawyer. Second, she raised issues that she was not able to attend at the arbitration hearing because of her grandson’s illness. Third, she argued that the arbitrator obtained and relied on information that was unreliable. Finally, she argued that this was, as she had said in the argument on the adjournment, an attempt by the Applicant and its agents to get her out of her unit and to cover up their misconduct.

[16] These arguments may have been made either to the arbitrator or on an appeal of the arbitration award. There is no appeal pending before the Courts and the time period for the appeal has expired. As a result, I am of the view that the law requires the arbitration award to be enforced and I so order.

[17] I requested costs submissions from both parties. Applicant’s counsel had not yet uploaded her bill of costs to CaseLines. As a result, the Applicant shall have seven (7) calendar days to serve, file and upload costs submissions to CaseLines. The Respondent shall have a further fourteen (14) days to serve, file and upload her costs submissions to CaseLines.

[18] Submissions from both sides are to be no more than two (2) single-spaced pages, exclusive of bills of costs, offers to settle and case-law.

LeMay J.

Released: February 8, 2024