Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00664245-0000 DATE: 20240926 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: MARYAM FURNEY, Plaintiff – and – CANADIA IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CIBC MORTGAGES INC. trading as FIRSTLINE MORTGAGES, THE ESTATE OF ADRIAN BESLEAGA, deceased, FLORIN BESLEAGA, CHRISTOPHER STAPLES, JOHN DOE 1, and JANE DOE 2, Respondents

BEFORE: Justice E.M. Morgan

COUNSEL: Maryam Furney, on her own behalf Heyla Vettyvel, for the Defendants, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and CIBC Mortgages Inc. trading as Firstline Mortgages Adam Zesada, for the Defendants, Adrian Besleaga and Florin Besleaga

HEARD: September 26, 2024

Endorsement

[1] Both sets of Defendants have brought motions for summary judgment. The court has previously indicated that they are to be heard together.

[2] Ms. Furney requests an adjournment in order to give her time to retain new counsel. Her previous lawyer apparently resigned from the case unexpectedly after the last appearance.

[3] Counsel for the Defendants are anxious for the motions to go ahead. They submit that the action has encountered significant delay and that their respective clients would like their motions heard as soon as possible. They have advised me that Ms. Furney has had five lawyers up until now, but each of them has resigned from the matter or left the file after some period of time.

[4] Ms. Furney feels quite strongly that she has been denied procedural justice in various ways. She has filed motions for leave to appeal two different procedural rulings to the Divisional Court, which are still pending.

[5] It is important that a litigant feel that she has gotten her day in court, especially where Defendants have brought motions that could potentially result in a final dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim. Ms. Furney is of the view that she cannot get a fair chance to argue her case if she does not have time to get a new lawyer to argue it for her. She says that she is currently in discussion with two law firms and is close to retaining one and has assured me that within a week or two she will have a new lawyer retained and ready to represent her.

[6] Although I understand why the Defendants oppose a further adjournment, there is nothing urgent about the motion from their point of view. They both have pointed out that at the last court appearance on this matter, Justice Koehnen refused a request by Ms. Furney to adjourn the scheduled hearing of these motions, and they submit that I should likewise refuse today’s request. However, at the last hearing, Ms. Furney still had her previous counsel representing her, whereas now she is representing herself and in the process of retaining new counsel. A further adjournment will, unfortunately, delay the litigation process, but it will give Ms. Furney an opportunity to better address the Defendants’ motions while causing no special prejudice to the Defendants’ position.

[7] To be clear, I make no findings, and offer no comment, with respect to previous appearances or earlier stages of this action. I also am not varying in any way the existing timetable that has been set for these summary judgment motions. All prior rulings remain in force; I am only considering the adjournment of the hearing date itself.

[8] The motions are adjourned, to be heard for a full day on May 15, 2025. This date is peremptory on Ms. Furney. As I explained at the hearing, it is the last adjournment she will be able to request before the summary judgment motions are heard on the merits.

[9] I am not seized.

Date: September 26, 2024 Morgan J.