2137073 Ontario Inc. v. Furney

2137073 Ontario Inc. v. Furney Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2023-10-23 Neutral citation 2023 ONCA 703 Docket numbers COA-23-CV-0258 Judges Doherty, David H.; Lauwers, Peter D.; George, Jonathon C. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: 2137073 Ontario Inc. v. Furney, 2023 ONCA 703 DATE: 20231023 DOCKET: COA-23-CV-0258 Doherty, Lauwers and George JJ.A. BETWEEN 2137073 Ontario Inc., Arye Lankar, Lina Balian, Shawn Gabriel, Elena Keimakh and 2380376 Ontario Limited Plaintiffs (Respondents) and Alex Furney and Maryam Furney, also known as Miriam Furney Defendants (Appellants) Maryam Furney, acting in person Daniel Campoli, for the respondents Heard and released orally: October 18, 2023 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Michael Dineen of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 9, 2023. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellants request an adjournment. Ms. Furney appeared. She provided material indicating Mr. Furney has serious, longstanding medical problems. Some of the information provided relates to a cancer diagnosis that is quite dated. That material is not helpful to the court on the adjournment request. Some of the medical material, however, relates to Mr. Furney’s psychiatric condition. A letter provided by his psychiatrist indicates, that as of early October 2023, Mr. Furney was “medically unfit” to attend court. [2] The Furneys also are without counsel at the present time. It would appear there was a parting of the ways with their former counsel last May, shortly after counsel filed a factum on behalf of the appellants and shortly before this date was fixed. In her oral submissions, Ms. Furney referred to attempts to retain counsel. We were not impressed with those efforts and would not be inclined to grant the adjournment were that the only reason advanced for it. [3] We are prepared to grant a brief adjournment for one reason and one reason only. Mr. Furney is an appellant in this proceeding. He must be afforded the opportunity to argue his appeal if reasonably possible. [4] The other arguments made by Ms. Furney would not justify an adjournment. In counsel for the respondents’ helpful submission, he pointed to some potential prejudice to the respondents should the adjournment be granted. It is difficult to assess the likelihood of that prejudice eventuating, based on the information presently available. We are satisfied that the respondents’ position can be adequately protected by the following: • The adjournment will be brief; • The new date will be peremptory to the appellants; and • If Mr. Furney is still medically unable to proceed, the matter will proceed despite Mr. Furney’s medical problems. If the appellants have not retained counsel to argue the appeal, the matter will proceed and the appellants will be required to make their own arguments. If the prejudice referred to by the respondents materializes, counsel may move before a member of this panel on notice to the appellants for relief. [5] The appeal is adjourned to January 16, 2024 peremptory to the appellants. Any request for a further adjournment must be by motion, returnable before a member of this panel, no later than December 22, 2023. [6] Costs of today payable to the respondents in any event of the appeal. “Doherty J.A.” “P. Lauwers J.A.” “J. George J.A.”