Land v. Dryden (Police Services Board)
The appeal was dismissed as abandoned because the appellants failed to appear and could not be contacted despite notice; nominal costs were awarded to respondents because, although their claimed costs were reasonable, the appellants lacked the ability to pay which justified a reduced award.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2022 ONCA 484
- Parties
- Appellant: Jonathan Land; Appellant: Stephanie Flora Henry; Respondent: Dryden Police Services Board; Respondent: Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 June 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal Heard at Court of Appeal; Dismissed as Abandoned; Costs Determined
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed as abandoned
- Legal Topics
- Abandonment of Appeal, Award of Costs, Re Listing Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jonathan Land
Appellant
Stephanie Flora Henry
Appellant
Dryden Police Services Board
Respondent
Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal Heard at Court of Appeal; Dismissed as Abandoned; Costs Determined
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for abandonment due to non-appearance
- 2 Whether respondents are entitled to costs and what amount is appropriate
- 3 Whether impecuniosity of appellants affects costs award
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed as abandoned because the appellants failed to appear and could not be contacted despite notice; nominal costs were awarded to respondents because, although their claimed costs were reasonable, the appellants lacked the ability to pay which justified a reduced award.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed as abandoned
Orders
- Appeal dismissed as abandoned
- Awarded costs of $1,500 to Dryden Police Services Board
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Land v. Dryden (Police Services Board) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2022-06-21 Neutral citation 2022 ONCA 484 Docket numbers C69812 Judges Benotto, Mary Lou; Zarnett, Benjamin; Sossin, Lorne Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Land v. Dryden (Police Services Board), 2022 ONCA 484 DATE: 20220621 DOCKET: C69812 Benotto, Zarnett and Sossin JJ.A. BETWEEN Jonathan Land and Stephanie Flora Henry Plaintiffs (Appellants) and Dryden Police Services Board and its employees: Sgt. Scott M. Silver, Cst. Jared H. Olsen, Cst. Paul A. Howarth, Cst. Kevin Hildebrand Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services and its employees: Danielle Gardner and Karen Taylor Defendants (Respondents) No one appearing for the appellants Stuart J. Blake, for the respondents Dryden Police Services Board Abram Silver, for the respondents Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services Heard: June 17, 2022 On appeal from the judgment of Justice John S. Fregeau of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 31, 2021. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This appeal was scheduled to be heard at 10:00 a.m. on June 17, 2022. [2] The parties filed counsel slips indicating that they would attend remotely. Only the appellant Jonathan Land filed a counsel slip. By 10:17 a.m. no one appeared for the appellants. [3] The Registrar telephoned the number that the appellants had provided to the court office. The line had been disconnected. The Registrar also emailed Mr. Land and received no response. [4] Counsel for the Respondent Dryden Police Services emailed Mr. Land on June 16, 2022 and included his Bill of Costs. Counsel advised us that Mr. Land confirmed receipt. The email address was the same as the one used by the Registrar and the court office. [5] On this basis, the appeal was dismissed as abandoned. We reserved the issue of costs. [6] Both respondents sought costs at the hearing. The Dryden Police Services claimed costs of approximately $10,000. The Anishinaabe Family Services did not have a bill of costs but estimated its costs to be approximately $7,000. [7] In the normal course, the respondents would be entitled to the costs claimed which are not unreasonable. We recognize that there was preparation and costs thrown away. However, it is clear from the record that the appellants do not have the ability to pay, and the costs award would have a deleterious effect on them. For that reason, we award nominal costs of $1,500 to the respondent Dryden Police Services and $750 to the Family Services. [8] After these reasons were prepared, the appellants contacted the court on the afternoon of June 17, 2022, to say that they wanted to argue the appeal. They have been advised that if they wish to re-list the matter for hearing they must bring a motion in writing. “M.L. Benotto J.A.” “B. Zarnett J.A.” “L. Sossin J.A.”