Madhai v. Cox
The appeal was dismissed as abandoned because appellants' counsel failed to appear and the asserted illness was unsupported by any evidence; the court would not accept an unsupported adjournment request and awarded costs to respondents.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2016 ONCA 547
- Parties
- Appellant (plaintiff): Ramnarace Madhai; Appellant (plaintiff): Raggani Madhai; Appellant (plaintiff): Roshini Madhai; Appellant (plaintiff): Rohani Madhai; Appellant (plaintiff): Reshma Madhai; Appellant (plaintiff): Trisha Madhai; Appellant (plaintiff): Rishi Madhai; Appellant (plaintiff): Vidya Madhai (by litigation guardian Ramnarace Madhai); Respondent (defendant): Dawn Marie Cox; Respondent (defendant): Entesham A.R. Ahmed; Respondent (defendant): Mohammed S. Ahmed; Respondent: Minister of Finance
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 July 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Hearing at Court of Appeal; Appeal Dismissed as Abandoned
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed as abandoned
- Legal Topics
- Abandonment of Appeal, Adjournment Requests, Evidence for Adjournment (medical Documentation), Costs Assessment, Setting Aside Dismissal
- 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
Ramnarace Madhai
Appellant (plaintiff)
Raggani Madhai
Appellant (plaintiff)
Roshini Madhai
Appellant (plaintiff)
Rohani Madhai
Appellant (plaintiff)
Reshma Madhai
Appellant (plaintiff)
Trisha Madhai
Appellant (plaintiff)
Rishi Madhai
Appellant (plaintiff)
Vidya Madhai (by litigation guardian Ramnarace Madhai)
Appellant (plaintiff)
Dawn Marie Cox
Respondent (defendant)
Entesham A.R. Ahmed
Respondent (defendant)
Mohammed S. Ahmed
Respondent (defendant)
Minister of Finance
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Hearing at Court of Appeal; Appeal Dismissed as Abandoned
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for abandonment due to appellants' counsel failing to appear
- 2 Whether an adjournment request based on counsel's illness could be accepted without supporting evidence
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded to respondents for attendances related to the hearing
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed as abandoned because appellants' counsel failed to appear and the asserted illness was unsupported by any evidence; the court would not accept an unsupported adjournment request and awarded costs to respondents.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed as abandoned
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed as abandoned.
- The court refused to accept the appellants' counsel's request for another adjournment because there was no supporting evidence for the claimed illness.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Madhai v. Cox Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2016-07-08 Neutral citation 2016 ONCA 547 Docket numbers C59000 Judges MacPherson, James C.; Simmons, Janet M.; Lauwers, Peter D. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Madhai v. Cox, 2016 ONCA 547 DATE: 20160707 DOCKET: C59000 MacPherson, Simmons and Lauwers JJ.A. BETWEEN Ramnarace Madhai, Raggani Madhai, Roshini Madhai, Rohani Madhai, Reshma Madhai, Trisha Madhai, and Rishi Madhai and Vidya Madhai by their litigation guardian Ramnarace Madhai Plaintiffs (Appellants) and Dawn Marie Cox, Entesham A.R. Ahmed and Mohammed S. Ahmed Defendants (Respondents) No one appearing for the appellants Jennifer Reid, for the respondents Entesham A.R. Ahmed and Mohammed S. Ahmed Andrew Choi, for the respondent Minister of Finance Heard: June 30, 2016 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Edward M. Morgan of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 30, 2014. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appeal is dismissed as abandoned. [2] The appellants’ counsel did not appear today. Both counsel on the respondents’ side had difficulty communicating with her over the last two days. This morning, respondent’s counsel contacted her office and was informed by an assistant that Ms. Hussain is still too ill to attend. No one in her firm has appeared or contacted the court. We have serious doubts about the veracity of counsel’s position. There is simply nothing before us to support it. Accordingly, we are not prepared to accept the appellants’ counsel’s bald request, communicated in this morning’s conversation with a law clerk, for another adjournment. [3] It may be that the appellants will want to bring a motion to set aside the order dismissing the appeal. If that is done, there needs to be an explanation, supported by appropriate medical documentation, for appellants’ counsel’s conduct on two occasions this week. [4] If a motion to set aside the order dismissing the appeal and seeking reinstatement of the appeal is brought, it is to be heard by one of Justices MacPherson, Simmons and Lauwers. [5] Costs to the respondents of the appeal, including the two attendances this week, fixed at $7558, inclusive of disbursements and HST.