COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Chiappino & Associates Limited v. 6891799 Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 893
DATE: 20221222
DOCKET: C70599
Lauwers, Huscroft and Miller JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Chiappino & Associates Limited
Applicant (Respondent)
and
6891799 Canada Inc. o/a Lahore Motors and 7625014 Canada Inc. o/a MB Auto Centre
Respondents (Appellants)
Zohaib Rehman, for the appellants
Tamara Watson, for the respondent
Heard: December 15, 2022
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Gordon D. Lemon of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 8, 2022.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] Mr. Rehman, counsel for the appellant tenants, asked for an adjournment on December 8, 2022, one week before the hearing, so that he could take himself off the record. We declined his request and expected the parties to argue the merits of the appeal. Mr. Rehman appeared today by teleconference and repeated his request for an adjournment. He grounded his request on the basis that he was ill and was not prepared to argue the appeal. Counsel for the respondent was not informed prior to the hearing, nor was medical evidence provided.
[2] In order to avoid more delay and wasted effort, counsel for the respondent proposed that the appeal proceed in writing based on the material already filed. Mr. Rehman agreed to this approach but said that he wanted to get the client’s instructions. We declined to adjourn for this purpose, and he declined the opportunity to make substantive submissions.
[3] We note that Mr. Rehman was told that we denied his request for an adjournment on December 8, 2022, the same day requested. Mr. Rehman had sufficient time and opportunity to make the necessary arrangements to have the matter argued without further delay, as this court expected.
[4] We again deny the request for an adjournment and proceed on the basis proposed by respondent’s counsel. This appeal does not warrant full oral argument. There is no reason to prolong the delay. Indeed, the purpose for the appeal itself seems to have been to delay the enforcement of the judgment. Having read the material in preparation for this appeal, we conclude that the lease was properly terminated by the respondent landlord, as the application judge found. The lease is over, even on the appellant tenants’ view of the lease’s termination date. The tenants owe rent arrears. There is no evidence to the contrary and no legal basis for the tenants to resist the landlord’s claim or to reverse the application judge’s judgment. The decision is without fault, the appeal is without merit, and it is therefore dismissed with costs.
[5] The respondent may make costs submissions in writing no more than three pages in length within seven days, and the appellants may make costs submissions in writing no more than three pages in length within an additional seven days. We will make a costs ruling 14 days hence even if the appellants do not provide costs submissions on a timely basis.
“P. Lauwers J.A.”
“Grant Huscroft J.A.”
“B.W. Miller J.A.”