2023 ONSC 2867, 2023 ONSC 2867

CITATION : AB8 Group Limited et al. v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 et al., 2023 ONSC 2867 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 052/19 DATE: 20230519 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT RE: AB8 GROUP LIMITED, 182 YORK MILLS ROAD LIMITED and 467 SPADINA LIMITED, Applicants AND: LABOURERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 183 and ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD , Respondents BEFORE: Matheson J. COUNSEL: Richard J. Nixon and Duncan Burns-Shillington , for DLA PIPER (CANADA) LLP, moving party and counsel to the Applicants No one else appearing.

HEARD at Toronto: In writing. ENDORSEMENT [ 1 ] CLA Piper (Canada) LLP moves to be removed as counsel of record for the applicants in this application for judicial review. The application challenges a 2018 decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. After delays due at least in part to COVID- 19, the application was scheduled to be heard on April 25, 2023. The hearing date was adjourned to June 27, 2023 because of this request to be removed as counsel of record. [ 2 ] There was a case conference on April 19, 2023 to address the request for an adjournment and scheduling of this motion.

As set out in the Court’s directions, the applicants were given notice of the case conference. No representative of the applicants attended that case conference other than counsel seeking to be removed. Similarly, no responding material has been delivered on this motion. [ 3 ] The applicant corporations have now had about a month to provide a position to the court on this issue and have not done so.

They have made no response. [ 4 ] The moving party notes that because the application was adjourned, the applicants have the opportunity to retain new counsel or otherwise seek leave under r. 15.01(2) to proceed without counsel before the new hearing date. [ 5 ] I am satisfied that the applicants are not prejudiced by the removal of current counsel bearing in mind all the circumstances. All the court materials have been filed. The applicants have sufficient time to address representation in advance of the hearing.

The respondents do not take a position on this motion, from which I conclude that they would not be prejudiced. [ 6 ] Having regard for the reasons presented by the moving party, as set out in the factum and motion record, I grant this motion. [ 7 ] The absence of any response from the applicants leaves open the question of whether they intend to pursue their application for judicial review. Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows: A party to a proceeding that is a corporation shall be represented by a lawyer, except with leave of the court.

The applicants were given notice of this requirement some time ago. Additional notice was given by this Court’s directions, including about the consequences of a failure to comply as set out in r. 15. [ 8 ] The applicants shall have 30 days from today to take the required steps to address proper representation of these corporations under r. 15.01(2). If the applicants fail to do so, either or both of the respondents may request that the application be dismissed before the hearing for failure to comply with the Rules and this Court’s order.

Should that occur, there may also be a costs order against the applicants. ___________________________ Matheson J. Date: May 19, 2023