In its March 12, 2015 decision in Nicoletti v. Nicoletti, the Ontario
Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal as abandoned
when she failed to attend even though she sought an adjournment
through email correspondence. The Court took this drastic step in
lack of merit to the Appellant's appeal;
the fact that she had already been granted numerous
her evident desire to delay the final disposition of the
actual prejudice to the other parties resulting from the
The Court wrote:
 This appeal was
originally scheduled to be heard on February 26, 2015, but Ms.
Nicoletti did not appear. According to Laskin J.A.'s
endorsement, she sent an email requesting an adjournment on the
basis that she had a dental problem which was causing her pain.
 Justice Laskin
noted that this was the third time the appellant had requested an
adjournment. His endorsement adjourned the matter to March 5,
2015, "peremptory to the appellant," [...]
 On February 27,
2015, the appellant requested another adjournment. At the
president's request, the appellant provided a medical note from
a dentist, a Dr. Guido. The dental note provided no information on
the appellant's current pain levels and when she might be able
to argue the appeal. The president requested an explanation as to
the relationship between Dr. Guido and the appellant, whose married
name is Guido, but got no answer. (At the hearing counsel advised
that Dr. Guido was a cousin of the appellant's spouse.)
 Based on the
exchange of correspondence, on March 4, 2015, court staff advised
the appellant that the president of the panel had denied the
adjournment request, but invited the appellant to review her
adjournment request before the full panel. In the morning on
March 5, 2015, the appellant advised court staff that she would not
appear at the appeal.
 The panel heard
submissions from counsel for the respondents and for the PGT, which
enlarged on the submissions in the correspondence. The record
throughout is replete with the appellant's desire to delay the
final disposition of this matter. Penny J. observed that "this
litigation has dragged on quite unnecessarily for a long
time". He noted that a last minute motion was brought by the
appellant "in an effort to delay and complicate matters and to
add to the already significant costs in controversy in this
litigation." As a result of the stay of the order under
appeal, the respondent Giovanna Nicoletti has been obliged to
absorb the costs of caring for her mother, Vittoria Nicoletti.
 The appeal
itself is nothing more than an effort to re-litigate the issues
heard by Penny J., particularly relating to credibility findings,
which are subject to a high standard of review of palpable and
overriding error. No such error is evident from the written
material filed by the appellant.
 Based on the conduct of
the appellant and the material considered by the court, including
the submissions received on the adjournment, which have been placed
in the record of the court, the court exercised its discretion to
refuse the requested adjournment.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).