Case information

Appeals — Mootness — Whether Court of Appeal erred in declining to decide motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal because underlying appeal was moot

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant is a business corporation controlled by Russell Knight and Susannah Simes. Mr. Knight and Ms. Simes used the applicant to invest in an apartment building. In 2015, the applicant granted a mortgage on that property (the “Mortgage”) to the respondent, Cameron Stephens Financial Corporation (“CSFC”), to secure a loan. Mr. Knight and Ms. Simes gave personal guarantees. The applicant defaulted on the Mortgage. CSFC obtained a receivership order over the property and summary judgment on the guarantee, with the motion judge rejecting Mr. Knight and Ms. Simes’ claim that the Mortgage was forged. The receivership order and summary judgment have not been appealed and are final. This proceeding is an action challenging the validity of the Mortgage and seeking relief from CSFC and the respondent, Peter Ginakes, former commercial counsel for the applicant, Mr. Knight, and Ms. Simes. The respondents moved to strike the action. The applicant did not have counsel; Mr. Knight represented the applicant on that motion. A motion judge granted the motion and struck the action. The applicant, still without counsel, appealed. The respondents moved to strike the appeal as an abuse of process. At the hearing of the motion, the applicant sought leave to be represented by Mr. Knight.

The chambers judge dismissed the motion, holding that none of the relevant common law factors governing representation of corporations by non-lawyers in the Court of Appeal weighed in favour of permitting Mr. Knight to represent the applicant. The appeal was stayed and the applicant ordered to retain counsel by May 8, 2025, failing which the appeal would be deemed abandoned. The applicant sought to appeal this decision to a full panel of the Court of Appeal, but failed to do so before the appeal period expired. The applicant moved for an extension of time to do so, but remained unrepresented by counsel. A chambers judge dismissed that motion as moot, since the appeal had been deemed abandoned three weeks before the motion was heard.