Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Timeliness and reasonableness of a last-minute adjournment request based on an alleged inability to prepare responding materials.
• Extent to which a self-represented, catastrophically impaired litigant is entitled to procedural accommodation versus the need to avoid prejudice to other parties prepared to proceed.
• Significance of the respondent’s long-standing knowledge of the application, prior case management directions, and failure to file any responding materials by court-ordered deadlines.
• Impact of late efforts to obtain the respondent’s former counsel’s file, and whether such delay justifies postponing a long-scheduled hearing.
• Legal effect of a revised factum that makes only technical or citation updates, and whether it can ground a claim of unfair surprise.
• Balancing fairness and access to justice for a vulnerable litigant against the court’s interest in finality, efficient case management, and adherence to scheduled hearing dates.

Background and underlying motor vehicle claim

The dispute arises out of a 2011 motor vehicle accident in which the respondent, Rudolf Steinberg, was injured. He ultimately resolved his accident benefits claim by way of a settlement in March 2022. As part of financing his litigation, Mr. Steinberg obtained a litigation loan from Bridgepoint Financial Services Limited Partnership I (BridgePoint). That loan later became the subject of recovery proceedings. BridgePoint commenced an application against Mr. Steinberg by application dated December 17, 2024, seeking repayment of the litigation loan. The application and supporting affidavits were served on Mr. Steinberg on December 16, 2024, giving him substantial notice of the issues that would be before the court. The case was actively case managed throughout 2024 and into 2025, first by Justice Warkentin and then by Justice Wojciechowski.

Procedural history and case management directions

During case management, the court set clear deadlines for the respondent’s participation in the litigation. In February 2025, Justice Wojciechowski directed Mr. Steinberg to serve and file his responding materials by March 7, 2025, and his factum by May 9, 2025. Although he was then assisted by legal counsel—who appeared at the case management hearing and provided advice, though not as fully retained counsel—no responding materials or factum were ever filed on his behalf. Other parties sought and obtained standing in the application, namely Mark Stoiko, Masgras Law, and Pamela Adderley, following a motion heard on January 9, 2025. BridgePoint served its factum on April 25, 2025, with the factums of Stoiko/Masgras Law and Ms. Adderley following in May 2025. These steps meant that by late spring 2025, the respondent had the applicant’s and other participants’ written positions in hand, yet no formal response from him was put before the court.

Scheduling of the application hearing and accommodations

The hearing of BridgePoint’s application was initially set for June 4 and 6, 2025. At the respondent’s request, the court accommodated his health-related limitations by arranging for the application to proceed only in the afternoons. Mr. Steinberg indicated that, due to injuries from the 2011 accident, he could not manage a full-day hearing and required later start times. The court accepted this and tailored the schedule accordingly. The June dates did not ultimately proceed, owing to issues arising from parties other than the respondent. When the court and parties sought alternative dates, they turned to October 2025. Mr. Steinberg, however, advised that he was unavailable in October and asked that the hearing be moved to December. The parties then cooperatively scheduled the hearing for the afternoons of December 4 and 5, 2025. At no point in this rescheduling process did the respondent indicate that he could not participate in the application at all, or that he required any accommodation beyond afternoon sittings.

The revised factum and the late request for adjournment

On November 27, 2025, BridgePoint served and filed a revised factum. The revised document did not change BridgePoint’s legal position or factual narrative; instead, it updated counsel information and inserted references to Case Center citations, effectively improving accessibility but not altering substance. The court later noted that this factum was “essentially the same” as the version served on the respondent in April 2025. The next day, on November 28, 2025, Jakob Steinberg, writing on behalf of his father, sent an email to the Registrar requesting an adjournment of the December 4–5 hearing. The initial basis given was that the respondent had not yet received his complete client file from former counsel and therefore could not prepare responding materials. It was also claimed that BridgePoint had “only recently” served its factum, implying insufficient time to reply.

Expanded submissions in support of adjournment

In response, Justice Wojciechowski ensured that all participants with standing received the adjournment request, and he directed Jakob Steinberg to provide detailed written submissions explaining the reasons for delay and describing efforts made to obtain the necessary documents. The judge also sought the views of all parties on whether the adjournment should be granted. In his expanded submissions, Jakob Steinberg advanced several points: that the respondent is catastrophically impaired both cognitively and physically, and cannot independently read or understand legal materials; that he is self-represented and without legal counsel; that he does not have his original client file for his tort and accident benefits claims; that Jakob himself only became involved on November 27, 2025 in an effort to help; that BridgePoint’s revised factum should be treated as new, leaving too little time for the respondent to process it; and that proceeding on the scheduled dates would be unfair because the respondent would not be able to meaningfully prepare. Importantly, Jakob acknowledged that a formal request for the respondent’s legal file was not made until November 27, 2025—less than a week before the application hearing.

Court’s analysis of timeliness, prejudice, and fairness

Justice Wojciechowski considered both the respondent’s vulnerabilities and the overall litigation history. The matter had been pending for several years, and BridgePoint’s application had been active since December 2024. Despite that background, the respondent had never asserted that he needed accommodations beyond the afternoon start times already granted. The court viewed the very late request—based on a file request only just made on November 27, 2025—as unreasonable, especially when multiple other parties were fully prepared to proceed. Granting the adjournment would prejudice those parties and further delay the resolution of the loan claim. The judge also gave weight to the fact that the respondent had counsel assistance in February 2025 and that no concern was then raised about the June 2025 dates. When those dates were rescheduled, the respondent participated actively by objecting to October 2025 and successfully requesting December dates, showing he was capable of engaging with the scheduling process. On the issue of the revised factum, the court found there was nothing substantively new. The later version merely added references to make the document more accessible; the respondent had been in possession of BridgePoint’s core factum since April 2025. As a result, the judge concluded that there was no cognizable prejudice from proceeding on the scheduled dates.

Outcome and absence of any monetary award

Justice Wojciechowski ultimately refused the adjournment request. He ordered that BridgePoint’s application would proceed as scheduled, on Thursday, December 4, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. and Friday, December 5, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. In this decision, BridgePoint is the successful party, because its position that the hearing should go ahead was accepted and the respondent’s request for delay was rejected. The reasons deal solely with scheduling and case management; the court does not decide the substantive merits of BridgePoint’s claim for repayment of the litigation loan, does not rule on liability or enforceability of the loan, and does not make any order for damages, repayment, or costs. Accordingly, while BridgePoint prevailed on the procedural issue, the total amount of any monetary award, costs, or damages in its favour cannot be determined from this decision.