The appellant, Dave Marcotte, sought an extension of time to perfect his appeal of a divorce order, arguing the date of separation used in the proceedings was incorrect.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the appeal fundamentally misconceived because the proper forum for challenging the date of separation was a motion under r. 25(19) of the Family Law Rules in the Superior Court, which Mr. Marcotte had already commenced.
The court held that the appeal would be rendered moot by the outcome of that motion and that the merits of the appeal did not justify an extension of time.
Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondent, Christina Marcotte.
