2 total
A motion to extend time to perfect an appeal was dismissed because a parallel Superior Court motion rendered the appeal misconceived.
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.
Leave to appeal discretionary costs order under the Construction Act is required and was denied.
The appellants sought to appeal a decision declining to award costs against a law firm under s. 86(1)(b)(i) of the Construction Act.
The Divisional Court held that leave to appeal was required under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act because the appeal was solely regarding discretionary costs, and the costs order did not constitute a 'judgment' under s. 71 of the Construction Act.
Finding that the test for leave was not met, the court denied leave and dismissed the appeal.
