Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2006-08-23 Docket: C43617
Re: Jennifer Monique Woodcock (Petitioner/Respondent/Appellant by way of cross-appeal) – and – Scot James Woodcock (Respondent/Appellant/Respondent by way of cross-appeal)
Before: Borins, Juriansz and LaForme JJ.A.
Counsel: Philip B. Cornish for the appellant Janice A. Bantle for the respondent
Heard & Endorsed: August 18, 2006
On appeal from the judgments of Justice John C. Kennedy of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 22 and May 10, 2005.
Appeal Book Endorsement
1This court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appeal is from an equalization payment of approximately $4,560 and from an order for child support on a monthly basis that totals just under $9,000 in a twelve month period. As such, the final order of the trial judge that is under appeal is about $13,560. Pursuant to ss. 6 and 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, this appeal lies to the Divisional Court: Hariram v. Hariram (2001), 2001 32749 (ON SCDC), 197 D.L.R. (4th) 377 (Ont. C.A.).
2Counsel for the parties were advised of the panel’s concern regarding the jurisdiction of this court a week ago and they were referred to the Hariram case. In their submissions, counsel were unable to distinguish the circumstances of this case from those of Hariram. The most that counsel for the respondent could suggest was that this panel should be reconstituted as a panel of the Divisional Court. Even if we were inclined to do so, we are unable to do so. Only the Chief Justice or the Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court may do so. We do not believe that it is a salutary practice for this court to be reconstituted as the Divisional Court where the appeal lies to that court. It is the responsibility of counsel for the appellant to bring the appeal in the correct court. Indeed, consequent to this court’s decision in Hariram and in an effort to require counsel to give serious and careful thought to the jurisdictional issue, Rule 61.04 was amended in 2003 to require the appellant to include a jurisdictional statement in the notice of appeal. See rule 61.04(3)(c).
3Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. There will be no costs. We do not have the power to transfer this appeal to the Divisional Court.