Court of Appeal for Ontario
Panel: Cronk, van Rensburg and Pardu JJ.A.
Between
Laszlo Schwilgin Moving Party (Appellant in Appeal)
and
Lori Anne Szivy Respondent (Respondent in Appeal)
Counsel
Laszlo Schwilgin, acting in person
Lori Anne Szivy, acting in person
Heard: January 20, 2017
Motion to Review
On motion to review the order of Justice D. Brown of the Court of Appeal, In Chambers, dated November 24, 2015, with reasons reported at 2015 ONCA 816.
Endorsement
Adjournment Request
1The moving party, Laszlo Schwilgin, a self-represented litigant, moves to review the decision of Brown J.A. of this court, dated November 24, 2015, dismissing Mr. Schwilgin's motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from the May 20, 2014 order of Backhouse J. of the Superior Court of Justice in this matrimonial case. The respondent, Lori Anne Szivy, also a self-represented litigant, opposes the motion.
2On December 26, 2016, Mr. Schwilgin contacted court staff and requested an adjournment of his review motion on the grounds that, while he allegedly has obtained legal aid for the purposes of his proposed appeal and argument of this motion, he has been unable to obtain counsel and he is unable "to defend himself due to illness" and lack of funds.
3The Panel reviewed all the materials filed by Mr. Schwilgin in support of his adjournment request, as well as those in support of his request that Brown J.A.'s order be set aside.
4With respect to the adjournment request: i) Mr. Schwilgin provides no current medical or other evidence in proper form justifying his adjournment request; ii) the materials provided by him do not confirm that he has been granted legal aid for argument of this motion or his proposed appeal; and iii) no acceptable explanation for Mr. Schwilgin's delay in moving for review of Brown J.A.'s order, which was made 13 months ago, has been furnished.
5In these circumstances, no reasonable basis for it having been demonstrated, the Panel denied Mr. Schwilgin's adjournment request.
Review Motion
6In the result, at the oral hearing, the Panel received submissions from both parties on the merits of the review motion. At the conclusion of oral argument, we dismissed the motion for reasons to follow.
7We see no basis for interference with Brown J.A.'s impugned order. Justice Brown considered and properly applied the governing legal principles for an extension of time, reviewed the evidentiary record on the motion as a whole, and reached a conclusion on that record that was readily and reasonably available to him.
8We note, in particular, that Brown J.A. did not accept as reasonable Mr. Schwilgin's explanation for the delay in seeking to appeal to this court, was not persuaded that there was merit to the proposed appeal, and was satisfied that the justice of the case favoured dismissing the extension of time motion. Justice Brown provided clear and detailed reasons for his holdings on each of these issues. We agree with his conclusions and his reasoning in support of them.
9This review motion is therefore dismissed.
Costs
10Ms. Szivy requests that she be awarded her reasonable costs of this motion, incurred by her on account of legal fees because Mr. Schwilgin served her former lawyer with his motion materials and his correspondence relating to his adjournment request. Her former lawyer, although not currently counsel of record for Ms. Szivy in this court, responded to Mr. Schwilgin's correspondence on her behalf.
11In these circumstances, we are satisfied that Ms. Szivy is entitled to costs of this motion in the amount of $1,000, payable by Mr. Schwilgin forthwith, and we so order.
"E.A. Cronk J.A."
"K. van Rensburg J.A."
"G. Pardu J.A."