COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Roberts J.A. (Motion Judge)
BETWEEN
Marco Contardi
Applicant (Appellant/Moving Party)
and
Sonia Lisboa Contardi
Respondent (Respondent/Responding Party)
Counsel:
Amanda Taerk and Madeleine Emmanuel, for the appellant/moving party
Danny Gurizzan and Stefania Del Rizzo, for the respondent/responding party
Heard: June 8, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The moving party seeks an extension of time to perfect his appeal from the March 6, 2026 order, which was amended on March 19, 2026. The notice of appeal was filed on April 23, 2026, but the appeal has not been perfected, as it should have been by May 25, 2026. On around May 20, 2026, the moving party retained a forensic accounting expert to prepare a report that he hopes will show errors in the expert opinion of the responding party’s trial expert. He seeks the perfection extension to allow him to obtain the report that he will then seek to proffer as fresh evidence on his appeal.
2This motion arises out of high conflict family law litigation culminating in the striking of the moving party’s pleadings and disentitling him to notice of events in the proceedings, following his breach of several court orders for disclosure and payment of costs, as well as his breach of previous support orders. The trial proceeded on an uncontested basis. The trial judge ordered payment of substantial child and spousal support arrears of over $1 million dollars, which he secured by a vesting order registered on the matrimonial home. He also ordered payment of ongoing spousal and child support effective April 1, 2026, which order the moving party has also breached.
3I see no cogent basis on which to exercise my discretion and allow the extension motion. Rather, the equities require its dismissal.
4First, the moving party remains in clear breach of disclosure and support orders, including the trial judgment. The moving party’s appeal from the disclosure order was dismissed. He did not seek a stay of the ongoing support orders which were not automatically stayed by his current appeal. There is no excuse for his non-compliance. The moving party is a lawyer who clearly understands the importance of obeying court orders. He has not come to court with clean hands and is not entitled to any indulgence from this court: E.L.R. v. D.M.S., 2025 ONCA 802, at para. 13.
5Further, while the moving party’s breaches are sufficient to dispose of this motion, I would also dismiss the motion on the basis that it is not otherwise in the interests of justice to grant the extension.
6The well-established factors informing the exercise of the court’s discretion are: 1) whether the moving party had a continuing intention to appeal; 2) the length of and excuse for the delay; 3) the prejudice to the responding party and the parties’ children; and 4) the merits of the appeal, the lack of which may be dispositive of the motion. See Issasi v. Rosenzweig, 2011 ONCA 112, 277 O.A.C. 391, at paras. 4-5; Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, 114 O.R. (3d) 636, at paras. 15-16.
7In the context of family law proceedings where the parties, especially the parties’ children, are entitled to finality, the delay is excessive and inexcusable. There is no reason why the moving party could not have perfected his appeal by the deadline, notwithstanding his intention to bring a motion for fresh evidence based on the preparation of the forensic expert report. The fact that the expert was retained mere days before the perfection deadline suggests the moving party’s intention is to delay while not complying with his support and other court-ordered obligations. This tactic undermines a continuing intention to appeal. This delay is also highly prejudicial to the responding party and the parties’ children who need payment of support and undermines public confidence in the administration of justice: E.L.R., at para. 4.
8I am mindful that in examining the merits of the appeal, I do not determine whether it will succeed but whether it is so lacking in merit that the court could reasonably deny the important right of appeal: Issasi, at para. 10. That is the case here: the appeal is without any apparent merit.
9The appeal is premised on the preparation of a forensic expert report that the moving party hopes will show that the responding party’s expert evidence was flawed. The report is not before this court. There is no basis to impugn the trial judge’s reliance on the best evidence that was before him. I also note that many of the alleged deficiencies in the responding party’s report appear to result from the moving party’s failure to provide the court-ordered disclosure, which severely undermines the moving party’s complaint about the responding party’s expert report and the trial judge’s reliance on it. The moving party has not provided any other basis to dispute what essentially are the trial judge’s findings of fact that seem grounded in the record before him and open to him to make.
10Further, the moving party’s proposal to put forward an expert report as fresh evidence appears to be an attempt to do indirectly what the striking of his pleadings prohibited him from doing directly because of his deliberate breaches of court orders. In the circumstances, it is highly unlikely that the moving party’s fresh evidence would be accepted by the appeal panel. Again, it is unfair to the responding party and the parties’ children to delay their court-ordered support entitlements and compel the responding party to respond to what appears to be a spurious and vexatious appeal.
11There comes a time when enough is enough. The record amply demonstrates that is the case here. The extension motion is therefore dismissed.
12The extension motion was without merit and an abuse of process designed to delay. The responding party ought not to have been required to respond to this. In these circumstances, she is entitled to payment of her costs from the moving party in the all-inclusive amount of $8,150.
“L.B. Roberts J.A.”