Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 350/04 DATE: October 14, 2004
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BENOTTO S.J.
B E T W E E N:
ROBERT JOSEPH EDWARD BAUD and ELIZABETH BAUD Self-represented Appellants
- and -
235 GRANDRAVINE DRIVE INC. Kimberly L. Beckman for the Respondent Respondent
HEARD: October 1, 2004
Reasons for Decision
1The Respondent brings this motion to quash the appeal. It is argued that:
- the appeal should be in the Court of Appeal as it relates to an amount of more than $25,000;
- the material filed does not indicate arguable issues;
- the history of defaults, disobedience of court orders and allegations of fraud by the appellants disentitle them to the exercise of the Court’s discretion in allowing the appeal to continue.
2The applicants filed no material in response to the motion. Mr. Baud argued on behalf of himself and his spouse. He articulates a long history of litigation between them and the Respondent. I am not willing to summarily dismiss his appeal.
3The matter in issue is more than $25,000. It should be in the Court of Appeal. Section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act. allows the transfer of the case to the proper court. That court is the Court of Appeal. The case is transferred.
4Mr. Baud refused to transfer the case on consent. The issue of costs of this motion is adjourned to the Court of Appeal.
Benotto S.J.
Released: October 14, 2004
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 350/04 DATE: October 14, 2004
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT BENOTTO S.J.
B E T W E E N:
ROBERT JOSEPH EDWARD BAUD and ELIZABETH BAUD Appellants
- and –
235 GRANDRAVINE DRIVE INC. Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Released: October 14, 2004