Court File and Parties
CITATION: Baker v. Slack, 2014 ONSC 3183 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 21/14 DATE: 20140526
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
CHESTER BAKER Appellant (Applicant)
– and –
DIANE SLACK Respondent
Counsel: Ryan Manilla, for the Appellant/Applicant Thomas J. MacLennan, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: May 26, 2014
BEFORE: THEN J. (orally)
Oral Reasons for Judgment
1As in Paulsson and Cooper et al., 2010 ONCA 21, the applicant brings this motion to set aside the order of the Registrar dismissing his appeal and to extend the time within which to perfect his appeal.
2In Paulsson, Weiler J.A. in paragraph 2 said the following:
The factors a court should consider in deciding whether to grant this type of motion are well-known. They are: whether the applicant had an intention to appeal within the time for bringing an appeal; the length of the delay, and any explanation for the delay; any prejudice to the respondent caused by the delay; and the justice of the case. This last factor is most important and requires a consideration of the merits of the appeal.
3There is in this case, no issue with respect to these factors except with respect to the last factor regarding the merits of the appeal.
4Mr. Manilla argues that the applicant has a real chance of success in his appeal in that Greer J. erred in requiring that the applicant had to appear on title, that the trust documents had to be registered on title and that the document which was signed by both parties did not constitute a trust document.
5It is clear from her judgment that Greer J. held, that for the purposes of s. 3(1) of the Partition Act, there was no proof of legal interest as the applicant was not registered on title. She did not hold that the trust document had to be registered on title. She did hold that the document signed by both parties did not constitute a valid trust because it lacked the three certainties.
6The respondent’s assertion that she did not understand the document she signed was not legally relevant to the decision Greer J. was required to make. Given the lack of any error in principle, in my view, the appeal does not have any real chance of success. Accordingly, the motion is dismissed.
COSTS
7I have endorsed the Motion Record as follows, “The application is dismissed for oral reasons delivered this day. In my view, it is fair and reasonable to award costs to the respondent payable forthwith in the amount of $2,500 all inclusive.”
THEN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 26, 2014 Date of Release: May 27, 2014
CITATION: Baker v. Slack, 2014 ONSC 3183 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 21/14 DATE: 20140526
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
THEN J.
BETWEEN:
CHESTER BAKER Appellant (Applicant)
– and –
DIANE SLACK Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THEN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 26, 2014
Date of Release: May 27, 2014