Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 263/15
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
MARROCCO A.C.J.S.C.
BETWEEN:
STEPHEN GERRARD ANDERSON Applicant
– and –
JO-ANNE MADELINE ANDERSON Respondent
COUNSEL:
Theodore Nemetz, for the Applicant
Jordan Battista and Christine Vanderschoot, for the Respondent
HEARD: IN WRITING
Reasons for Judgment
[1]
Background
A judge of this court made an order against the applicant on April 27, 2015, which required the applicant to pay $30,000 into court as security for costs. The motion judge also made an order that the applicant pay the respondent $21,000 in costs including disbursements and applicable taxes within six months of April 27, 2015.
2Pursuant to Rule 61.03(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, the applicant had to serve the notice of motion seeking leave to appeal within 15 days of April 27, 2015. The applicant served the respondent on May 25, 2015.
[3]
Extension of Time
This is not an appropriate case to grant an extension of time. Litigation in this matter has been ongoing for 15 years. Specifically, the motion judge found that the parties separated in 1994. They signed a separation agreement on July 20, 1994. At that time, they had two young children: ages three years and two years. It is no credit to anyone that those children are now adults and this proceeding is still before the Court.
4The respondent filed for simple divorce in January 2000. The applicant filed an Answer, which sought no relief except to dispute the divorce. This action was not pursued.
5In 2010, the respondent again applied for a simple divorce. The applicant resisted the divorce and this time claimed an equal share of the matrimonial home, which he had relinquished in 1994. In 2012, the divorce was finally severed from the corollary relief claim. The parties are now divorced.
6The motion judge found that the applicant was pressing ahead with a meritless property claim. The respondent, on the other hand, suffers the financial prejudice of having to pay legal fees to respond to this meritless claim.
7Accordingly, an extension of time for filing the motion for leave to appeal is denied.
[8]
Leave to Appeal
Even if this matter had been filed in time, I would have refused leave to appeal.
9The test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order has two parts, one of which is:
- There appears to be good reason to doubt the correctness of the order in question and the proposed appeal involves matters of such importance that leave to appeal should be granted: see Rule 62.02(4)(b).
10The moving party must demonstrate that the appeal involves matters of importance that go beyond the interests of the particular litigants. The court needs to find an issue of broad significance or general application that warrants resolution by a higher court because it affects the development of the law and the administration of justice: see Ash v. Lloyd’s Corp. (1992), 1992 7652 (ON SC), 8 O.R. (3d) 282 (Gen. Div.); Greslik v. Ontario Legal Aid Plan (1988), 1988 4842 (ON SCDC), 65 O.R. (2d) 110 (Div. Ct.).
11There is none of that in this case.
12Even if I thought the motion judge had made a mistake – and I most certainly do not think that – I would deny leave because this matter does not raise a question of importance beyond the interests of the parties.
[13]
Costs
There is no reason to depart from the general rule that a successful party is entitled to costs. Accordingly, the applicant will pay the respondent $2500 in costs.
MARROCCO A.C.J.S.C.
Released: 20170113
CITATION: Anderson v. Anderson, 2017 ONSC 331
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 263/15
DATE: 20170113
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
STEPHEN GERRARD ANDERSON Applicant
– and –
JO-ANNE MADELINE ANDERSON Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MARROCCO A.C.J.S.C.
Released: 20170113