CITATION: Bressi v. Skinulis, 2023 ONSC 4917
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Divisional Court
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER VINCENT BRESSI
Appellant
– and –
JULIA FRANCESCA SKINULIS
Respondent
Gia Williams, for the Appellant
Sarah Strathopolous and Alyssa Weinerman, for the Respondent
HEARD: August 28, 2023, in writing
Schabas J.
ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant’s motion for an extension of time in which to bring a motion for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2There is limited evidence that the appellant actually formed the intention to seek leave to appeal within 15 days of the order of MacPherson J. of April 12, 2023. The appellant referred to the possibility of an appeal, but there is no evidence of a bona fide intention to proceed.
3The explanation for the delay in filing the motion for leave to appeal lacks credence. The appellant’s claim that he needed to retain new counsel is belied by the fact that he already had new counsel at the date of the hearing. Both parties had counsel at the hearing before MacPherson J. and have been engaged in much “high conflict” litigation over the past few years. The appellant ought to have been aware of the deadlines for appeals. Although the appellant referred in emails to his new “appeal lawyers”, nothing was filed until June 5, 2023, 54 days after the order and 39 days after the deadline.
4The poor explanation for the delay undermines the assertion that the appellant formed an intention to appeal within 15 days of April 12, 2023.
5I am also satisfied that granting an extension would prejudice the respondent and, more importantly, the child. The order of MacPherson J. addressed, largely, the issue of parenting time. He considered the best interests of the child, and those interests should not be repeatedly revisited on an interim or temporary basis.
6A trial of this dispute is scheduled for November, 2023, just over two months from now. As the appellant acknowledges, the parenting time issues will be addressed then. Allowing this motion for leave to appeal to proceed will be an unnecessary distraction, requiring time and energy to be spent on an interim order, rather than focusing on preparing for a trial that may lead to final orders. It could also delay the trial.
7Further, as has been observed, “the threshold for obtaining leave to appeal interlocutory orders in family law cases and costs orders is a high one”: Van De Kerckhove v. Wagner, 2022 ONSC 5780 at para. 17. Here, no case has been identified that conflicts, in principle, with the decision in issue, and the merits of the motion for leave are not strong.
8Overall, the interests of justice, and the interests of the child, do not favour granting an extension of time for bringing a motion for leave to appeal in this high conflict case.
9The motion for an extension of time is dismissed.
10The respondent sought costs of $18,000 reflecting something approaching full indemnity for responding to this motion. I do not see a basis for costs at that level. Usually, motions of this type see a costs award of around $5,000. However, I have concerns with the reasons given by the appellant and his conduct in bringing this motion, and note that even he would have sought almost $9,000 on a partial indemnity basis for costs had he been successful. Accordingly, in the circumstances of this case, I order the appellant to pay costs of this motion to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $9,000, including HST and disbursements.
Paul B. Schabas J.
Date: August 29, 2023