Court and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20211026 DOCKET: M52506

Strathy C.J.O., Zarnett J.A. and Wilton-Siegel J. (ad hoc)

BETWEEN

Przemyslaw Bobel Plaintiff (Moving Party)

and

Edyta Maria Humecka and Raymond Alexander Patten Defendants (Responding Parties)

Przemyslaw Bobel, acting in person Alexander Boissonneau-Lehner, for the responding parties

Heard: in writing

Reasons for Decision

[1] By judgment released February 2, 2021, the moving party’s claim against the responding parties (his former romantic partner and her current partner) for malicious prosecution, nervous shock, false imprisonment, negligence and other collateral claims was dismissed (the “Judgment”). The trial judge subsequently ordered that the moving party pay the responding parties’ costs, fixed at $75,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements (the “Costs Order”).

[2] The moving party now brings a motion in writing for:

(a) leave to appeal the so-called “Ancillary Claim” portion of the Judgment; (b) an extension of time to appeal the Judgment; (c) leave to appeal the Costs Order; (d) leave to file fresh evidence on appeal; (e) if leave to file fresh evidence is granted, leave to file uncommissioned affidavit evidence.

[3] The moving party does not require leave to appeal the Judgment, but he does require an extension of time to appeal, since he is out of time.

[4] The factors to be considered in granting an extension of time to appeal are set out in Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, 114 O.R. (3d) 636, at para. 15. The court must consider:

(a) whether the moving party formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time period; (b) the length of, and explanation for, the delay; (c) any prejudice to the responding parties caused, perpetuated, or exacerbated by the delay; and (d) the merits of the proposed appeal.

[5] Accepting the moving party’s unsworn “affidavit” in support of the motion at face value, there is no evidence that the moving party formed a bona fide intention to appeal before he filed his motion on May 26, 2021. While the delay is not particularly lengthy (just under three months), the moving party has provided no explanation for it.

[6] Considering the last two factors together, we find the appeal has no merit and it would be prejudicial to the responding parties to continue the stay of the Costs Order and to subject them to further costs in resisting an unmeritorious appeal. The trial judge gave thorough and careful reasons, grounded in large measure in his rejection of the moving party’s evidence as not credible or reliable and his acceptance of the responding parties’ evidence. Excusing the delay and permitting the moving party to pursue an unmeritorious appeal would cause further prejudice to the responding parties. We dismiss the motion for an extension of time to appeal.

[7] We also dismiss the motion for leave to appeal the Costs Order. Again, the trial judge considered the applicable principles pertaining to costs. The award was reasonable having regard to the length of the trial (8 days), the conduct of the moving party that needlessly extended the action, thereby increasing the costs, the unfounded allegations against the responding parties’ counsel, and the responding parties’ offer to settle. The moving party has identified no error in principle in the award of costs. The award itself is entitled to deference and is reasonable.

[8] The motion is dismissed, with costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,500, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

“G.R. Strathy C.J.O.” “B. Zarnett J.A.” “Wilton-Siegel J.”