Court File and Parties

CITATION: Waddell v. Gibson, 2010 ONCA 777

DATE: 20101116

DOCKET: M38992

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Feldman, Juriansz and LaForme JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Hugh Waddell, 926749 Ontario Ltd., and Northbridge Estates Inc.

Plaintiffs (Respondents)

And

Northcrest-Edmison Holdings Inc., Stonequest Management Inc., Robert Donald Gibson, William Johnson, Marlene Helen Gibson, and Josephine Patricia Johnson and Nubodies Extreme fitness and Tanning World Inc.

Defendants (Robert Donald Gibson, Moving Party)

Counsel:

Robert Gibson, in person

David S. Steinberg, for the respondents

Heard: November 8, 2010

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Mr. Gibson moved before this court to review the order of Epstein J.A., which denied his request for an extension of time to seek a review of an order of Goudge J.A. The order of Goudge J.A. denied Mr. Gibson’s motion to extend the time to seek leave to appeal a decision of the Divisional Court to this court. The reasons of Goudge J.A. included the finding that Mr. Gibson’s proposed appeal “did not raise a question of public importance or a general principle of law requiring clarification”.

[2] Mr. Gibson’s oral submissions addressed the merits of the appeal. He submitted that on his previous appearances before the Divisional Court and Justices Goudge and Epstein, he did not appreciate the nature and extent of his onus to show a palpable and overriding error by the trial judge. He says that he now knows his onus respecting the merits and took the court through some of the assertions that he argues demonstrate such errors by the trial judge. We note that this ground of appeal was squarely before the Divisional Court.

[3] However, when seeking leave to bring a further appeal to this court, the test, set out in Sault Dock Co. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), 1972 CanLII 572 (ON CA), [1973] 2 O.R. 479 (C.A.) includes, as Goudge J.A. stated, the requirement that the appeal raise an issue of public importance.

[4] Mr. Gibson has failed to persuade us that Epstein J.A. committed an error in reaching her decision not to grant an extension of time to review the decision of Goudge J.A. She correctly considered whether the order of Goudge J.A. was based on proper principles. Her decision that it was, and her further conclusion that “the justice of this case does not require an extension of time”, contain no error. Epstein J.A. made no legal errors that require this court’s intervention.

[5] For these reasons Mr. Gibson’s motion is denied. The respondents are awarded their costs of this motion in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

Signed: “K. Feldman J.A.”

“ R. G. Juriansz J.A.”

“H. S. LaForme J.A. ”