COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Willmot v. Quinte West (City), 2012 ONCA 771

DATE: 2012-11-09

DOCKET: M41754 (C55547 & C55548)

Simmons, Armstrong and Watt JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Julie Willmot

Appellant/Responding Party

and

Committee of Adjustment for the Corporation of the City of Quinte West, Corporation of the Lower Trent Region Conservation Authority, Corporation of the City of Quinte West, Marlene Crowe and Steven Crowe

Respondents to the Appeal/Moving Parties

AND BETWEEN

Julie Willmot

Appellant/Responding Party

and

Robert Allan Benton, Lynn Marie McMahon, Danielle Valentik, Re/Max Quinte Limited, Ian. W. Brady, Jennie Marlene Crowe, Corporation of the City of Quinte West, Corporation of the Lower Trent Region Conservation Authority, Marlene Crowe and Steven Crowe

Respondents to the Appeal/Moving Parties

Counsel:

Danielle Marks, for the Corporation of the Lower Trent Region Conservation Authority, Marlene Crowe and Steven Crowe

Suzanne E. Hunt, for the Corporation of the City of Quinte West

Julie Willmot, responding party, acting in person

Richard A. Coutinho, for the Public Guardian and Trustee

Heard and released orally: October 31, 2012

On motion to quash the appeal from the orders of Justice Kenneth E. Pedlar of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 2, 2012.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The responding party on the motion (the appellant on appeal), acknowledges that she does not seek to appeal the interlocutory orders of July 6, 2010, October 15, 2010, and November 21, 2011. To the extent that the notices of appeal on file may reflect ongoing appeals of those orders, such appeals are quashed.

[2] As for the appeal of the May 2, 2012 order, the appeal was perfected prior to it being dismissed. In these circumstances, we see no basis on which to dismiss it for delay. The moving parties did not bring a motion for dismissal. It is the practice of the court to allow perfection after the deadline for perfection has passed up to the point of dismissal for delay as indicated in the notice from the Court Registrar.

[3] As for the moving parties’ alternative request to dismiss the appeal of the May 2, 2012 order for lack of merit, it is the general practice of the court to deal with such motions at the hearing of the appeal. See Schmidt v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1995), 1995 3502 (ON CA), 24 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.).

[4] In any event, in this case it appears that the responding party may have had a motion to vary the order for appointment of a litigation guardian before the court on May 2, 2012, which the court may not have considered. In these circumstances, the issue of the merits of the appeal is more properly dealt with on the appeal.

[5] The motion to quash the May 2, 2012 appeal is therefore dismissed.

[6] Costs of the motion will be to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis fixed in the amount of $2,453.77 inclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements.

“Janet Simmons J.A.”

“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”

“David Watt J.A.”