Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Okel v. Misheal, 2014 ONCA 699

Date: 2014-10-15

Docket: M44029, M43917, M43918, C46899

Before: Juriansz, Rouleau and Pepall JJ.A.

Between:

Mona Okel Applicant (Responding Party)

and

Peter Misheal Respondent (Moving Party)

Counsel: Mona Okel, acting in person Peter Misheal, acting in person

On a motion to review the order of Justice K.M. Weiler of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated July 4, 2014.

Endorsement

[1] This motion is part of a protracted dispute about Mr. Misheal’s support obligations toward his former wife, Ms. Okel, and their children.

[2] In February 2013, Hourigan J. ordered an oral hearing to determine the enforceability of a Nova Scotia court order terminating Mr. Misheal’s support obligations and cancelling his arrears. Ms. Okel was unable to attend the scheduled hearing and, in her absence, Gray J. granted judgment in favour of Mr. Misheal.

[3] In December 2013, this court set aside the order of Gray J. and ordered that the matter proceed to an oral hearing in accordance with the order of Hourigan J.

[4] Mr. Misheal subsequently brought a motion seeking to stay this court’s order pending his appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He also brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal of the order of Hourigan J. In July 2014, Weiler J.A. dismissed both motions.

[5] Mr. Misheal now brings a motion to review the order of Weiler J.A. and to stay the December 2013 order of this court. Both aspects of this motion are completely devoid of merit.

[6] The issue of a stay is moot because leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada has now been refused. The issue of an extension of time to appeal the order of Hourigan J. is, in effect, also moot because this court confirmed that the hearing ordered by Hourigan J. should proceed and leave to appeal from that decision has been refused.

[7] The lack of merit in Mr. Misheal’s motion is further evidenced by the fact that his factum does not squarely address Weiler J.A.’s decision, but instead sets out why he believes his support obligations should be terminated and his arrears cancelled and, presumably, why the Nova Scotia court order should be enforced. This is precisely the issue both Hourigan J. and this court ordered to proceed to an oral hearing involving both parties, which has yet to occur.

[8] Mr. Misheal’s motion is but another vexatious step in this protracted matrimonial dispute in which Mr. Misheal has brought five unsuccessful appeals seeking to strike or amend his support or arrears, as well as numerous motions.

[9] Accordingly, the motion is dismissed on the basis of Mr. Misheal’s written submissions, pursuant to rule 2.1.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

[10] Rules 2.1.01(3) and 2.1.02(2) provide that unless the court orders otherwise, the moving party be given notice and an opportunity to argue that the motion has merit in a written submission of no more than 10 pages. We consider Mr. Misheal’s 19-page factum to fulfill this requirement, but if necessary we order otherwise.

[11] There will be no order as to costs.

“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”

“S.E. Pepall J.A.”