Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Dupuis v. Waterloo (City), 2020 ONCA 96

Date: 20200206

Docket: M51237 (C66082)

Paciocco J.A. (Motions Judge)

Between

Jody Elena Dupuis and Stephen Jones

Plaintiffs

(Respondents/ Responding parties)

and

The Corporation of the City of Waterloo, Kelly Beth Schleuter and Jacob Harold Thomas

Defendants

(Appellant/ Moving party)

Counsel:

Filipe A. Mendes, for the moving party

Matthew Reid, for the responding parties

Heard and released orally: February 4, 2020

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The appellant, The Corporation of the City of Waterloo [“Waterloo”], seeks an extension of time to perfect an appeal that should have been perfected on May 14, 2019, some seven and a half months ago. The appellant did not take steps to perfect the appeal until after counsel for the respondents took the initiative of inquiring whether the appeal would be proceeding, and after the registrar served notice of intention to dismiss the appeal. Waterloo finally attempted to perfect the appeal on the designated dismissal date, December 17, 2019, but did not do so successfully because of multiple technical deficiencies with its materials. On December 20, 2019, the respondents agreed to extend the deadline to January 10, 2020.

[2] On January 8, 2020, the appellant again attempted to perfect the appeal but again, there were multiple errors in the materials and so the required documents were not accepted by the registrar. Waterloo now seeks a further extension to perfect to February 21, 2020.

[3] I must decide this motion based on the justice of the case, in all the circumstances. The respondents take no issue with the intention of the appellant to appeal, and do not rely on the merits of the case in opposing this motion. They contend that they have been prejudiced by the seven and a half months of accumulated delay and point out that the respondents have been waiting since October 12, 2018, to receive payment of the damages and costs award that was received. No explanation was offered by the appellant for the delays, other than that their efforts were deficient. No explanation was offered for why no steps were taken after the transcripts were ready, or why efforts to file were inadequate.

[4] In response, the appellant argues that the material delay that is now being addressed is only a few more weeks, and that the case should be decided on its merits, not based on technicalities.

[5] I accept that, ideally, cases should be disposed of on their merits. However, the appellant is an experienced litigant, fully represented in this action. Despite this, to the prejudice of the respondents, inadequate efforts were made to ensure that this appeal was prosecuted with diligence and reasonable attention to the timelines and filing requirements imposed by this court. Those timelines and rules of the court exist to facilitate the orderly and proper disposition of appeals without unreasonable delay. In all the circumstances of this case, notwithstanding the preference for dealing with appeals on their merits, the justice of this case would not be served if I disregard the repeated failure by the appellant to comply with those rules and procedures. The motion is therefore dismissed.

[6] Costs of $5,000 inclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements are awarded to the respondents.

“David M. Paciocco J.A.”