Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 20240510 Docket: M54969 (COA-24-CV-0038)

van Rensburg, Sossin and Dawe JJ.A.

Between

The Bank of Nova Scotia Applicant (Responding Party/Appellant)

and

Gary Curtis Respondent (Moving Party/Respondent)

Counsel: Gary Curtis, acting in person David Rankin, for the responding party

Heard: May 7, 2024

Reasons for Decision

[1] This is a motion by Gary Curtis (the respondent in the appeal) to review the order of a judge of this court providing directions for the perfection of an appeal brought by The Bank of Nova Scotia (“BNS”). The order (1) dispensed with the immediate filing of the order under appeal; (2) required BNS to file its proposed draft order under appeal, upon which the appeal would be deemed perfected; (3) required the approved order as finalized to be immediately filed to replace the draft; and (4) directed that Mr. Curtis would have the usual 60 days to file a factum upon the deemed perfection of the appeal. Mr. Curtis was ordered to pay BNS costs of $2,500.

[2] On a review motion under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, a panel of this court may interfere with the order under review if the motion judge “failed to identify the applicable principles, erred in principle, or reached an unreasonable result”: Hililmount Capital Inc. v. Pizale, 2021 ONCA 364, 462 D.L.R. (4th), at para. 18.

[3] No such error has been demonstrated in this case.

[4] The motion judge considered the relevant circumstances in making her order. The appeal is of an order made on December 14, 2023. BNS had taken all necessary steps to perfect its appeal except for including a copy of the order under appeal in its Appeal Book. The order had not been included because Mr. Curtis had not cooperated with the procedure to settle the order, and the next available date before the Registrar that he would agree to, to settle the terms of the order, was May 23, 2024.

[5] Mr. Curtis contends that he was prejudiced by the order because he is required to file his responding materials sooner than 60 days after the May 23 appointment date. He asserts that the motion judge ought not to have provided the directions she did, when BNS was only seeking an extension of time to perfect its appeal until 60 days after the appointment to settle the order. He also asserts that the motion judge erred in making the costs award.

[6] We disagree. The directions provided by the motion judge were appropriate and within her discretion to ensure that the appeal can proceed without further and unnecessary delay. She awarded costs against Mr. Curtis because she reasonably concluded that the motion was made necessary by his actions.

[7] In the course of his submissions on the review motion, Mr. Curtis requested an extension of time to deliver his responding materials in the appeal and to perfect his cross-appeal. BNS consents to a reasonable extension of time. Accordingly, we grant Mr. Curtis an extension of time until July 31, 2024 to deliver his responding materials in the appeal and to perfect his cross-appeal.

[8] Mr. Curtis’ motion is otherwise dismissed with costs payable to BNS in the sum of $2,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”

“L. Sossin J.A.”

“J. Dawe J.A.”