Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-06-03
Docket: M55813 (COA-24-CV-0819)
Coram: J. Copeland, P.J. Monahan, M. Rahman JJ.A.

Between

Carolina Johnson-Emanuel
Applicant (Respondent/Responding Party)

and

Jason Emanuel
Respondent (Appellant/Moving Party)

Jason Emanuel, acting in person
Carolina Johnson-Emanuel, acting in person

Heard: May 29, 2025

On review of the order of Justice James C. MacPherson of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated February 5, 2025.

Reasons for Decision

[1] This is a motion for a panel review of the decision of the motion judge denying the appellant/moving party’s request for an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

[2] The underlying appeal is from a judgment in a family law trial that dealt with a variety of issues, including spousal and child support, section 7 expenses, and equalization.

[3] A panel review of a motion judge’s decision is not a de novo determination. The motion judge’s decision not to extend time is a discretionary decision that is entitled to deference. A reviewing panel may intervene only if the motion judge erred in principle or reached an unreasonable result: Hillmount Capital Inc. v. Pizale, 2021 ONCA 364, para 18.

[4] The appellant has not established any such error in this case. The motion judge identified the correct law and applied it. The motion judge denied the appellant’s motion for an extension of time because he found the appellant’s explanation for the delay in perfecting the appeal to be “unpersuasive”, because the delay was prejudicial to the respondent, and because the justice of the case did not support granting the extension of time. The motion judge made no error in principle. The result he reached was reasonable. We see no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s assessment of the factors bearing on the request for an extension of time to perfect the appeal.

[5] The appellant also argues that the respondent did not oppose the motion for an extension of time. The record does not support this assertion. Although the respondent advised court staff by email several weeks prior to the motion that she did not intend to file responding materials, she ultimately did file an affidavit opposing the motion, and in particular, explaining the prejudice to her if the extension of time were granted. The motion judge accepted her evidence, as he was entitled to do.

[6] The motion is dismissed, without costs.

“J. Copeland J.A.”
“P.J. Monahan J.A.”
“M. Rahman J.A.”