Home Trust Company v. Pitters

2025 ONCA 818

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: November 26, 2025

DOCKET: COA-25-OM-0432

Paciocco J.A. (Motion Judge)

Parties

BETWEEN:

Home Trust Company -- Plaintiff (Responding Party)

and

Marlon Pitters* and Tanesha Pitters -- Defendants (Moving Party*)

Counsel

Marlon Pitters, acting in person

Amanda McInnis, for the responding party

Heard

Heard and rendered orally: November 24, 2025

Reasons for Decision

[1] Marlon Pitters (who prefers to be referred to as Marlon) seeks an extension of time to appeal the April 30, 2025, denial of his motion to set aside a default judgment granting enforcement rights to the responding party mortgagee, Home Trust Company, based on a finding that he had breached the mortgage.

[2] Discretion may be exercised to extend the time to appeal prescribed by r. 61.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, where it is in the interests of justice to do so based on relevant considerations including: (i) an intention to appeal within the appeal period; (ii) the length of the delay in appealing and whether that delay is persuasively explained; (iii) the degree of prejudice to the responding party; and (iv) the merits of the proposed appeal: *Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese*, 2013 ONCA 131, 114 O.R. (3d) 636, at para. 15; *Liu v. Chan*, 2024 ONCA 699, at para. 16.

[3] None of these considerations favour granting an extension.

[4] Although Marlon claims he made efforts to seek assistance, he could not have formed an intention to appeal within the appeal period if his affidavit in support of this motion is true, since he confirmed in it that he did not think he could take steps once the motion to set the default judgment aside was dismissed.

[5] Marlon seeks to explain the delay in bringing this motion based on his lack of knowledge as a self-represented litigant of his right to apply for an extension of time. Yet he does not address what steps, if any, he took to confirm his rights, even though he was advised by Agarwal J. during a July 11, 2024, video conference that he is expected to be familiar with and comply with the rules of the court. He has not explained how he ultimately came to understand his right to bring this application. I find his explanation for the delay to be unsatisfactory.

[6] Marlon contends that there will be no prejudice to the responding party as "their enforcement rights remain unaffected pending the outcome of this motion and the appeal". In fact, Marlon has not respected those enforcement rights, having retaken possession in violation of court orders on two occasions, requiring Home Trust Company to seek repeated orders for leave to issue writs of possession. The delay in appealing while he was illegally in possession put the property at risk.

[7] Most importantly, Marlon's grounds of appeal, which have been shifting throughout the process, lack merit. Most are based on misunderstandings of technical rules relating to the priority of property rights, and the execution and proof of mortgages. Today he argued that he was denied fair process because the motion judge refused to accept documents he wished to rely upon. This claim was not made in his affidavit or application materials, and he has presented no evidence to support it. The record shows his motion materials were filed. He also argues in his written documentation that the relief given to Home Trust Company is excessive, but it was clearly called for given Marlon's history of noncompliance.

[8] It is not in the interests of justice to grant the extension and the motion is denied.

[9] Marlon is ordered to pay costs to Home Trust Company on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,386.50, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

"David M. Paciocco J.A."