COURT FILE NO.: 421/03
DATE: 20030723
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
O’DRISCOLL, THEN JJ. AND BENOTTO S.J.
B E T W E E N:
MICHAEL FRANCIS WALSH
Appellant
- and -
JOANNE CONSTANCE WALSH
Respondent
Harold Niman, for the Appellant
Carole Curtis, Valda Blenman and Victoria Starr, for the Respondent
HEARD: July 23, 2003
BENOTTO S. J.: (Orally)
[1] The Court raised the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal. This matter comes to us as an appeal from an interlocutory order with leave under s.19 of the Courts of Justice Act. That section provides that this Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from an interlocutory order or a final order for a single payment of not more than $25,000.00, exclusive of costs. This matter is characterized as an appeal from an interlocutory order and leave was obtained on that basis.
[2] We are of the view, however, that the order is final. The motions Judge finally determined the issue of retroactivity for the years 1998 to 2001, inclusive. The order of the Court states:
“That there be a recalculation of the child support owed by the petitioner to the respondent for the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 and that the petitioner shall pay forthwith to the respondent the quantum of $42,917.88 for those years.”
[3] This in our view finally determines the issue of retroactivity for those years. It is a single payment of more than $25,000.00 and we therefore do not have jurisdiction. Indeed the appellant’s position is that the decision on retroactivity for those years cannot be reviewed by the applications judge at the variation hearing.
[4] This decision is regrettable for we recognize the added delay and expense to this family. This court however, is a statutory court with no inherent jurisdiction. We do request that the Court of Appeal expedite the hearing. We have been advised that with this request, dates can be made available in August or September.
[5] The costs of today are adjourned to the Court of Appeal.
O’DRISCOLL J.
[6] I have endorsed the back of the appeal book as follows: “The Court raised the issue of its jurisdiction to hear this appeal. For the reasons given for the Court by Benotto J., we are of the view that we do not have jurisdiction. The appeal is adjourned to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. We recommend that the Court of Appeal expedite the appeal and request an August, 2003 or September, 2003 date. The costs of this day adjourned to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. We order the transfer to the Court of Appeal all papers/documents regarding this matter.”
O’DRISCOLL J.
THEN J.
BENOTTO S. J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: July 23, 2003
Date of Release: July 31, 2003
COURT FILE NO.: 421/03
DATE: 20030723
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
O’DRISCOLL, THEN JJ. AND BENOTTO S.J.
B E T W E E N:
MICHAEL FRANCIS WALSH
Appellant
- and -
JOANNE CONSTANCE WALSH
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BENOTTO S. J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: July 23, 2003
Date of Release: July 31, 2003