ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 10-DV-1586
DATE: 2015/11/30
BETWEEN:
Mark Shipowick
Applicant
– and –
Opal Shipowick
Respondent
In Person, for the Applicant
In Person, for the Respondent
HEARD: In Writing
REASONS FOR decision
on motion to extend time for appeal
R. Smith J.
[1] The appellant has brought a motion to extend the time to file Notice of Appeal. He also brings a motion for leave to appeal the Order of Aitken J. dated March 16, 2012 staying the appeal pending the filing of transcripts of the trial. The trial was heard in 2009 and the decision of Trousdale J. was rendered on February 1, 2010.
[2] Aitken J. held that transcripts were required because the appellant appealed on the ground that the trial judge had no evidence or inadequate evidence on which to base her findings of fact on which she ordered him to pay child support.
[3] The motion for an extension of time is denied for the following reasons:
(a) There are no grounds set forth by the appellant to doubt the correctness of Aitken J.’s order. The requirement for transcripts is both reasonable and correct. I find that there is no merit to this appeal.
(b) The delay from March 16, 2012 is approximately three and a half years which is extensive and is not adequately explained by the appellant. The unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal does not explain the delay of three and a half years because it returned the matter to the Divisional Court by letter dated March 12, 2013. This still leaves a delay of one and a half years.
(c) The transcripts have not been provided and as a result, any hearing of an appeal would be further delayed as I agree with Aitken J. that transcripts are required based on the nature of the appeal.
(d) The appellant has not provided any evidence that he acted promptly once he became aware that the time limits for the appeal had expired.
[4] Even if the time limit had been extended I would refuse to grant leave to appeal under both Rule 62.02(4)(a) and (b). The appellant has not identified any conflicting decisions as he is essentially appealing on finding of fact or at a minimum, mixed fact and law and I do not find that it is desirable that leave to appeal be granted given the extensive delay and the reasonableness of Trousdale J.’s decision. I also find that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of Trousdale J.’s decision and the matter does not involve a matter of general importance but only a matter of individual importance to the appellant.
Costs
[5] Unless the respondent makes submissions for costs within 20 days, no costs will be granted because the wife is self-represented and has filed a very brief response.
Disposition
[6] The appellant’s motion to extend the time for filing his notice of appeal is denied for the above reasons.
Mr. Justice Robert J. Smith
Released: November 30, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: 10-DV-1586
DATE: 2015/11/30
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Mark Shipowick
Applicant
– and –
Opal Shipwick
Respondent
REASONS FOR Decision
R. Smith J.
Released: November 30, 2015