Fritschij v. Bazan, (2007) 212 Man.R.(2d) 193 (CA)

• Judge: Huband, Monnin and Freedman, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: February 07, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2007), 212 Man.R.(2d) 193 (CA);2007 MBCA 11

Fritschij v. Bazan (2007), 212 Man.R.(2d) 193 (CA);

      389 W.A.C. 193

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.033

Maria Johanna Elizabeth Fritschij (petitioner/respondent) v. William Patrick Bazan (respondent/appellant)

(AF 06-30-06437; AF 06-30-06439; 2007 MBCA 11)

Indexed As: Fritschij v. Bazan

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Huband, Monnin and Freedman, JJ.A.

February 7, 2007.

Summary:

A divorced husband appealed from an order dismissing his claim for a marital property accounting because of delay and from an order declaring him to be a vexatious litigant. He also appealed from an order dismissing his application to admit fresh evidence (see 203 Man.R.(2d) 291). The wife applied to dismiss the respective appeals for lack of service within the prescribed time or, alternatively, for lack of prosecution. In response, the husband sought to extend the time for the serving of the notices of appeal.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the applications to extend time for serving the notices of appeal. As such, it was unnecessary for the court to deal with the wife's application to dismiss the appeals for delay or want of prosecution.

Editor's Note: For related cases involving these parties see [1999] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 132, 183 Man.R.(2d) 98, 206 Man.R.(2d) 225, and 210 Man.R.(2d) 55.

Practice - Topic 9002

Appeals - Notice of appeal - Extension of time for filing and serving notice of appeal - A divorced husband appealed from an order dismissing his claim for a marital property accounting because of delay and from an order declaring him to be a vexatious litigant - He also appealed from an order dismissing his application to admit fresh evidence - The husband sought to extend the time for the serving of the notices of appeal - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the applications, concluding that there were no arguable grounds of appeal and that the appeals were of no merit - The combined notice of appeal provided only generic grounds of appeal - The issues raised and the arguments set out in the husband's factum were a "hodgepodge" of irrelevant commentary and a clear attempt to relitigate the motions without any concerted attempt to deal with errors in law.

Cases Noticed:

Elias v. Wolf (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 40; 335 W.A.C. 40; 2004 MBCA 99, refd to. [para. 24].

Law Society of Manitoba v. Eadie (1988), 56 Man.R.(2d) 89 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

P.F. Cramer, for the appellant;

J.M. Dewar, for the respondent.

These applications were heard before Huband, Monnin and Freedman, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Monnin, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on February 7, 2007.