Henderson v. Henderson, (2014) 324 O.A.C. 138 (CA)

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Juriansz, J.A.
• Date: 31 July 2014
• Citation: (2014), 324 O.A.C. 138 (CA),2014 ONCA 571
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Henderson v. Henderson (2014), 324 O.A.C. 138 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.002

Scott Henderson (applicant/appellant in appeal) v. Suzanne Ruth Henderson (respondent/respondent in appeal)

(M43773; M43864; 2014 ONCA 571)

Indexed As: Henderson v. Henderson

Ontario Court of Appeal

Juriansz, J.A.

July 31, 2014.

Summary:

In a family law proceeding, the husband applied for an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Juriansz, J.A., dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 5729

Judgments and orders - Final judgments and orders - What constitutes - A motions judge ordered a husband to meet a number of conditions (incl. payment of arrears), before he could proceed with his long motion for variation of support - He had to comply by a certain date, or the motion would be "permanently stayed with prejudice" - The husband did not comply - Rather, he applied for an extension of time to perfect an appeal - The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Juriansz, J.A., dismissed the application - If the judge's order was effectively a permanent stay of the motion, the stay resulted not from the nature of the order itself but from the husband's failure to satisfy the conditions of the order - The order under appeal was interlocutory - Such an appeal was meritless and not properly before the court - No extension of time for perfection would be granted.

Practice - Topic 5779

Judgments and orders - Interlocutory judgments - What constitutes - [See Practice - Topic 5729 ].

Practice - Topic 9311

Appeals - Perfecting appeals - Time for - Extension of - [See Practice - Topic 5729 ].

Cases Noticed:

Laurentian Plaza Corp. v. Martin et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 329; 7 O.R.(3d) 111 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Inforica Inc. v. CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Inc. (2009), 254 O.A.C. 117; 97 O.R.(3d) 161; 2009 ONCA 642, refd to. [para. 6].

Counsel:

Simon Zucker and Nancy Tourgis, for the applicant;

William Fanjoy, for the respondent.

This application was heard on July 31, 2014, in Chambers before Juriansz, J.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who delivered the following endorsement orally on the same date.