Novic v. Novic, (1983) 50 N.R. 155 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Dickson, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 15, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1983), 50 N.R. 155 (SCC);50 NR 155;1983 CanLII 148 (SCC);3 DLR (4th) 184;[1983] RDJ 577;36 RFL (2d) 337;[1983] 1 SCR 700

Novic v. Novic (1983), 50 N.R. 155 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Novic v. Novic

Indexed As: Novic v. Novic

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Dickson, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.

December 15, 1983.

Summary:

A mother brought a petition for divorce and custody of two children. The trial court awarded custody to the father. The mother's appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was allowed and custody was awarded to her. On the 30th day after pronouncement of the judgment of the Court of Appeal the father applied for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada fixed a date two weeks later for hearing the father's application and on that date allowed the application.

The Supreme Court of Canada in a judgment reported 47 N.R. 394 allowed the father's appeal and restored the trial court judgment.

The mother subsequently submitted that the Supreme Court of Canada had no jurisdiction, because the father did not obtain leave to appeal within 30 days as required by s. 18(2) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that it had jurisdiction, because the application was made within 30 days and the setting of the subsequent date for hearing the application constituted an extension of the time within the meaning of s. 18(2).

Family Law - Topic 4164

Divorce - Practice - Appeals - Leave to appeal - The Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8, s. 18(2), provided that "leave to appeal . . . may be granted within 30 days . . . or within such extended time as the Supreme Court of Canada . . . may, before the expiration of those 30 days, fix or allow" - A father applied for leave to appeal from a custody order on the 30th day and the Supreme Court of Canada fixed a date two weeks later for hearing the application, at which time the application was granted - The Supreme Court of Canada held that leave was properly granted, because the setting of a subsequent date for hearing the application constituted an extension of time within the meaning of s. 18(2).

Cases Noticed:

Massicotte v. Boutin, [1969] S.C.R. 818, dist. [para. 7].

Kumpas v. Kumpas, [1970] S.C.R. 438, dist. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8, sect. 18(2) [para. 4].

Counsel:

Philip M. Epstein, Q.C., for the applicant;

The respondent appeared in person.

This case was heard on December 6, 1983, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Dickson, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 15, 1983, Laskin, C.J.C., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: