|
Family - Appeals - Quashing. Sigalas v. Sigalas Selas
In Sigalas v. Sigalas Selas (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed both a family law appeal, and a countering motion to quash.
Here the court considers grounds to quash an appeal for non-compliance with prior orders:[10] The court can quash an appeal if there has been non-compliance with court orders: see Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 134(3); Cosentino v. Cosentino, 2017 ONCA 593, 98 R.F.L. (7th) 53, at para. 8; Dickie v. Dickie (2006), 2006 CanLII 576 (ON CA), 78 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), at paras. 84-87, per Laskin J.A. (dissenting), rev’d 2007 SCC 8, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 346; Siddiqui v. Anwar, 2018 ONCA 965, at para. 19; A.A. v. Z.G., 2016 ONCA 660, at para. 4. The court may consider various factors when determining whether or not the appeal should be quashed, such as the wilfulness of the breach, the amount of arrears, the explanation for the breach, and any attempts to correct the breach: see Brophy v. Brophy (2004), 2004 CanLII 25419 (ON CA), 45 R.F.L. (5th) 56 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 9-15.
....
[14] In Gray v. Gray, 2017 ONCA 100, 137 O.R. (3d) 65, this court considered a motion to quash in the context of a family law matter. The husband failed to attend trial and the trial judge made orders fixing child support: Gray, at paras. 9-11. This court concluded, at para. 33, that while this court retains jurisdiction to hear any appeal of a final order, r. 25(19) of the Family Law Rules provides a more effective way to correct orders within its ambit.
[15] The facts of Hilton v. Hilton, 2021 ONCA 29, are also similar to the instant case. In that case, the husband did not file his answer or comply with a court order requiring delivery of his answer and financial disclosure within 30 days: Hilton, at paras. 1-2. The matter then proceeded as an uncontested trial. This court directed that the husband pursue his remedies in the Superior Court of Justice by way of a r. 25(19) motion. The court’s comments are applicable here:By failing to comply with the Family Law Rules and the orders of Fryer J., the appellant is the author of much of his misfortune. When a party does not participate in the process, things tend to not go well. Nevertheless, the appellant’s allegations of the respondent’s misrepresentations and material omissions must still be determined on the merits: Hilton, at para. 10. [16] In Kim v. McIntosh, 2023 ONCA 356, this court addressed when a motion under r. 25(19) ought to be brought: see paras. 29-33. That option was available to the husband in this case if he was of the view that the trial judge’s order ought to be set aside.
|
