Strang v. Fegol, 2015 MBCA 11

Citation: Strang v. Fegol, 2015 MBCA 11 Date: 20150126 Docket: AI14-30-08215 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Freda M. Steel Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron BETWEEN : STEPHEN ALAN STRANG ) K. Fegol ) on his own behalf (Applicant) (Respondent) Respondent ) ) M. G.

Tramley - and - ) for the Respondent ) ) KEN FEGOL ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: (Respondent) (Applicant) Appellant ) January 26, 2015 MONNIN J.A. (for the Court): [ 1 ] The appellant appeals from the decision of a chambers judge denying him an extension of time to appeal from an order under The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act , C.C.S.M., c. D93. [ 2 ] The decision under review was rendered on December 13, 2011, and the judgment signed April 13, 2012.

It appears the appellant sought to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the signing of the judgment, but was refused by the Registry of the court on the grounds that it should have been filed within 30 days of the decision being pronounced on December 13, 2011. [ 3 ] Nothing transpired until June 18, 2014, when the appellant filed a motion to extend time to appeal. [ 4 ] That motion was heard and decided on July 3, 2014.

The chambers judge, noting that the order was expiring in two weeks, that the appellant had chosen not to pursue the matter for two years for personal reasons and that there were no arguable grounds of appeal, dismissed the motion. [ 5 ] We are all of the view that with the expiration of the order under review, this matter is moot. We understand that the respondent has obtained a second protection order as of August 2014, and there are outstanding proceedings to set that aside. However, that is not before us today.

The second order is not a continuation of the order under review today, but a new proceeding. [ 6 ] It is also our view that we should not exercise our discretion to hear a matter that is moot in the circumstances of this case. It will not settle an outstanding dispute or provide guidance to other parties on a question of law.

The possible effect of an expired protection order on the appellant’s perception of his reputation does not render this a matter that should be heard by this court. [ 7 ] As well, even if we were to exercise our discretion, we see no error in law justifying appellate intervention in the chambers judge’s decision not to grant an extension of time.

[ 8 ] The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent. J.A. J.A. J.A.