) ) STEPHEN GERRARD ANDERSON Applicant – v. –, 2017 ONSC 331

CITATION: Anderson v. Anderson, 2017 ONSC 331 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 263/15 DATE: 20170113 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE MARROCCO A.C.J.S.C. BETWEEN: ) ) STEPHEN GERRARD ANDERSON Applicant – and – JO-ANNE MADELINE ANDERSON Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Theodore Nemetz, for the ApplicantJordan Battista and Christine Vanderschoot,for the Respondent ) ) ) HEARD: IN WRITING [1] A judge of this court made an order against the applicant on April 27, 2015, which required the applicant to pay $30,000 intocourt as security for costs.

The motion judge also made an order that the applicant pay the respondent $21,000 in costs includingdisbursements and applicable taxes within six months of April 27, 2015. [2] Pursuant to Rule 61.03(1)(

b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, the applicant had to serve the notice ofmotion seeking leave to appeal within 15 days of April 27, 2015. The applicant served the respondent on May 25, 2015. [3] This is not an appropriate case to grant an extension of time. Litigation in this matter has been ongoing for 15 years.Specifically, the motion judge found that the parties separated in 1994. They signed a separation agreement on July 20, 1994. At thattime, they had two young children: ages three years and two years.

It is no credit to anyone that those children are now adults and thisproceeding is still before the Court. [4] The respondent filed for simple divorce in January 2000. The applicant filed an Answer, which sought no relief except todispute the divorce. This action was not pursued. [5] In 2010, the respondent again applied for a simple divorce. The applicant resisted the divorce and this time claimed an equalshare of the matrimonial home, which he had relinquished in 1994. In 2012, the divorce was finally severed from the corollary reliefclaim.

The parties are now divorced. [6] The motion judge found that the applicant was pressing ahead with a meritless property claim.

The respondent, on the otherhand, suffers the financial prejudice of having to pay legal fees to respond to this meritless claim. [7] Accordingly, an extension of time for filing the motion for leave to appeal is denied. [8] Even if this matter had been filed in time, I would have refused leave to appeal. [9] The test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order has two parts, one of which is: • There appears to be good reason to doubt the correctness of the order in question and the proposed appeal involves matters of suchimportance that leave to appeal should be granted: see Rule 62.02(4)(b). [10] The moving party must demonstrate that the appeal involves matters of importance that go beyond the interests of theparticular litigants.

The court needs to find an issue of broad significance or general application that warrants resolution by a higher courtbecause it affects the development of the law and the administration of justice: see Ash v. Lloyd’s Corp. (1992), (ONSC), 8 O.R. (3d) 282 (Gen. Div.); Greslik v. Ontario Legal Aid Plan (1988), (ON SC), 65 O.R. (2d) 110 (Div.

Ct.). [11] There is none of that in this case. [12] Even if I thought the motion judge had made a mistake – and I most certainly do not think that – I would deny leave becausethis matter does not raise a question of importance beyond the interests of the parties. [13] There is no reason to depart from the general rule that a successful party is entitled to costs. Accordingly, the applicant willpay the respondent $2500 in costs.

MARROCCO A.C.J.S.C. Released: 20170113 CITATION : Anderson v. Anderson, 2017 ONSC 331 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 263/15 DATE: 20170113 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT BETWEEN: STEPHEN GERRARD ANDERSON Applicant – and – JO-ANNE MADELINE ANDERSON Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT MARROCCO A.C.J.S.C. Released: 20170113