7084421 Canada Ltd. v. Vinczer

7084421 Canada Ltd. v. Vinczer Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2021-07-05 Neutral citation 2021 ONCA 497 Docket numbers C68637, M52283 Judges Huscroft, Grant; Roberts, Lois B.; Zarnett, Benjamin Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: 7084421 Canada Ltd. v. Vinczer, 2021 ONCA 497 DATE: 20210706 DOCKET: M52283 (C68637) Huscroft, Roberts and Zarnett JJ.A. BETWEEN 7084421 Canada Ltd. Plaintiff (Respondent/Responding Party) and Attila Vinczer, Peter Vinczer and Katalin Vinczer Defendants (Appellants/Moving Parties) Attila Vinczer, acting in person, on behalf of the appellants Gerald Anthony, for the respondent Heard: July 2, 2021 by videoconference and released orally REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellants move to set aside the order of Benotto J.A. dated February 26, 2021 and request leave to bring this motion. They raise a single legal argument. They submit that the effect of her order was to terminate their appeal, and that such an order could only be made by a panel, not a single judge. We disagree. [2] As the appellants did not perfect their appeal within the time prescribed by the order of Brown J.A. dated December 17, 2020, the Registrar made an order on January 27, 2021 dismissing the appeal as required by r. 61.13(3.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. [3] The appellants’ motion before Benotto J.A. sought to set aside the Registrar’s dismissal order. A single judge has jurisdiction to determine such a motion under r. 61.16(5). The appellants’ motion also sought leave to make that request. The requirement for leave was set by the order of Brown J.A. which specifically stated that leave could be granted by a judge. [4] Benotto J.A. dismissed the appellants’ motion. Just as she had jurisdiction to grant the requested relief if she had considered it appropriate to do so, she also had jurisdiction to refuse it, leaving the order of the Registrar dismissing the appeal in effect. We see no error in her decision. [5] The appellants’ motion is therefore dismissed. [6] The respondent brought a cross-motion for various relief. To the extent that the cross-motion requests dismissal of the appellants’ motion it is moot in light of the disposition above. To the extent that it seeks other relief related to the mortgaged properties and continued litigation by the appellants, it is inappropriate for this court to address those matters as there is no appeal pending in this court. Those aspects of the cross-motion are dismissed without prejudice to the respondent’s ability to seek such relief in the Superior Court. [7] The appellants shall pay costs to the respondent in the sum of $1,500, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes. “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “L.B. Roberts J.A.” “B. Zarnett J.A.”