Clarke v. Denyes
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 143
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 27 February 2026
- Posture
- Family / Application to Set Aside Order Denying Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal (motion Before Court of Appeal)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 27 February 2026
- Posture
- Family / Application to Set Aside Order Denying Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal (motion Before Court of Appeal)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The motion judge applied the correct legal test and reasonably exercised his discretion by refusing to extend time because the appeal had little merit, there was a significant five-month delay, and further delay would prejudice the children; the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion and refused to set aside the order.
Court disposition
Motion dismissed
Orders
- Motion dismissed with costs to the respondent in the amount of $2,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements
- Order of the motion judge denying extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal is upheld
02
Material facts
Parties
Harry James Clarke
Applicant (respondent/responding Party) Counsel: Julie Stanchieri; David RappaportMelissa Joy Denyes
Respondent (appellant/moving Party) Counsel: acting in personAmounts and remedies
- Trial Costs Awarded to Respondent: CAD 400,000
- Costs Awarded on Motion: CAD 2,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Family / Application to Set Aside Order Denying Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal (motion Before Court of Appeal)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the motion judge erred in refusing to extend time to file a Notice of Appeal
- 02
Whether the best interests of the children require extending time
- 03
Whether delay, lack of merit and prejudice justified refusal to extend time
- 04
Scope of appellate review under s.7(5) Courts of Justice Act and Weidenfeld standard
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The moving party sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal and asked the panel to set aside the motion judge's refusal, arguing grounds for extension despite delay.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposed extension, arguing the proposed appeal had little merit, there was a significant five-month delay, and further delay would prejudice the children and disrupt the parenting schedule; costs order at trial reinforced lack of merit.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s.7(5); Weidenfeld v. Weidenfeld, 2022 ONCA 860
A panel may interfere with a motion judge's exercise of discretion under s.7(5) only if the judge failed to identify applicable principles, erred in principle, or reached an unreasonable result.
- 02
Collins v. Tiveron, 2024 ONCA 447, para.13
In child-related proceedings the overarching consideration in extension applications is whether the extension would be in the children's best interests.
- 03
Weidenfeld v. Weidenfeld, 2022 ONCA 860; motion judge reasons
Relevant considerations for extending time include length of delay, merits of the proposed appeal, and prejudice to parties (including children); deference is owed to the motion judge's discretionary assessment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The motion judge applied the correct legal test and reasonably exercised his discretion by refusing to extend time because the appeal had little merit, there was a significant five-month delay, and further delay would prejudice the children; the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion and refused to set aside the order.
Obiter and limits
- Deference to the motion judge on discretionary relief is required absent error in principle or unreasonable result.
- The best interests of the children principle is decisive in assessing extensions affecting parenting arrangements.
Court disposition
Motion dismissed
- Motion dismissed with costs to the respondent in the amount of $2,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements
- Order of the motion judge denying extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal is upheld
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 27 February 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 27 February 2026
Clarke v. Denyes Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-02-27 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 143 Docket numbers COA-25-OM-0273, M56300 Judges Trotter, Gary T.; Monahan, Patrick J.; Dawe, Jonathan Subject Family Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Clarke v. Denyes, 2026 ONCA 143 DATE: 20260227 DOCKET: M56300 (COA-25-OM-0273) Trotter, Monahan and Dawe JJ.A.
BETWEEN Harry James Clarke Applicant (Respondent/Responding Party) and Melissa Joy Denyes Respondent (Appellant/Moving Party) Melissa Joy Denyes, acting in person Julie Stanchieri and David Rappaport, for the respondent/responding party Heard: in writing On review of the order of Justice Grant Huscroft of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated August 28, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The moving party seeks to set aside the order of the motion judge denying her motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal. [2] This proceeding arises from a trial decision involving high-conflict family litigation. The respondent was successful on nearly all major issues. The trial judge awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $400,000. [3] A panel of this court may interfere with an order under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, if the motion judge failed to identify the applicable legal principles, erred in principle, or reached an unreasonable result: Weidenfeld v. Weidenfeld, 2022 ONCA 860, at para. 11, leave to appeal refused, [2023] S.C.C.A. No. 27. [4] The motion judge applied the correct legal test and his discretionary decision not to extend time to file a Notice of Appeal is entitled to deference. In reaching his decision, the motion judge recognized that “[t]he overarching consideration in cases affecting the rights of children is whether the extension of time would be in the children’s best interests”. See e.g., Collins v. Tiveron, 2024 ONCA 447, 2 R.F.L. (9th) 257, at para. 13. [5] The moving party has not identified any error in principle in the motion judge’s analysis of the relevant considerations, particularly that the appeal has little merit, the significant five-month delay in filing the Notice of Appeal, and the continuing uncertainty over the parenting schedule that would be prejudicial to the children. [6] The motion is dismissed with costs to the respondent in the amount of $2,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements. “Gary Trotter J.A.” “P.J. Monahan J.A.” “J. Dawe J.A.”
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.