Peng v. Chen Estate
The motion judge did not err in dismissing the extension motion because the Divisional Court is not obliged to give reasons for refusing leave and the proposed motion for leave to appeal had no merit; therefore the review is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2024 ONCA 632
- Parties
- Applicant (moving Party): Xin Peng; Respondent: Estate of Shun Kun Ma Chen (also known as Shun Kun Chen), currently without an Estate Trustee; Respondent: May Hing Tam (personally and as named Estate Trustee of the Estate of Rafael Yang Ling Chen); Respondent: Peter Chen (by his litigation guardian, the Public Guardian and Trustee)
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 22 August 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Review of Motion Judge Order Dismissing Motion to Extend Time to File Motion for Leave to Appeal From Divisional Court Refusal of Leave to Appeal Costs Orders
- Outcome
- Review motion dismissed; motion judge's order affirmed
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Divisional Court Practice, Costs Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Xin Peng
Applicant (moving Party)
Estate of Shun Kun Ma Chen (also known as Shun Kun Chen), currently without an Estate Trustee
Respondent
May Hing Tam (personally and as named Estate Trustee of the Estate of Rafael Yang Ling Chen)
Respondent
Peter Chen (by his litigation guardian, the Public Guardian and Trustee)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Review of Motion Judge Order Dismissing Motion to Extend Time to File Motion for Leave to Appeal From Divisional Court Refusal of Leave to Appeal Costs Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion judge erred in dismissing the motion to extend time to file a motion for leave to appeal
- 2 Whether the Divisional Court is required to provide reasons when refusing leave to appeal
- 3 Whether the proposed motion for leave to appeal had sufficient merit to justify extension of time
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judge did not err in dismissing the extension motion because the Divisional Court is not obliged to give reasons for refusing leave and the proposed motion for leave to appeal had no merit; therefore the review is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Review motion dismissed; motion judge's order affirmed
Orders
- Review motion dismissed
- Costs to responding party May Hing Tam fixed at $3,500
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Peng v. Chen Estate Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2024-08-22 Neutral citation 2024 ONCA 632 Docket numbers COA-23-OM-0358, M55057 Judges Nordheimer, Ian V.B.; Gomery, Sally A.; Wilson, Darla A. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Peng v. Chen Estate, 2024 ONCA 632 DATE: 20240822 DOCKET: M55057 (COA-23-OM-0358) Nordheimer, Gomery and Wilson JJ.A. In the Estate of Shun Kun Ma Chen, also known as Shun Kun Chen, deceased BETWEEN Xin Peng Applicant (Moving Party) and Estate of Shun Kun Ma Chen, also known as Shun Kun Chen, deceased, currently without an Estate Trustee, May Hing Tam, personally, and in her capacity as the named Estate Trustee of the Estate of Rafael Yang Ling Chen, also known as Rafael Chen, and Peter Chen, by his litigation guardian, the Public Guardian and Trustee Respondents (Responding Parties) Xin Peng, acting in person Shael Eisen and Juanita Valencia, for the responding party, May Hing Tam No one appearing for the other respondents Heard and released orally: August 21, 2024 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Ms. Peng seeks a review of the order of the motion judge that dismissed her motion to extend the time to file a motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Divisional Court that dismissed her motion for leave to appeal from two costs orders. [2] Ms. Peng has failed to demonstrate any error in the motion judge’s analysis or conclusion. We agree that the Divisional Court need not provide reasons for refusing leave. This is its usual practice, as it is the usual practice of this court and other appellate courts. Further, the motion judge’s finding that the proposed motion for leave to appeal has no merit is unassailable. [3] The review motion is dismissed. Costs to responding party, May Hing Tam, are fixed in the amount of $3,500. “I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.” “S. Gomery J.A.” “D.A. Wilson J.A.”