Spencer v. Omega Insurance Company
- Citation
- 2025 ONCA 859
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 10 December 2025
- Posture
- Civil / S.7(5) CJA Review of Motion Judge Order Re Extension of Time to Perfect Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 10 December 2025
- Posture
- Civil / S.7(5) CJA Review of Motion Judge Order Re Extension of Time to Perfect Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court granted the s.7(5) review and set aside the motion judge's order because the appellant attempted to file before the Registrar's notice, the deficiencies were primarily technical and readily remediable, there was no evidence of prejudice to respondents, and therefore the justice of the case required an extension to perfect the appeal by December 19, 2025, with costs awarded.
Court disposition
Review motion granted; motion judge's order set aside; extension of time to perfect the appeal granted; appeal to be perfected by December 19, 2025; if not perfected by that date the appeal is deemed dismissed; costs of the motion awarded to the appellant in the amount of $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
Orders
- Motion for review granted and motion judge's order set aside
- Extension of time to perfect the appeal granted; appellant shall perfect the appeal by December 19, 2025
- If the appeal is not perfected by December 19, 2025, the appeal is deemed dismissed
- Costs of the motion awarded to the appellant in the amount of $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes
02
Material facts
Parties
Katie Spencer
Applicant (responding Party) Counsel: Olivier Guillaume; Suraj SharmaElite Insurance Company
Applicant (responding Party) Counsel: Olivier Guillaume; Suraj SharmaOmega Insurance Company
Respondent (appellant/moving Party) Counsel: Peter I. WaldmannMartin & Hillyer Associates
Respondent (appellant/moving Party) Counsel: Peter I. WaldmannJohn Belton
Respondent (appellant/moving Party) Counsel: Peter I. WaldmannAmounts and remedies
- Costs Awarded: CAD 3,500
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / S.7(5) CJA Review of Motion Judge Order Re Extension of Time to Perfect Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether an extension of time to perfect the appeal should be granted under s.7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act
- 02
Whether the defects in the appellant's filing were technical and remediable
- 03
Whether the respondents suffered prejudice from the delay
- 04
What costs order is appropriate
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant contended that the required materials were filed the day before the Registrar's notice and were rejected for primarily technical defects that were easily remedied; there was a short delay, no evidence of prejudice to respondents, and the justice of the case required an extension to perfect the appeal.
- Respondent
- Respondents relied on the motion judge's dismissal for failure to perfect the appeal within time and argued that the appeal should be dismissed for non‑compliance and delay; they opposed reopening absent compelling justification or evidence that respondents were not prejudiced.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s.7(5)
Court may review and set aside a motion judge's order under s.7(5) CJA where justice of the case requires
- 02
Appellate practice principles (common law test applied by Ontario courts)
Test for granting extension of time: evaluate promptness, reasons for delay (including whether defects are technical and remediable), and prejudice to opposing parties; grant if justice of the case requires
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court granted the s.7(5) review and set aside the motion judge's order because the appellant attempted to file before the Registrar's notice, the deficiencies were primarily technical and readily remediable, there was no evidence of prejudice to respondents, and therefore the justice of the case required an extension to perfect the appeal by December 19, 2025, with costs awarded.
Obiter and limits
- Registrar staff rejected the filing for technical defects but that did not justify refusing an extension where defects were curable
- Short delays that are promptly remedied and cause no prejudice should ordinarily attract an extension to perfect an appeal
- Costs awarded inclusive of disbursements and taxes reflect agreement of the parties
Court disposition
Review motion granted; motion judge's order set aside; extension of time to perfect the appeal granted; appeal to be perfected by December 19, 2025; if not perfected by that date the appeal is deemed dismissed; costs of the motion awarded to the appellant in the amount of $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
- Motion for review granted and motion judge's order set aside
- Extension of time to perfect the appeal granted; appellant shall perfect the appeal by December 19, 2025
- If the appeal is not perfected by December 19, 2025, the appeal is deemed dismissed
- Costs of the motion awarded to the appellant in the amount of $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 10 December 2025
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· 10 December 2025
Spencer v. Omega Insurance Company Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-12-10 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 859 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-0369, M56304 Judges Trotter, Gary T.; Copeland, Jill M.; Gomery, Sally A. Subject Civil Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Spencer v. Omega Insurance Company, 2025 ONCA 859 DATE: 20251210 DOCKET: M56304 (COA-25-CV-0369) Trotter, Copeland and Gomery JJ.A.
BETWEEN Katie Spencer and Elite Insurance Company Applicants (Respondents/Responding Parties) and Omega Insurance Company, Martin & Hillyer Associates and John Belton* Respondents (Appellant*/Moving Party*) Peter I. Waldmann, for the appellant/moving party Olivier Guillaume and Suraj Sharma, for the respondents/responding parties Heard: December 8, 2025 On review of the order of Justice Grant Huscroft of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated September 2, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Pursuant to s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (“CJA”), the appellant seeks to review the order of the motion judge dismissing a motion to extend time to perfect the appeal. [2] After hearing submissions, we granted the motion and made the order set out in the final paragraph of these reasons, with reasons to follow. These are our reasons. [3] In our view, and with respect, the justice of the case required that the extension of time to perfect be granted. The appellant attempted to file the materials required to perfect the appeal the day before the Registrar’s notice of intent to dismiss the appeal was sent. The materials were rejected by staff because of several defects. However, the defects were primarily technical and easily remedied. There is no evidence of prejudice to the respondents from the short delay in perfecting the appeal. [4] The review motion is granted. The order of the motion judge is set aside and the extension of time to perfect the appeal is granted. The appellant shall perfect the appeal by December 19, 2025. If the appeal is not perfected by that date, the appeal is deemed dismissed. As agreed by the parties, the appellant is entitled to costs of the motion in the amount of $3,500, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes. “Gary Trotter J.A.” “J. Copeland J.A.” “S. Gomery 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.