The court applied the well-known criteria for an extension of time to perfect an appeal
The Ontario Court of Appeal has denied an extension of time to perfect the appeal in a motor vehicle collision case.
In Opara v. Ciamarra, 2023 ONCA 731, Victor Opara sought an extension of time to perfect his appeal for the dismissal of his summary judgment motion for a mandatory order that the respondent, Antonio Ciamarra, provide the particulars of his automobile insurance contract and other relief, without costs.
The dispute arose from a motor vehicle accident. Ciamarra's vehicle caused minor damage to Opara's car. Opara commenced an action against Ciamarra, seeking a mandatory order that the respondent provide his insurance particulars under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.
Opara commenced his appeal promptly, but he did not take further steps to perfect his appeal until he received the registrar's notice of intention to dismiss for delay. The registrar's notice required Opara to perfect his appeal by May 3. However, he served and attempted to file his appeal materials on May 4. The court office rejected his materials because they were late and there were various deficiencies.
The Ontario Court of Appeal explained that to succeed on a motion for an extension of time to perfect an appeal, Opara must meet the well-known criteria: whether he formed a timely and continuing intention to appeal, the length of the delay and explanation for the delay; any prejudice to the respondent; the merits of the appeal; and the overarching issue of whether the justice of the case requires the extension.
Applying these criteria, the court concluded that the justice of the case did not warrant the requested extension. The court acknowledged that Opara had the requisite intention to appeal, but he had not sufficiently explained all of the delay in perfecting his appeal.
The court further found that the appeal lacked merit, sufficient to deny the extension. The court pointed out that no further relief would be obtained even if his appeal were successful. The primary relief that Opara was seeking was to obtain disclosure of the respondent's insurance information. The court found that the respondent appeared and provided Opara with the name of his insurer and policy number. The respondent had even appeared and provided the requested information during the hearing.
Opara complained that the respondent failed to enumerate the particulars listed in s. 4(2) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act. Nonetheless, the court found that Opara had not advised what damage to him, apart from costs, was ensured. Furthermore, the court also found no evidence that the respondent's particulars were incorrect or unhelpful to the appellant in his quest to reimburse the damages to his motor vehicle.
Accordingly, the court dismissed Opara's motion for an extension of time to perfect the appeal.
