Delays, Extensions, Adjournments and Excuses – How Not to Conduct Your Family Litigation
A few weeks ago, I reported on a case called Schwilgin v. Szivy. I recounted the court’s stern response to a litigant – in this case, the husband – who had been obdurate in failing to comply with numerous prior court orders.
“Part 2” of this story reveals the court’s reaction to that same husband’s repeated delays in moving their divorce and custody issues along. Since the husband was self-represented, it all becomes a good lesson on “how not to conduct your own Family litigation”.
The couple had separated in 2002 and had two children. Starting around 2010 they commenced what turned out to be rather lengthy legal process around custody and child support.
After a series of prior court decisions in the case, the husband wanted to appeal one particular order that related to (among other things) denying his requested variation of child support, and relieving him of the obligation to pay $75,000 he owed in child support arrears since 2006.
But what followed was a series of blunders and delays on the husband’s part. First, he filed his Notice of Appeal in the wrong court. When the error was brought to his attention by opposing counsel, he went ahead anyway. But not only did the court refuse to hear him, it refused to transfer the matter to the proper court, and simply quashed the husband’s appeal outright.
By now, the husband was too late to file in the proper court venue. He asked the court for an extension of the filing deadline claiming that, being a layperson, he simply made a procedural mistake in choosing the wrong court. The court didn’t buy it. The extension was turned down.
Having frittered away his right to appeal automatically, he now needed the court’s permission to take further steps toward an appeal. But in yet another motion he failed to persuade the court that he had met the relevant test. More importantly, the court explained that the husband’s many poorly-justified delays in the past “weigh[ed] very heavily against” granting the time extension.
Which brings us to the latest ruling.
A full 13 months after the dismissal of his earlier motion for an extension, the husband brought yet another motion to have that order reviewed.
However, even though this was the 11th hour the husband was not cured of his shenanigans: After the hearing date was set, he contacted the court staff to ask for an adjournment. His reason? He was unable to find a lawyer, and unable “to defend himself due to illness” and a lack of funds. This was contrary to earlier information stating that he had duty counsel lined up, which claim the court also found to be suspect.
The Appeal Court flatly turned down the husband’s latest request for an adjournment. After reviewing his materials, it concluded that:
- He had failed to provide current medical or other evidence in proper form to justify having the court grant the order;
- He had not proven that he had legal aid lined up, as he claimed; and
- There was no acceptable explanation for the husband’s 13-month delay in asking for a review.
Although he is quickly running out of legal options – and likely testing the courts’ collective patience – I suspect this will not be the husband’s “last kick at the can”.
For the full text of the decisions, see:
Schwilgin v. Szivy, 2017 ONCA 78 (CanLII)
The decision appealed from is:
Schwilgin v. Szivy, 2015 ONCA 816 (CanLII)