Background
Three related appeals arose from high-conflict family litigation between Mark Angelo Bordignon and Lucille Bordignon, also known as Lucille Puglisi. Mr. Bordignon’s main appeal challenged the treatment of corporate and family-trust assets in the division of family property and the resulting compensation payment. Ms. Puglisi cross-appealed on issues including the start of cohabitation, the family home’s value, and the income attributed to Mr. Bordignon for support purposes.
Mr. Bordignon also appealed a later support order that imputed income of $208,947 for 2024 and $271,391 for 2025. Ms. Puglisi separately appealed a costs ruling that found divided success and made no order as to costs. In chambers, Ms. Puglisi sought to stay or dismiss Mr. Bordignon’s appeals for alleged noncompliance with trial-court orders, while he sought to reactivate the support appeal and have appeal expenses paid from approximately $221,000 held in trust from the sale of the former family home.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Gomery referred Ms. Puglisi’s application to stay or dismiss the appeals to the division assigned to hear them. The alleged noncompliance could not be resolved on the chambers record, and her arguments were intertwined with the appeals’ merits, making determination by a full division more appropriate.
The Court directed that the main appeal remain active and granted Mr. Bordignon leave to proceed with the support appeal. The delay was attributable to contemplated mediation and the complicated procedural history, and it would be unfair to allow Ms. Puglisi to pursue her cross-appeal while preventing Mr. Bordignon from advancing his related appeals. The Court also ordered that transcript-preparation costs be paid from the jointly held trust funds because the cross-appeal expanded the issues and transcription required, subject to the hearing division’s final allocation of costs. Each party remained responsible for the upfront cost of their own factums and appeal books.
Key Takeaways
- Whether alleged defiance of lower-court orders warrants staying or dismissing an appeal is discretionary and may be deferred to the merits panel when the issues overlap with the appeal itself.
- An inactive appeal may be reactivated where delay is adequately explained, prejudice does not justify dismissal, and allowing only the opposing party’s related cross-appeal would be unfair.
- Transcript costs may be shared from jointly held funds when a cross-appeal materially expands the record required, although final responsibility remains for the hearing division to decide.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s practical, interests-of-justice approach to managing intertwined family-law appeals. Procedural delay will not necessarily foreclose appellate review when settlement efforts and complex related proceedings explain the delay and both parties seek to challenge connected aspects of the same judgment.
It also shows that the ordinary rule requiring an appellant to fund transcripts upfront may yield where a cross-appellant substantially increases the necessary record and joint funds are available, while less substantial appeal expenses may remain each party’s responsibility.