Edwin Augustinus Flak

The Applicant sought to adjourn a trial scheduled for October 2016 to March 2017, primarily to pursue further disclosure and potentially amend her claims to set aside a 1999 consent divorce judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the request amounted to a "fishing expedition" to fundamentally change the nature of the proceedings, was made too late, and was not adequately supported by medical evidence.

The court emphasized balancing fairness to both parties and the Respondent's right to a timely resolution after four years of litigation on the Motion to Change.

The trial was confirmed for October 2016 with strict time limits for each party.

The appellant appealed a supplementary family arbitration award concerning child support income calculations and spousal support.

She argued the arbitrator erred by using a formula to determine income rather than strictly applying the Federal Child Support Guidelines, by declining to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and by providing insufficient reasons for the spousal support amount and commencement date.

The court held the arbitrator did not err in maintaining the previously ordered income-calculation formula, noting the appellant had originally requested that approach and did not appeal the earlier award.

The court also found no error in declining to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines given the parties’ agreement, the high income involved, and the atypical circumstances.

Applying the standard of review for arbitral awards, the court concluded there was no palpable and overriding error and that the reasons were adequate when read together with the earlier award.

In a family law proceeding involving divorce, property division, and spousal support, the parties brought a consent “basket” motion seeking an order permitting questioning and the bringing of motions following a case conference.

The court considered the interaction between Rules 13, 14, and 20 of the Family Law Rules.

It held that Rule 13(13) independently authorizes questioning on financial statements once the required request for additional information has been made, without requiring a separate court order under Rule 20(5).

The court further clarified that Rule 14(4) only prohibits motions before completion of a case conference; once the conference is completed, no additional order is required to bring motions.

The requested consent order was refused as unnecessary.