Glenda D. McLeod

The appellant appealed the trial judge's orders regarding child support arrears, equalization, property division, and costs following a divorce.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding errors in the calculation of child support arrears and the equalization payment, which were adjusted accordingly.

The Court also set aside the trial judge's order to sell a commercial property registered to the appellant's father, as the father was not a party to the proceedings and no finding of fraudulent conveyance had been made.

Finally, the trial costs award was reduced to exclude costs incurred prior to a previous consent order and costs from unrelated proceedings.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property, arguing that the trial judge's conduct resulted in an unfair trial.

The respondent was self-represented at trial.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge improperly assumed the role of advocate for the respondent, severely restricted the appellant's cross-examination and submissions, and improperly relied on confidential settlement and case conference briefs.

The court concluded that the trial judge's interventions and failure to provide adequate reasons breached the principles of fairness.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The court issued a brief endorsement to correct a clerical error in its previous reasons dated November 22, 2006.

The judge clarified that by ordering a new trial, the appeal was allowed, not dismissed, and amended paragraph 23 accordingly.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a swimming pool construction contract.

The trial judge had awarded the respondents $6,400.87 but failed to provide adequate legal analysis or demonstrate the application of proper legal principles in his reasons.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient for appellate review, as neither party could point to the legal path taken to reach the conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered pursuant to section 134(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union objected that the application was untimely because a conciliation officer had been appointed under the local agreement.

The Board found the application was timely with respect to the provincial agreement for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The Board also determined that recent amendments to the Labour Relations Act extended the union's bargaining rights province-wide by operation of law, and amended the bargaining unit accordingly.

A representation vote was ordered.