2 total
Motion granted decision
The father sought an urgent case conference regarding parenting arrangements for their seven-year-old daughter, citing ongoing conflict and the mother's inconsistent support for the child's relationship with him.
The mother opposed, arguing no court involvement was needed and that the father's parenting was deficient.
The court applied the "urgent or pressing" test, considering the Chief Justice's Notice and the Central East Region Notice, as interpreted in Thomas v. Wohleber and Clemente v O’Brien.
The court found the father's request to be "pressing" due to ongoing parenting conflict detrimental to the child's best interests, especially given the pandemic's impact on court operations.
The father's motion was granted, and directions were issued for a case conference to formalize a temporary parenting plan.
Appeal allowed and dismissal for delay set aside based on fresh evidence of appellant's medical challenges.
The appellant appealed an order of the Master that refused to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his action for delay.
The appellant also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence on the appeal, detailing severe medical and financial challenges that prevented him from advancing the litigation or retaining counsel earlier.
The Divisional Court granted leave to admit the fresh evidence, finding it credible, relevant, and excusably delayed due to the appellant's circumstances.
Based on the fresh evidence, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal order, concluding that the appellant's interest in pursuing his substantial claims outweighed the respondent's interest in having the claims dismissed, especially given the lack of actual prejudice to the respondent.
