Jennifer A. Greenwood

The plaintiff brought motions seeking extensions of time to serve a notice of action and statement of claim, contempt findings against the defendants for breaching a prior cease‑and‑desist order, and a stay of related Small Claims Court proceedings.

The defendants cross‑moved seeking dismissal of the action, contempt findings against the plaintiff and counsel for filing an affidavit signed by counsel rather than the deponent, and orders removing corporate defendants.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to file and serve the statement of claim out of time and set aside a registrar’s dismissal notice but refused to stay the Small Claims Court action or find the defendants in contempt.

The court criticized both parties’ conduct, including the improper commissioning of an affidavit, but declined to strike the action or make contempt findings.

Costs were denied to both sides due to their litigation conduct.

The appellant challenged a family law order setting aside a marriage contract, arguing the trial was unfair because of his hearing impairment.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge accommodated the self-represented appellant and that the record did not support any unfairness affecting the outcome.

The court further held it was open to the trial judge to conclude there had been inadequate financial disclosure and that the responding party did not understand the nature or consequences of the contract.

Fresh evidence was admitted for the limited purpose of understanding the hearing-impairment argument, but the appeal was dismissed.

The father appealed a trial judge's order permitting the mother to relocate to Italy with their two children.

The father argued the trial judge erred in applying the principles of Gordon v. Goetz by focusing on the mother's reasons for moving, failing to adequately weigh the disruption to the children, and failing to prioritize maximizing contact with both parents.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge conducted a full and sensitive inquiry into the best interests of the children and made no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant husband appealed an order incorporating minutes of settlement.

The husband, who was unsophisticated, on a disability pension, and had poor English, attended a case conference without a translator and did not understand the minutes of settlement.

Furthermore, there were no up-to-date financial statements, unanswered allegations of the wife's failure to disclose, and an issue regarding spousal support.

The Court of Appeal set aside the minutes of settlement and the lower court orders, finding no prejudice to the wife, and referred the matter back to the Superior Court.