Ken Cole

The court issued supplementary reasons after dismissing an application for leave to appeal a costs order.

The moving party estate filed a reply factum after the initial decision was released, pursuant to an extension agreement between counsel that was not brought to the court's attention.

The court reviewed the reply factum but found it did not address new issues raised in the responding factum, but rather repeated previous arguments regarding the Indian Act and on-reserve assets.

The denial of leave to appeal was confirmed.

The moving party estate sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order dismissing its request to use off-reserve property to satisfy a $40,000 costs award in favour of the responding party wife.

The underlying family law dispute involved claims for spousal support and equalization against the deceased husband's estate, which included both on-reserve and off-reserve property.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that enforcement issues should follow, rather than precede, a determination of entitlement on the merits.