Luc Barrick

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to refuse a motion for an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

The parties agreed that critical and further evidence respecting the best interests of the child needed to be presented, which was not presented before the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on consent and ordered a new trial on the issue of mobility.