Roselyn Zisman

The appellant appealed an order refusing a motion to extend the time to appeal a child protection order and dismissing the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was an unexplained delay in ordering transcripts and no merit to the appeal.

The court emphasized that delay is of particular concern in child protection proceedings where expeditious resolution is in the child's best interests.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a motions judge's finding that the sale of the respondent's business interest was an arm's length transaction and not bogus.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's factual conclusion, which was supported by evidence.

The court upheld the imputed income but amended the effective date of the retroactive order to the date of the application to vary, based on a concession by the respondent.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed with no order as to costs.