Michael F. O’Connor

The applicant brought a motion for sole decision-making authority to vaccinate the parties' two children against COVID-19.

The respondent opposed the motion, citing concerns about the mother's disclosure of family medical history to the pediatrician and alleging tactical motives.

The court took judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine for children and found no reason to delay vaccination.

The motion was granted, and the applicant was awarded costs.

The husband sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that refused his motion to sever his claim for divorce from the wife's claims for corollary relief.

The motion judge had refused severance on the basis that the husband's failure to make financial disclosure prejudiced the wife, and severing the divorce could prejudice her potential claims against his estate in the event of intestacy.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the potential loss of intestacy rights and insurance coverage constituted legal disadvantage under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The respondent husband sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed his motion to sever his claim for divorce from the applicant wife's claims for corollary relief.

The motion judge had refused severance on the basis that the husband's failure to provide financial disclosure prejudiced the wife, and that severing the divorce could cause her legal disadvantage by terminating her rights under the Succession Law Reform Act in the event of his intestacy.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the potential loss of estate rights and insurance coverage constituted valid legal disadvantages under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing his claim for $25,000 on a promissory note and awarding the respondent $10,030 on a counterclaim for construction defects.

The trial judge found the promissory note lacked consideration and was obtained by misrepresentation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of damages.