The applicant sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders made at a family law settlement conference: one adjourning the conference sine die and another permitting the respondent to amend her pleadings to claim spousal support.
The court found that the settlement conference judge properly exercised his case management powers to ensure the complex corporate issues were trial-ready, and that the order regarding pleadings was purely procedural.
Finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the orders, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.
