The moving party, a self-represented father residing in Australia, sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that continued an ex parte order granting sole custody to the responding party mother and restraining the father from contacting her or the children.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while the father intended to appeal and provided an explanation for the delay, the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not meet the test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order under Rule 62.02(4).
The court emphasized the need for the family law issues to be adjudicated on their merits without further delay.
