Paul S. Pellman

The mother brought a motion seeking leave to extend the time to file her Answer/Plan of Care to an amended status review application.

The child had been out of the mother's care for over 19 months and was thriving in the care of the maternal grandmother.

The mother had missed the filing deadline and had not seen the child for over five months.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother failed to present a realistic plan of care or establish that granting the extension was in the child's best interests, emphasizing the child's need for permanency.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order of $45,000 made against him in a family law proceeding.

The motions judge had awarded costs on a full indemnity basis after finding the applicant acted in bad faith and unreasonably.

The Divisional Court granted an extension of time to bring the motion but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the costs award and noting the case did not raise issues of general importance.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the order under appeal was not a final order.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment awarding sole custody of the children to the respondent mother, arguing he should have been awarded joint or sole custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions—that the parents had a genuine inability to communicate, the mother was genuinely afraid of the father, and the mother had provided the great majority of care—were reasonable and justified the custody order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $3,000 awarded to the respondent.