Theodore Nemetz

The respondent father moved to set aside or vary a warrant of committal issued for non-payment of child support arrears of $170,505, and a final default order.

The respondent did not attend the committal hearing on September 24, 2012, despite having notice.

The court considered whether the motion should be granted under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules or Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that while the respondent failed to meet all three prongs of the traditional test for setting aside a default order, the interests of justice favoured varying the committal order to reflect time served, particularly given serious doubts about the validity of the underlying support order that was the subject of enforcement.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board under the Health Care Consent Act confirming a finding that she was incapable of managing property.

The court reviewed the Board’s decision applying a reasonableness standard for questions of fact, mixed fact and law, and law.

The Board had concluded that due to the appellant’s mental condition she could not understand relevant financial information or appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of property-related decisions.

The court found that the Board properly stated and applied the two‑branch statutory test for financial capacity and that its weighing of the evidence was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.