RILAK & TSOCAS

The case of RILAK & TSOCAS involved a mother who sought the assistance of an interpreter part way through the trial proceedings in a family law matter. The mother challenged the decision of the primary judge, who had refused to disqualify himself on the ground of apprehended bias due to the fact that his legal associate had secured a contract of employment with a firm of solicitors representing the father. The mother also argued that there was procedural unfairness by her, and that the primary judge should have disclosed the facts sooner than he did. The mother further argued that the primary judge's refusal to stay the proceedings pending determination of her appeal was also erroneous.

The court had to decide whether the primary judge's failure to disclose the conflict of interest in a timely manner constituted grounds for recusal and whether there was any procedural unfairness by the mother. The court also had to determine if the primary judge's decision to continue the proceedings even though the mother walked out was erroneous.

The court held that the primary judge's disclosure was sufficiently timely and did not establish grounds for recusal. The court also held that the mother's allegation of procedural unfairness was not established. The court further held that the primary judge's decision to continue the proceedings was not erroneous as he had given the mother an opportunity to finish cross-examining the expert witness and had warned her of the risks of withdrawing from the case. The mother's failure to establish appellate error resulted in the court ordering her to pay the father's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed and the mother was ordered to pay the father's costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or assessed. The mother was also ordered to pay the costs due from her share of property received from the property settlement proceedings.