Suiter & Suiter

The appellant sought leave to appeal from orders made by the Family Court regarding child support and property distribution. The trial judge had made orders regarding the calculation of child support and the division of property between the parties, which the appellant contested on several grounds. The appellant argued that the orders were inconsistent with previous orders, were based on unsupported findings, and were made considering irrelevant matters. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the trial judge failed to apply relevant statutory provisions and did not provide sufficient reasons for her decisions.

The court considered the grounds of appeal and found that there was no merit in any of them. The court found that the orders made by the trial judge were consistent with the evidence and the law, and that the trial judge had properly exercised her discretion. The court held that the trial judge had given adequate reasons for her decisions and had applied the relevant statutory provisions correctly. The court also found that the appellant's application to adduce further evidence was conditional on the success of the appeal, and since the appeal had no merit, there was no need to allow the further evidence.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the application to adduce further evidence. The court also ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal on a party/party basis, to be assessed in default of agreement. The court found that there were circumstances justifying an order for costs in the respondent's favour, but there was no basis to order indemnity costs. This decision highlights the importance of providing adequate reasons for decisions in family law cases and the need for parties to properly challenge orders in a timely manner.