Swefford & Tarbell

In the matter of Swefford & Tarbell, the Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the decisions made by the trial judge regarding the appointment of a single expert witness in a family law dispute. The central issue in the appeal was the alleged errors of fact made by the trial judge, which the mother argued were significant enough to warrant appellate intervention. The mother contested several findings of fact, including the trial judge’s conclusion that she opposed the appointment of Associate Professor Q, that she had supported Dr R as an appropriate expert, that the court would need to force Associate Professor Q to undertake the report, and that she had made a novel suggestion regarding the responsibility for the final report writing.

The Court of Appeal considered each of the grounds of appeal individually. It held that the trial judge’s finding that the mother opposed the appointment of Associate Professor Q was open to him based on the evidence, and the mother had not established that this finding was erroneous. The court also found that even if the trial judge had made a factual error in concluding that the mother had supported Dr R as an appropriate expert, this error did not require appellate intervention as the outcome was plainly right. Regarding the assertion that the trial judge would need to force Associate Professor Q to undertake the report, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge’s comment was apt and not a factual error. Finally, the court determined that the mother’s submission about the responsibility for the final report writing was more an expression of hope than evidence, and thus, the trial judge’s findings in this regard were not erroneous.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found that none of the alleged errors of fact were sufficient to merit appellate intervention, and thus dismissed the appeal. The findings of the trial judge were upheld as they were either correct or, in the case of minor factual errors, did not affect the outcome of the case.