Significant deference is typically accorded to trial judges in family law matters court
In a long-standing dispute between a formerly married couple, the NB Court of Appeal has dismissed the husband's cross-appeal concerning their divorce and asset division, emphasizing that an appeal is not a venue for re-litigating previously contested issues.
Initially, both parties contested the trial outcome, leading to the wife filing a Notice of Appeal and the husband a Notice of Cross-Appeal. The wife later discontinued her appeal, bringing the husband's grievances to the forefront.
Married in 1996 and separated in 2005, the couple's relationship was marked by disputes, leading to police interventions and a temporary foster care placement for their children. The primary legal contention revolved around the valuation date of the marital home for asset division, alongside minor disputes over marital debts and furniture.
Most Read
The husband sought to introduce new evidence, which the NB Court of Appeal found inadmissible due to its availability at the initial trial and lack of critical relevance to the appeal. Upholding principles from prior cases, the court emphasized the importance of evidence being both new and pivotal to the case's outcome.
The court noted that significant deference is typically accorded to trial judges in family law matters, allowing appellate intervention only for errors of law, principle, or significant evidence misapprehension. The court considered balanced and the trial judge's decision to value the marital home at the trial date rather than the date of separation, recognizing the significant time lapse since the couple's separation.
The husband also alleged ineffective legal representation and judicial bias, neither substantiated within proper procedural channels nor expanded upon sufficiently during the hearing.
The court also found that the trial judge's additional claims of factual or mixed fact and law errors, such as disagreements over credited renovation costs and the familial benefit of a debt incurred by the wife, were not supported by evidence of significant judicial error.
The appellate court affirmed the rule that the appeal is not a venue for re-litigating previously contested issues in hopes of a more favourable outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and no order of costs was made.
