Lafreniere v. Bulloch,
Jurisdiction | Manitoba |
Judge | Rivoalen |
Neutral Citation | 2015 MBQB 10 |
Citation | (2015), 313 Man.R.(2d) 100 (QBFD),2015 MBQB 10,313 ManR(2d) 100,(2015), 313 ManR(2d) 100 (QBFD),313 Man.R.(2d) 100 |
Date | 16 January 2015 |
Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada) |
Lafreniere v. Bulloch (2015), 313 Man.R.(2d) 100 (QBFD)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.011
Kayla Jolene Lafreniere (petitioner) v. Clinton James Bulloch (respondent)
(FD 11-15-03920; 2015 MBQB 10)
Indexed As: Lafreniere v. Bulloch
Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench
Family Division
Thompson Centre
Rivoalen, A./A.C.J.
January 16, 2015.
Summary:
The wife obtained a without notice protection order under the Domestic Violence and Stalking Act. The husband applied to set the protection order aside. After two days of trial in October 2014, the wife had one remaining witness to call. The trial was to continue in January 2015. In November 2014, the wife applied for a prevention order and moved to join the application with the husband's application to set aside the protection order.
The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, granted the joinder motion.
Practice - Topic 4122
Joinder of causes and consolidations - Consolidation of actions and applications or motions - When available - The wife obtained a without notice protection order under the Domestic Violence and Stalking Act - The husband applied to set the protection order aside - After two days of trial in October 2014, the wife had one remaining witness to call - The trial was to continue in January 2015 - In November 2014, the wife applied for a prevention order and moved to join the application with the husband's application to set aside the protection order - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, granted the joinder motion - There was a strong presumption in favour of joinder of related claims - The wife was prepared to have the evidence already called apply mutatis mutandis to the prevention order application - There was no prejudice to the husband - The joinder would avoid unnecessary trial time and legal costs - It also provided the court with greater flexibility to make an appropriate order.
Cases Noticed:
Gilbart v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. et al. (2003), 179 Man.R.(2d) 43; 2003 MBQB 247, refd to. [para. 13].
Hryniak v. Mauldin (2014), 453 N.R. 51; 314 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 20].
Counsel:
Laurelle A. Harris, for the petitioner;
Gerald S. Ashcroft, for the respondent.
This motion was heard by Rivoalen, A./A.C.J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Thompson Centre, who delivered the following judgment orally on January 16, 2015.
To continue reading
Request your trial