P.H. et al. v. L.T., (2014) 347 N.S.R.(2d) 117 (SC)

• Judge: Jollimore, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: June 16, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2014), 347 N.S.R.(2d) 117 (SC);2014 NSSC 221

P.H. v. L.T. (2014), 347 N.S.R.(2d) 117 (SC);

    1098 A.P.R. 117

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.052

P.H. and R.H. (applicants) v. L.T. (respondent)

(SFHMCA-084320; 2014 NSSC 221)

Indexed As: P.H. et al. v. L.T.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Family Division

Jollimore, J.

June 23, 2014.

Summary:

This case involved custody of a child (D). The applicants, the child's father and grandmother, applied for custody of D. At the hearing, the respondent, D's mother, failed to attend. The respondent's counsel requested an adjournment. The application judge denied the adjournment and granted joint custody to the applicants. The respondent applied for reconsideration of the dismissal of the request for an adjournment.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, dismissed the application.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Family Law - Topic 2096

Custody and access - The hearing - Adjournments - This case involved custody of a child (D) - The applicants, the child's father and grandmother, applied for custody of D - At the hearing, the respondent, D's mother, failed to attend - The respondent's counsel requested an adjournment - The application judge denied the adjournment and granted joint custody to the applicants for a number of reasons - First, the applicants had pursued resolution of the application diligently, through numerous conferences and two adjournments - Second, the respondent did not show herself to be engaged in the court process - Third, D was eight years old - It had been almost two years since he had lived with his mother and he had had little contact with her despite orders for access - The application judge concluded that the best interests of the child did not favour the adjournment - The respondent applied for reconsideration of the dismissal of the request for an adjournment - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 5067

Conduct of trial - Adjournments - Circumstances when request for adjournment refused - [See Family Law - Topic 2096 ].

Practice - Topic 5075

Conduct of trial - Adjournments - Review of decision to refuse adjournment - [See Family Law - Topic 2096 ].

Cases Noticed:

Moore et al. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co. (1999), 177 N.S.R.(2d) 269; 542 A.P.R. 269; 1999 CanLII 7248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Sidoroff v. Joe (1992), 21 B.C.A.C. 192; 37 W.A.C. 192; 1992 CanLII 1815 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

MacLellan v. MacDonald (2010), 290 N.S.R.(2d) 317; 920 A.P.R. 317; 2010 NSCA 34, refd to. [para. 17].

McMullin-Mullin v. Henley (2013), 332 N.S.R.(2d) 130; 1052 A.P.R. 130; 2013 NSCA 85, refd to. [para. 17].

Counsel:

Mark Bailey, for P.H.;

Christopher M. White, for R.H.;

David A. Grant, for L.T.

This application was heard at Halifax, N.S., on June 16, 2014, by Jollimore, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, who delivered the following decision on June 23, 2014.