Sudmant v. Campbell, (1991) 5 B.C.A.C. 310 (CA)

• Judge: Locke, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 14, 1991
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1991), 5 B.C.A.C. 310 (CA)

Sudmant v. Campbell (1991), 5 B.C.A.C. 310 (CA);

    11 W.A.C. 310

MLB headnote and full text

Sandra Ruth Sudmant (petitioner/respondent) v. Anthony Peter Campbell (respondent/appellant)

(V01337)

Indexed As: Sudmant v. Campbell

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Locke, J.A.

October 1, 1991.

Summary:

A wife petitioned for divorce and a property settlement. In a 1990 judgment Hutchinson, J., enforced a property settlement arrived at by the solicitors for the husband and wife. The husband filed a notice of appeal. In 1991 Huddart, J., granted a divorce decree. An issue arose respecting whether the judgment of Hutchinson, J., was an interlocutory order, such that pursuant to s. 6.1 of the Court of Appeal Act, leave to appeal was required.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the judgment of Hutchinson, J., was interlocutory judgment, normally requiring leave to appeal. The court held however, that since the divorce matter was now final, the notice of appeal was valid.

Practice - Topic 5779

Judgments and orders - Interlocutory judgments - What constitute - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the test for what constitutes an interlocutory judgment or order - See paragraph 7.

Practice - Topic 5779

Judgments and orders - Interlocutory judgments - What constitute - A wife petitioned for divorce and for a property settlement - A property settlement reached by the solicitors for the husband and wife was enforced by a court judgment - The husband filed a notice of appeal - A divorce decree was thereafter granted by another judge - An issue arose respecting whether the property settlement judgment was an interlocutory judgment, such that the husband required leave to appeal pursuant to s. 6.1 of the Court of Appeal Act - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the property settlement judgment was an interlocutory judgment.

Cases Noticed:

McKenzie v. McKenzie, [1975] 4 W.W.R. 354, refd to. [para. 6].

Brouwer v. Inkameep Vineyards Ltd. (1987), 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 253, refd to. [para. 7].

British Columbia Government Employees Union v. Royal Canadian Legion (1989), 36 B.C.L.R.(2d) 308, refd to. [para. 7].

Hockin v. Bank of British Columbia (1989), 37 B.C.L.R.(2d) 139, agreed with [paras. 7, 13].

British Columbia Power Commission and Nanaimo-Duncan Utilities Ltd., Re., [1948] 1 W.W.R. 417; [1948] 2 D.L.R. 111, refd to. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 74, sect. 6.1 [para. 4].

Counsel:

A. Milne, for the appellant;

   J. Angus, for the respondent.

This matter was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on June 14, 1991, in Chambers, by Locke, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered orally the following decision on October 1, 1991.