HUNEAULT v HUNEAULT, 2021 ABCA 203
MARTIN, STREKAF AND ANTONIO JJA
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
4.13: Appointment of case management judge
4.14: Authority of case management judge
A Case Management Judge was appointed to manage a high conflict divorce, where the focus of the dispute was on spousal support and the division of the matrimonial property. After the Trial it was determined that the division of the sale proceeds for the Respondent’s corporation had been miscalculated, which resulted in an overpayment to the Appellant.
The Respondent brought an Application to the Case Management Judge to resolve the overpayment post-Trial. The Appellant argued that the Case Management Judge lacked jurisdiction to decide the overpayment issue. The Case Management Judge disagreed and found that he had the authority pursuant to Rules 4.14 and 4.13. The Case Management Judge found that the error in calculating was obvious and undisputable, ordering a correction. He also ordered Costs payable to the Respondent.
The Appellant appealed the Decision of the Case Management Judge, alleging that he exceeded his authority and arguing that a second Trial should have been ordered. The Court of Appeal found that the Case Management Judge properly exercised his role and resolved the matter in a timely and cost-effective way pursuant to Rules 1.2 and 4.14. The Appeal was dismissed.View CanLII Details