DOROSHENKO v VILLANUEVA

The Appellant appealed a decision of a Chambers Judge who was sitting on an appeal from a trial decision of the Court of Justice in respect of parenting (the “Trial Decision”). The Chambers Judge had rejected the Appellant's grounds of appeal but went on to identify three additional grounds for overturning the Trial Decision not raised by the Appellant. Based on these new grounds, the Chambers Judge set aside the Trial Decision and substituted a new shared parenting arrangement.

The Court of Appeal held that the Chambers Judge erred in enumerating additional grounds without considering the Court's jurisdiction to raise a new issue or giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions. In any event, the Court of Appeal held that the standard for intervention was not met. Further, the Court of Appeal stated that the Chambers Judge had incorrectly concluded that the Court had no authority to send the matter back to trial for a new hearing, despite this authority being set out in Rule 12.70(d).

The Court of Appeal reinstated the Trial Decision and awarded costs to the Appellant pursuant to Rule 14.88.