The Appellant appealed two decisions made at Trial in the Court of Justice. The Trial involved the parties’ dispute over parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support following their separation. The Appellant argued, among other things, that the support claims were not properly before the Court due to deficient pleadings and that the Trial Judge erred in granting relief that was not pleaded, alleging that the Trial Judge was biased and treated him unfairly.

Eamon J. emphasized that granting relief not pleaded is an error of law and can cause unfairness; however, express or implied consent can cure pleading defects where procedural fairness is otherwise maintained. The Respondent had filed a cross-claim but did not serve it on the Appellant in time. There were two versions of the cross-claim: the court filed version (blue ink) which ticked only the child support box and the Respondent’s version (black ink) which ticked both child and partner support. The Appellant claimed he was never served with the black ink version and was unaware of any support claims, however, an Order before the Trial referred the partner and child support claims to trial, both parties filed trial readiness forms which listed the claims, and the Appellant participated in proceedings dealing with the claims but did not object until late in the Trial.

The Court determined that although the original pleading was technically defective, the Trial Judge was correct in hearing and deciding the support claims at Trial because the Parties were aware of the issues well in advance of going to Trial and the Appellant and his counsel prepared for and responded to the support claims. Eamon J. found there was no procedural unfairness, and that the Appellant was not surprised or prejudiced. Further, any procedural defect was cured by the Appellant’s conduct and implied consent.

Additionally, the Court acknowledged that the Trial Judge had the power to both extend time for service of pleadings and to amend pleadings unless there was a compelling reason not to. Although the Trial Judge did not formally amend the pleadings, the Trial Judge had accepted that the support claims were validly commenced.

The Trial Judge, while giving verbal reasons in concluding on the date that the Appellant had notice of the support claims, had misstated and reversed the black ink and blue ink copies of the cross-claims. Eamon J. found it was a harmless misstatement and that it did not affect the outcome because the Trial Judge had already acknowledged that the claims were formally before the Court during the Trial. Justice Eamon cited Rule 14.75(2), which allows an appellate court to dismiss an appeal despite a harmless error, so long as no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice resulted, and the decision would have been the same notwithstanding the error.

The Court concluded that the claims were formally before the Trial Judge and that it was not an error of law to adjudicate them. Additionally, the record did not support the Appellant’s allegations of bias and unfair treatment. Justice Eamon determined that none of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal were substantiated and dismissed the Appeal.