Predie v. Sprenger
The appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal deferred to the motion judge's factual finding that compliance was imperfect but not deliberate or wilful and found no basis to interfere.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 ONCA 783
- Parties
- Applicant/appellant: Daniel Gary Predie; Respondent: Deborah Winifred Sprenger
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 November 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Motion Dismissal (order of Superior Court of Justice Dated March 27, 2014)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Compliance With Court Order, Standard of Review, Deference to Findings of Fact
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Daniel Gary Predie
Applicant/appellant
Deborah Winifred Sprenger
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Motion Dismissal (order of Superior Court of Justice Dated March 27, 2014)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion judge erred in finding no deliberate or wilful violation of the order
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal should interfere with the motion judge's factual findings
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal deferred to the motion judge's factual finding that compliance was imperfect but not deliberate or wilful and found no basis to interfere.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Predie v. Sprenger Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-11-06 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 783 Docket numbers C58741 Judges Doherty, David H.; Epstein, Gloria Jean; Tulloch, Michael H. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Predie v. Sprenger, 2014 ONCA 783 DATE: 20141105 DOCKET: C58741 Doherty, Epstein and Tulloch JJ.A. BETWEEN Daniel Gary Predie Applicant (Appellant) and Deborah Winifred Sprenger Respondent (Respondent) Daniel Predie, acting in person Deborah Sprenger, acting in person Heard: October 31, 2014 On appeal from the order of Justice John R. McCarthy of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 27, 2014. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We see no reason to interfere with the dismissal of the motion. The motion judge correctly identified the controlling authority. He found as a fact that while compliance was “imperfect” there was no “deliberate or wilful” violation of the order. We defer to that finding. The appeal is dismissed.