J.P. v. K.S.

J.P. v. K.S.

The registrar did not err in principle in refusing to limit transcripts because the issues on appeal are fact‑rich, involve credibility and mixed questions of law and fact, and the division must be able to review the full oral record to determine whether the trial judge's findings were supportable; registrar's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2023 BCCA 408
Parties
Appellant: J.P.; Respondent: K.S.
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal (variation of Registrar's Order) / Interlocutory Application to Vary Registrar's Order Under S.35(2) of the Court of Appeal Act
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Transcript Disclosure, Limitation of Transcript Contents, Credibility Findings, Abuse of Process, Standard of Review for Registrar's Discretionary Decisions, Relocation and Parenting
Source Language
english
Family Law Appellate Procedure Civil Procedure Evidence Transcript Disclosure Limitation of Transcript Contents Credibility Findings Abuse of Process +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.P.

Appellant

K.S.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (variation of Registrar's Order) / Interlocutory Application to Vary Registrar's Order Under S.35(2) of the Court of Appeal Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registrar erred in refusing to limit the required oral transcripts for the appeal
  2. 2 Whether the issues on appeal are purely legal or involve mixed fact and law requiring full transcripts
  3. 3 Whether the registrar misapplied Court of Appeal Rules and the standard of review applicable to registrar's discretionary decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The registrar did not err in principle in refusing to limit transcripts because the issues on appeal are fact‑rich, involve credibility and mixed questions of law and fact, and the division must be able to review the full oral record to determine whether the trial judge's findings were supportable; registrar's discretionary decision attracts high deference and was within his authority under the Rules and s.35(2) of the Court of Appeal Act.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • Dismissal of the application to vary the registrar's order limiting transcript contents.
  • All oral transcripts must be filed as ordered by the registrar; transcript and appeal record submission date set by the registrar of January 15, 2024.