Irwin v. Irwin

Irwin v. Irwin

The hearing was not adjourned because on balance the best interests of the children and efficient administration of court resources outweighed prejudice to the self‑represented respondent; the respondent's affidavit relied on hearsay and lacked admissible evidence to substantiate suspension of access, justifying striking portions and granting consolidation; costs for the motions to strike and consolidate were fixed at $300 in any event of the cause payable at the end of the proceeding, while costs relating to the access motion were left in the cause.

Citation
2013 NSSC 339
Parties
Petitioner: Gerald Scott Irwin; Respondent: Kimberly Joan Irwin
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Law Divorce and Maintenance and Custody Act Proceedings / Interim Motions Hearing
Outcome
Motions by Gerald Irwin granted in part: consolidation and motion to strike granted; adjournment refused; access motion disposed in favor of applicant with costs for that motion reserved as costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Interim Orders, Adjournment, Affidavit Hearsay, Motion to Strike, Consolidation, Parenting Arrangements, Costs Assessment, Administration of Justice
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Child Protection Interim Orders Adjournment Affidavit Hearsay Motion to Strike Consolidation +3 more

Case Brief

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerald Scott Irwin

Petitioner

Kimberly Joan Irwin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Divorce and Maintenance and Custody Act Proceedings / Interim Motions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to adjourn the interim motion hearing to allow the self‑represented respondent more time
  2. 2 Admissibility and effect of hearsay in respondent's affidavit and whether portions should be struck
  3. 3 Whether consolidation of the divorce and Maintenance and Custody Act proceedings should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing was not adjourned because on balance the best interests of the children and efficient administration of court resources outweighed prejudice to the self‑represented respondent; the respondent's affidavit relied on hearsay and lacked admissible evidence to substantiate suspension of access, justifying striking portions and granting consolidation; costs for the motions to strike and consolidate were fixed at $300 in any event of the cause payable at the end of the proceeding, while costs relating to the access motion were left in the cause.

Court Disposition

Motions by Gerald Irwin granted in part: consolidation and motion to strike granted; adjournment refused; access motion disposed in favor of applicant with costs for that motion reserved as costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Consolidation of the divorce proceeding with the Maintenance and Custody Act proceeding ordered
  • Portions of the respondent's April 23, 2013 affidavit struck as inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant