A.N.H. v. L.D.G.

A.N.H. v. L.D.G.

Both preliminary applications were dismissed because the claimant's requests were dilatory and characteristic of vexatious litigation, prior rulings had already addressed recusal and adjournment, the court properly exercised its case management discretion given prior contempt and vexatious litigant findings, and any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 BCSC 2001
Parties
Claimant: A.N.H.; Respondent: L.D.G.; Intervenor: FMEP
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Spousal and Child Support Variation / Preliminary Applications (adjournment and Recusal) on First Day of an Eight Day Hearing
Outcome
Both preliminary applications dismissed; the Variation Application shall proceed
Legal Topics
Support Variation, Adjournment, Recusal / Apprehension of Bias, Vexatious Litigant, Contempt
Source Language
english
Family Law Civil Procedure Judicial Recusal Contempt of Court Support Variation Adjournment Recusal / Apprehension of Bias Vexatious Litigant +1 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.N.H.

Claimant

L.D.G.

Respondent

FMEP

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Spousal and Child Support Variation / Preliminary Applications (adjournment and Recusal) on First Day of an Eight Day Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Variation Application should be adjourned to permit the claimant to seek leave and appeal prior orders
  2. 2 Whether the presiding judge should recuse himself for apprehension of bias
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's conduct amounts to vexatious litigation warranting denial of relief

Ratio Decidendi

Both preliminary applications were dismissed because the claimant's requests were dilatory and characteristic of vexatious litigation, prior rulings had already addressed recusal and adjournment, the court properly exercised its case management discretion given prior contempt and vexatious litigant findings, and any challenge to recusal should be pursued on appeal after final disposition rather than by adjournment of the current hearing.

Court Disposition

Both preliminary applications dismissed; the Variation Application shall proceed

Orders

  • Preliminary applications for adjournment and recusal dismissed
  • The eight-day Variation Application to proceed subject to directions from the court