I had the privilege of successfully arguing a case before the Alberta Court of Appeal earlier this month. We were able to set-aside a decision of a Court of Queen's Bench Justice where no interim spousal support was ordered. In a unanimous 3-0 decision, Mr. Justice Cote, O'Farrell & Wakeling allowed our appeal and awarded an interim payment of $5,000.00 per month with a lump sum payment of $25,000.00 for retroactive support and costs in our favour.
The Respondent had hung its hat on an argument that can be distilled down to: the record has conflicting evidence and some credibility issues arose in cross-examination, therefore no support can flow until a hearing with live evidence has occurred. They placed reliance on the Charles v. Young case from the Alberta Court of Appeal. The logic behind this argument is flawed, particularly in family law proceedings. If the Respondent's line of reasoning was accepted, every payor spouse would raise this issue to avoid paying interim support. Mr. Justice O'Farrell pointed this out to the Respondent's counsel who did not have a satisfactory response for the Court.
We countered the Respondent's position by citing a litany of cases that had made awards or determinations on undisputed facts. My position was that on an application of the undisputed facts an interim award ought to have been made. The Court of Appeal agreed.
A few years ago during a bar call for a student at our firm, Justice C.M. Jones advised the student that good legal work takes time, and if you found the answer too quickly, you likely missed the point. I always remembered that advice, however, I only fully understood the meaning Mr. Justice C.M. Jones' advice to our student after this appellate work. The number of hours and preparation was exhausting. The drafts and re-drafts of the factum likely drove my assistant nuts. But it was a very worthwhile experience.
The experience also reminded me of the importance of good mentorship and the value of working in a quality firm. Firstly, I was able to confer and seek valuable advice from Norm Machida, QC, Markham Silver, QC and Vic Vogel, QC, who together have over 100 years experience at the bar. Secondly, I had a number colleagues in my office that acted as "fresh eyes" that were able to help me tweak my written materials. Without the mentorship and help of the members of my firm it is likely that I would have been a lot less prepared than I was.
My client was in dire need of relief. It was a great and rewarding feeling to be able to help her out.
The Respondent had hung its hat on an argument that can be distilled down to: the record has conflicting evidence and some credibility issues arose in cross-examination, therefore no support can flow until a hearing with live evidence has occurred. They placed reliance on the Charles v. Young case from the Alberta Court of Appeal. The logic behind this argument is flawed, particularly in family law proceedings. If the Respondent's line of reasoning was accepted, every payor spouse would raise this issue to avoid paying interim support. Mr. Justice O'Farrell pointed this out to the Respondent's counsel who did not have a satisfactory response for the Court.
We countered the Respondent's position by citing a litany of cases that had made awards or determinations on undisputed facts. My position was that on an application of the undisputed facts an interim award ought to have been made. The Court of Appeal agreed.
A few years ago during a bar call for a student at our firm, Justice C.M. Jones advised the student that good legal work takes time, and if you found the answer too quickly, you likely missed the point. I always remembered that advice, however, I only fully understood the meaning Mr. Justice C.M. Jones' advice to our student after this appellate work. The number of hours and preparation was exhausting. The drafts and re-drafts of the factum likely drove my assistant nuts. But it was a very worthwhile experience.
The experience also reminded me of the importance of good mentorship and the value of working in a quality firm. Firstly, I was able to confer and seek valuable advice from Norm Machida, QC, Markham Silver, QC and Vic Vogel, QC, who together have over 100 years experience at the bar. Secondly, I had a number colleagues in my office that acted as "fresh eyes" that were able to help me tweak my written materials. Without the mentorship and help of the members of my firm it is likely that I would have been a lot less prepared than I was.
My client was in dire need of relief. It was a great and rewarding feeling to be able to help her out.