2018 NLCA 29, 2018 NLCA 29

Edward Gellately (appellant/respondent) v. Cynthia Gellately (respondent/applicant) (17/90) Indexed As: Gellately v. Gellately 2018 NLCA 29 2 C.A.N.L.R. 770 Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador Welsh J.A. May 9, 2018

Summary: The respondent in a family matter appeal applied for an order for security for costs. Held: Application dismissed as premature with leave to re-apply at a later date. Welsh J.A: At the hearing, it became apparent that the respondent was concerned with the failure of the administrators of Mr. Gellately’s pensions to proceed with division of the pensions, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court judge.

Since the appellant confirmed that he is not challenging the Supreme Court decision regarding division of pensions and agreed with the Court making an order that the pensions’ administrators would proceed without delay with division of the pensions without requiring his signature, that order was made and the application for security for costs was dismissed as premature with leave to re-apply. Counsel: Appearing on his own behalf, the appellant/respondent; Caitlin Urquhart, for the respondent/applicant. This application was heard and decision rendered orally on May 8, 2018 by Welsh J.A.

The following Memorandum of Disposition was filed on May 9, 2018 by Welsh J.A. ______________________________________________________________ Welsh J.A.: [ 1 ] Cynthia Gellately applied for an order for security for costs in an appeal brought by Edward Gellately. At the hearing, there was much discussion regarding the difficulties the parties are encountering. However, it became apparent that the focus of Ms. Gellately’s concern is the failure of the administrators of Mr. Gellately’s pensions to proceed with division of the pensions in accordance with the Pension Benefits Act , 1997 , SNL 1996, c.

P-4.01, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court judge. Mr. Gellately’s appeal is the rationale provided by the pensions’ administrators for failure to proceed with the division. [ 2 ] At the hearing, Mr. Gellately confirmed several times that he is not challenging the portion of the Supreme Court decision regarding division of his pensions. However, he said that he has not provided the signature required by the pensions’ administrators before the division could proceed because he wanted to see the calculations first. [ 3 ] Ultimately, Mr.

Gellately agreed with the Court making an order that the pensions’ administrators would proceed, without delay, to make the necessary calculations and proceed, again without delay, with division of the pensions, and that his signature would not be required. Accordingly, that order was made. [ 4 ] In the circumstances, counsel for Ms. Gellately conceded that the application for security for costs was premature. Accordingly, I dismissed the application with leave to make the application at a later date should that be necessary and appropriate. Costs of the

application will be costs in the cause. Application dismissed .