r v. Snelgrove, 2017 NLCA 3

Claire Louise Butler (applicant/appellant) v. Norman Graham Snelgrove (respondent) (14/83 and 14/89) Indexed As: Butler v. Snelgrove 2017 NLCA 3 1 C.A.N.L.R. 411 Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador Welsh, White and Hoegg JJ.A. January 19, 2017

Summary: The appellant, who had a pending appeal of a family matter in the Court, applied to transfer proceedings from this Court to the Alberta Court of Appeal based on her allegations of institutional and personal bias and discrimination by the courts of this Province. Held: Application dismissed. Welsh J.A. (White and Hoegg JJ.A. concurring): The Trial Division had jurisdiction over the matter. Once a Trial Division decision is rendered, an appeal of that decision lies to the appellate court of this Province.

A court of appeal has no jurisdiction to transfer the hearing of an appeal to the court of appeal of another province. If the appellant is dissatisfied with the result handed down by this Court disposing of her appeal, she has the option of applying for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The application was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay costs of the application to the respondent. Cases cited: T.Y. v. A.M. , 2013 NLCA 48, 358 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 206 Cabana v.

Newfoundland and Labrador , 2016 NLCA 75 Counsel: Appearing on her own behalf, the applicant/appellant; Appearing on his own behalf, the respondent. This application was heard on January 17, 2017 before Welsh, White and Hoegg JJ.A. The following judgment was delivered on January 19, 2017 by Welsh J.A. for the Court. ______________________________________________________________

Welsh J.A.: [ 1 ] Claire Butler has filed notices of appeal regarding decisions made by judges of the Supreme Court, Trial Division. Her appeals are pending. In the meantime, she filed an application, affidavit and submissions setting out requests for the transfer of her appeals from this Court to the Alberta Court of Appeal based on her allegations of institutional and personal bias and discrimination by the courts of this Province. In particular: This is notice that the Appellant applies for a court order that changes jurisdiction from Newfoundland to Alberta.

Subject matter of the application: That the Applicant requests a change of jurisdiction due to bias, discrimination and a presumption in favor of the Respondent in the courts of Newfoundland. … The Applicant requests that all further litigation regarding the Applicant and the Respondent be heard in the courts of Alberta.

That the appeals initiated by the Applicant in the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland shall be heard in Alberta. … As a result of this clear institutional bias, the best interests of justice are served by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador recusing itself and asking the Attorney General to refer the case to another jurisdiction for adjudication. [ 2 ] Prior to the hearing of Ms. Butler’s application, the decision in T.Y. v. A.M. , 2013 NLCA 48, 358 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 206, was brought to her attention by notice from the Court registry.

Her attention was specifically drawn to paragraph 5 which deals with a similar request to this Court from a litigant in Manitoba. Regarding the jurisdiction of an appellant to have an appeal transferred to the Manitoba Court of Appeal for hearing, this Court explained: [5] The general tenor of A.M.'s correspondence to the Court was that he did not want to have anything to do with this Court, which he referred to as a kangaroo court, and which, as noted above, he maintained discriminated against persons of black ancestry.

For this reason, A.M. sent a communication to the registry requesting that his appeal be heard by the Manitoba Court of Appeal. However, it is clear that an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division in this Province must be heard by this Court.

Section 30 of the Children's Law Act , RSNL 1990, c. C-13, which authorizes the court to "decline to exercise its jurisdiction where it is of the opinion that it is more appropriate for jurisdiction to be exercised outside the province", applies at the trial stage. Once a Trial Division decision is rendered, an appeal of that decision lies to the appellate court of this Province . As to jurisdiction of the Trial Division, there is clearly a valid basis for exercising jurisdiction over the matter where the mother and child have been resident in this Province since before the child's birth.

Finally, I note, some days prior to the hearing, A.M. indicated that he did not want the Court to have any further contact with him. (Emphasis added.) [ 3 ] Stated more generally, an appeal from a decision of a judge of the trial division of any province lies only to the appeal court of that province. Moreover, a court of appeal has no jurisdiction to transfer the hearing of an appeal to the court of appeal of another province. [ 4 ] Ms. Butler has the right, which she has exercised, to appeal a decision of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division to this Court.

If she is dissatisfied with the result handed down by this Court disposing of her appeal, she has the option of applying for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 5 ] Accordingly, I would dismiss Ms. Butler’s application. In the circumstances, given that this application had no possibility of success, I would order Ms. Butler to pay costs of the application to Mr. Snelgrove under column 1 of the scale of costs (rule 58 of the Court of Appeal Rules ; Cabana v. Newfoundland and Labrador , 2016 NLCA 75 ). Application dismissed .