2013 NBCA 46, 2013 NBCA 46

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 125-12-CA H.T. (Petitioner) APPELLANT H.T. (Requérant) APPELANT - and - - et - S.S. (Respondent) RESPONDENT S.S. (Intimé

e) INTIMÉE H.T. v. S.S., 2013 NBCA 46 H.T. c.

S.S., 2013 NBCA 46 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Bell The Honourable Justice Quigg CORAM : L’honorable juge Larlee L’honorable juge Bell L’honorable juge Quigg Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: June 22 and August 13, 2012 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Les 22 juin et 13 août 2012 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: Unreported Décision frappée d’appel : Inédite Preliminary or incidental proceedings: Court of Queen’s Bench: 2010 NBQB 312 2012 NBQB 205 Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : Cour du Banc de la Reine : 2010 NBBR 312 2012 NBBR 205 Appeal heard: May 28, 2013 Appel entendu : Le 28 mai 2013

Judgment rendered: July 25, 2013 Jugement rendu : Le 25 juillet 2013 Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: H.T. appeared in person For the respondent: S.S. appeared in person Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelant : H.T. a comparu en personne Pour l’intimée : S.S. a comparu en personne THE COURT The appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to disbursements in the amount of $180.00.

The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [ 1 ] This appeal, which was dismissed from the bench, is but one step on the legal journey the parties have been travelling since 2003, the year in which a petition for their divorce was filed. [ 2 ] On June 1, 2012, S.S., in anticipation of receiving mortgage funding on property owned by her, brought a motion, seeking, among other things, a reconciliation of accounts as between her and H.T.

That reconciliation related to arrears of spousal and child support and special expenses payable by H.T. to S.S., and a marital property differential payment payable by S.S. to H.T. The amounts to be reconciled were based upon the order of Tuck J. made on October 12, 2010.

In addition to the order seeking reconciliation of accounts, S.S. requested the motion judge interpret the order of Tuck J. as it relates to the parties’ proportionate share of Blue Cross medical insurance premiums. [ 3 ] It appears all matters, with the exception of each party’s contribution to the Blue Cross premiums, were satisfactorily disposed of in the course of the motion hearing. In response to several requests for information by H.T., the motion judge directed counsel for S.S. at the hearing to provide information to H.T. At the close of the hearing, the motion judge stated: THE COURT: […] so Ms.

Parish has some work she’s got to do for you and she will make sure that the documents get to you and, in addition, I will deal with this one issue and I will get it back to you before the end of the week. [Trial transcript – p. 55] The “one issue” to which the motion judge referred was the calculation of the parties’ proportionate share of the Blue Cross premiums.

[ 4 ] At the outset of the hearing of this appeal, H.T. indicated he agreed with the motion judge’s decision as it relates to the Blue Cross premiums. He added, however, that he takes issue with the determination of the arrears of spousal and child support based upon an alleged $1,424.00 mathematical error made by Tuck J. at paragraph 527 of his 2010 decision. That alleged overpayment of $1,424.00 constitutes part of a $98,215.00 total. H.T. submitted the motion judge could not be correct if his calculations and reconciliations were based upon erroneous information contained in Tuck J.’s decision. [ 5 ] We disagree with H.T.’s position and would note the following:

a) It would be impossible to characterize the tabulation found at paragraph 527 of Tuck J.’s decision as a true error without first reading the complete transcript of the 2010 hearing and reviewing the exhibits. This would be necessary in order to determine whether one component of the calculation was simply overlooked in the

summary provided by Tuck J. as he neared the close of his decision;

b) Tuck J.’s order was final. H.T. did not appeal that decision, nor did he bring an application under the slip rule (Rule 60.03(5)(a)) to correct any error;

c) The alleged mathematical error was not raised by H.T. before the motion judge; and

d) The final order made by the motion judge dated August 20, 2012, refers only to the issue of the Blue Cross premiums and the continuation of the spousal support at $1,200.00 per month. H.T. appeals from neither of those two rulings. Given all of the above, it is evident this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised by H.T.

For these reasons, and the admissions made by H.T. before the motion judge and this Court, we dismissed the appeal. [ 6 ] Although it is not this Court’s practice to order costs when the parties are self-represented, there is authority to award both costs and disbursements to self-represented individuals in appropriate cases: Proenca v. Squires Home Improvements and Total Renovations Ltd. , 2001 NBCA 45 , 252 N.B.R. (2d) 274 and McNichol v. Co-operators General Insurance Co ., 2006 NBCA 54 , 298 N.B.R. (2d) 44. S.S. was required to travel from Saint John to Fredericton to attend a hearing on a frivolous matter.

We are of the view she is entitled to disbursements to cover her mileage and meals and order H.T. to pay disbursements of $180.00. _______________________________ M.E.L. LARLEE, J.A. _______________________________ B. RICHARD BELL, J.A. _______________________________ KATHLEEN A. QUIGG, J.A.