Baldwin v. Baldwin, 2011 NLCA 28

Date: 20110503 Docket: 10/55 Citation: Baldwin v. Baldwin , 2011 NLCA 28 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN : GLENDA BALDWIN APPELLANT AND : LLOYD BALDWIN RESPONDENT Coram: Welsh, J.A.

Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (General) Happy Valley – Goose Bay 200808T0118 Application Heard: May 3, 2011 Decision Rendered: May 3, 2011 Memorandum of Disposition Filed: May 4, 2011 Counsel for the Appellant: Jeffery MacDonald Counsel for the Respondent: Kenneth Moyse MEMORANDUM OF DISPOSITION Welsh, J.A.: [ 1 ] Glenda Baldwin applied to have the date of deemed abandonment of her appeal extended pursuant to rule 57.20(9) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 .

At the hearing, the application was denied. [ 2 ] The appeal relates to an interlocutory order regarding division of assets on dissolution of the parties’ marriage. An application for leave to appeal, required by rule 57.02(1), was filed on April 23, 2010. At issue was an order of the Trial Division regarding payment, to be shared equally by the parties, for an appraisal of two properties to be sold. Counsel for Lloyd Baldwin advised this Court that there had been a misunderstanding by his client regarding when payment of his share was required to be made.

There was a subsequent application to the Trial Division and a new date was set. Mr. Baldwin complied with the order. Counsel indicated that the money was accepted by Ms. Baldwin’s counsel, but that her share was never paid. The appraiser refused to release the appraisal pending payment in full.

[ 3 ] The notice for leave to appeal set out three grounds: 1. That the trial judge erred in law by amending the initial interim order upon an interim application by Mr. Baldwin; 2. That the trial judge erred in law by proceeding with the application when it had been served with only two clear days notice; and 3. That the trial judge erred in law by proceeding with the application in the absence of Mr. and Ms. Baldwin. [ 4 ] Since the application for leave to appeal was filed, no steps have been taken to pursue the appeal. Interlocutory applications should, of necessity, be dealt with expeditiously.

That did not occur in this case. Counsel for Ms. Baldwin provided no explanation for the delay or, indeed, any basis for proceeding at this late stage. Counsel for Mr. Baldwin advised that there are other matrimonial assets to be divided and that settlement proceedings are commencing. [ 5 ] In the circumstances, given the nature of the proposed appeal, the actions of the parties, particularly compliance with the amended order by Mr. Baldwin, Ms.

Baldwin’s failure to take any steps to pursue the leave to appeal and appeal within a reasonable period of time, and a consideration of the order in the context of the broader issue of division of the matrimonial assets as a whole, to extend the date of deemed abandonment would not serve the interests of the parties or of justice. Accordingly, the request to extend the date of deemed abandonment was denied. [ 6 ] In accordance with the position of the parties, there was no order as to costs. _________________________________ B. G. Welsh, J.A.