Meadus v. Meadus, 2011 NLCA 46

Date: 20110617 Docket: 11/46 Citation: Meadus v. Meadus , 2011 NLCA 46 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN : SUZANNE MEADUS APPELLANT AND : CORY MEADUS RESPONDENT Coram: Welsh, Rowe and Hoegg, JJ.A.

Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Family Division 201002F0696 Appeal Heard: June 17, 2011 Judgment Rendered: June 17, 2011 (Orally) Memorandum of Disposition filed: June 28, 2011 Counsel for the Appellant: Daniel Glover Counsel for the Respondent: Self Represented MEMORANDUM OF DISPOSITION Hoegg, J.A.: [ 1 ] On May 4, 2011 Suzanne Meadus filed an Interlocutory Application (Ex Parte) in the Family Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Her Application sought the Court to order Cory Meadus to appear to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his alleged disregard of a court order to pay child support and make mortgage payments respecting a matrimonial home. [ 2 ] A judge of the Family Division appears to have dealt with the contempt application by way of affixing a note to it which states: “Elizabeth, I agree, matter should be dealt with through SEA by way of garnishment. Thank you.” The contempt application was not heard, and no decision, reasons or order were given to Ms. Meadus. Ms.

Meadus’ counsel was advised by an email from the Family Division registry that the Application had been dismissed.

[ 3 ] Ms. Meadus sought leave to appeal to this Court, and if granted, sought this Court to order Mr. Meadus to appear, and the sheriff to take Mr. Meadus into custody and hold him to ensure that he appear before the court to answer for his alleged disregard of the Family Division order respecting child support and mortgage payments. Alternatively, Ms. Meadus sought leave to bring contempt proceedings against Mr. Meadus pursuant to Rule 53.02 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986. [ 4 ] It is not the role of this Court to conduct contempt hearings with respect to the compliance of Family Division orders.

Rather, this Court’s authority is to review and correct errors in decisions from the courts below. The difficulty this case presents is that there is no record of a decision and reasons from the Family Division respecting Ms. Meadus’ application. Accordingly, given the absence of a decision and reasons from the Court below, the contempt application was remitted to the Family Division to be dealt with on its merits. [ 5 ] This matter is complicated by the terms of the particular court order which Mr.

Meadus is alleged to be disregarding, in that the Support Enforcement Agency is unable to enforce the aspect of the Court order respecting the mortgage payment. Regardless, Ms. Meadus is entitled to have her contempt application dated May 4, 2011 dealt with on its merits. [ 6 ] Mr. Meadus, who represented himself in this Court, initially requested that the appeal be postponed until he received a decision from the Legal Aid Commission respecting his request for counsel. Mr. Meadus had made a previous request for counsel related to these family law matters which was denied. He appealed that decision.

He expects to hear the outcome of his appeal shortly. It was explained to Mr. Meadus that this Court’s only recourse was to remit Ms. Meadus’ Application back to the Family Division to be heard on its merits. In these circumstances, Mr. Meadus accepted that there was no reason for this Court to postpone this appeal and he did not object to the court proceeding to remit the matter to the Family Division. [ 7 ] There was no order as to costs. _________________________________ L. R. Hoegg, J.A.