Elefante v Elefante, 2017 MBCA 17

Citation: Elefante v Elefante, 2017 MBCA 17 Date: 20170201 Docket: AF15-30-08523 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Barbara M. Hamilton Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner BETWEEN : LAURA ELEFANTE ) V. B. Olson ) for the Appellant (Petitioner) Respondent ) ) S. D.

Laviolette - and - ) for the Respondent ) RENATO RENEE ELEFANTE ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: (Respondent) Appellant ) February 1, 2017 PFUETZNER JA (for the Court): [ 1 ] This appeal is about mathematical calculations in an order varying child and spousal support. [ 2 ] The parties previously appeared before another panel of this Court on the motion of the petitioner (the wife) to have the respondent’s (the husband’

s) appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction. The wife was partly successful on her motion and the appeal was quashed except for the issue of the motion judge’s calculations as to the amount of child support owed by the respondent under clauses 3.2, 3.8 and 3.9 of the order ( s ee Elefante v Elefante , 2016 MBCA 59 at para 5 , 330 ManR (2d) 83 ). [ 3 ] The appeal is from an order of the motion judge requiring the husband to pay a total of $28,897.41 to the wife. The husband seeks to have that amount reduced to $10,079.56. The record before us is less than satisfactory.

The husband has not demonstrated any palpable and overriding errors in the calculations under clauses 3.2, 3.8 and 3.9 of the order that would permit this Court to intervene. [ 4 ] The wife brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence to demonstrate that the calculations in the order are incorrect and the amounts owed should be higher. The fresh evidence motion is dismissed as there was no cross appeal. [ 5 ] One final comment is needed. The costs of pursuing this dispute are completely disproportionate to the amount at issue.

The parties made multiple appearances in chambers in this Court and in the court below, as well as appearing before two full panels of this Court. Counsel should carefully consider costs before pursuing needless litigation. [ 6 ] The appeal is dismissed with costs of both this appeal hearing and the appearance before Beard JA in chambers. JA JA

JA