Hatfield v. Mader, 2013 NSCA 56

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Hatfield v. Mader , 2013 NSCA 56 Date: 20130502 Docket: CA 407062 Registry: Halifax Between: Linda Hatfield Appellant v. Darren Mader and Susan Mader Respondents Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice Jamie W.S. Saunders Motion Heard: May 2, 2013, in Halifax, Nova Scotia in Chambers Written Release: May 6, 2013 Held: Registrar’s motion to dismiss appeal granted. Counsel: Appellant not appearing Respondents not appearing

Decision: (Orally) [ 1 ] This case comes before me in Chambers this morning in the form of a Registrar’s motion to dismiss the appeal because of a failure to “perfect” it pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 90.43(3) and (4). The approach I take in such matters is that once I am satisfied the deadlines prescribed under the Rules have elapsed; that the Registrar’s action is well-founded; and that all interested parties have been properly notified; the onus shifts to those who would be adversely affected to persuade me that their appeal should not be dismissed. Islam v.

Sevgur , 2011 NSCA 114 . [ 2 ] Having reviewed the record I am satisfied that all of these requirements have been met and that therefore it now falls to the appellant or other interested party to persuade me that there are good and sufficient reasons to decline the Registrar’s motion. [ 3 ] When the case was called no one appeared on behalf of the appellant to ask that I not grant the Registrar’s motion. [ 4 ] As the Registrar’s comprehensive notes confirm, the appellant Linda Hatfield’s motion seeking permission to extend the time to file a notice of appeal to appeal a decision of Justice Simon MacDonald of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court rendered July 24, 2012, was heard on September 26, 2012, by my colleague Justice Farrar.

He adjourned the motion without day because the appellant had not obtained the reasons for judgment of Justice MacDonald. [ 5 ] Since September, 2012, the Registrar has heard nothing further from Ms. Hatfield. She has not perfected her motion, let alone her appeal. Notification was sent to the appellant by regular and registered mail on April 4, 2013. Canada Post tracking indicates that both the appellant and the respondents received the Registrar’s Notice of Motion on April 8. Therefore, all parties received notice as required by Civil Procedure Rule 90.43.

The Registrar has not received any responses to her motion. [ 6 ] Based on this record I am satisfied that I ought to exercise my discretion by dismissing the appeal. So ordered. Saunders, J.A.