Background
Lingling Fan applied to set aside a separation agreement and sought spousal and child support, among other relief. She did not attend a December 2024 hearing date for a long motion. At a January 2025 case-management conference, the parties agreed to a timetable providing for an in-person trial in spring 2025.
Fan later asked to have the trial held virtually. The Superior Court rejected that request and adjourned the trial to the fall sittings. Fan did not attend several pre-trial conferences and was repeatedly warned that she had to attend the trial in person. She nevertheless failed to attend trial. The trial proceeded without her, and her claims were dismissed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed Fan’s appeal. It found no miscarriage of justice and no basis for appellate intervention.
If Fan disagreed with the order requiring an in-person trial, the court held, her proper course was to appeal that order rather than disregard it. Having failed to attend, she could not complain that she had not been heard. The trial judge did not err by proceeding in her absence and decided the only live claims on the evidence before the court.
Key Takeaways
- A party who objects to a procedural order must challenge it through the proper appeal process, not defy it.
- Repeated failure to attend required family-law proceedings can permit a trial to proceed without the absent party.
- An appellate court will not intervene absent an error or miscarriage of justice.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that procedural fairness does not excuse a litigant from complying with court directions. A self-represented party remains responsible for attending proceedings and using available review or appeal mechanisms to challenge orders they dispute.
The court awarded the respondent $2,076 in all-inclusive appeal costs.