Le v. Le, (2008) 452 A.R. 216 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 19, 2008
• Citations: (2008), 452 A.R. 216 (QB);2008 ABQB 350

Le v. Le (2008), 452 A.R. 216 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. JL.031

Hoa Thi Ngoc Le (plaintiff) v. Thang Van Le (defendant)

Laura Dee Langley (plaintiff) v. John Holowachuk (defendant)

(4803 144156; 4803 144872; 2008 ABQB 350)

Indexed As: Le v. Le

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

June 19, 2008.

Summary:

Two wives (Le and Langley) applied for a desk divorce. Both couples had been married outside Canada.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that proof of marriage in solemn form was required by Alberta divorce requirements where parties were married outside Canada. The court gave directions as to the required sworn evidence.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2041

Family law - Marriage - General - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 2101 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2101

Family law - Divorce - General - Two wives (Le and Langley) applied for a desk divorce - Both couples had been married outside Canada - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that proof of marriage in solemn form was required by Alberta divorce requirements where parties were married outside Canada - The court stated "in Alberta, where an applicant asks for divorce and states that the marriage was solemnized outside Canada, and is able to produce a marriage certificate or equivalent, in order to prove the validity of the marriage by solemn form, the applicant should provide the court with sworn evidence of: a translation into English of the marriage certificate or equivalent if the certificate is not in English or in French, accompanied by a statement from the translator stating the language which is being translated from and the basis for the translator's expertise in translation; their domicile at the time of the marriage. 'Domicile' in this context means permanent residence; the authority of the individual who solemnized the marriage to do so according to the laws of the country where the marriage was solemnized; the nature of the ceremony or registration which recognized the marriage; the names of the witnesses to the marriage; the holding out by the couple to the communities in which they lived that they were married. In this context, there should be a statement about whether the couple cohabited after marriage; the acceptance by the community in which the couple lived of the couple's marriage. Where the applicant for divorce is not able to produce a marriage certificate, that person should submit evidence from an expert on the law of the country where the marriage is alleged to have taken place to establish the validity of the marriage in that country" - See paragraphs 48 and 49.

Family Law - Topic 151

Marriage - General - Proof of marriage - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 2101 ].

Family Law - Topic 3505

Divorce -Jurisdiction - General - Courts - Condition precedent - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 2101 ].

Family Law - Topic 3535

Divorce - Jurisdiction - Domicile, etc. - Onus of proof of domicile - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 2101 ].

Cases Noticed:

Lewkowicz v. Korzewich, [1956] S.C.R. 170; 1 D.L.R.(2d) 369, refd to. [para. 4].

Densmore v. Densmore (1956), 5 D.L.R.(2d) 203 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Law v. Francisco (1983), 34 R.F.L.(2d) 223; 19 A.C.W.S.(2d) 294 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Berthiaume v. Dastous, [1929] All E.R. Rep. 111 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Stephens v. Falchi, [1938] S.C.R. 354; [1938] 3 D.L.R. 590, refd to. [para. 4].

Hassan v. Hassan, [2006] A.R. Uned. 483; 64 Alta. L.R.(4th) 357; 2006 ABQB 544, refd to. [para. 4].

Solomon v. Walters (1956), 18 W.W.R.(N.S.) 257 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Frew v. Reed (1969), 69 W.W.R.(N.S.) 327 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Hunt v. Hunt, [1958] O.W.N. 332 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

McColm v. McColm, [1969] 2 O.R. 742 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Berthiaume v. Dastous, [1930] A.C. 79 (Que. P.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Sedgewick v. Sedgewick (1953), 9 W.W.R.(N.S.) 704 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Scrimshire v. Scrimshire (1752), 2 Hag. Con. 395, refd to. [para. 4].

Dalrymple v. Dalrymple (1811), 2 Hag. Con. 54, refd to. [para. 4].

Warrender v. Warrender (1835), 2 Cl. & Fin. 488 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 4].

Harvey v. Farnie (1882), 8 App. Cas. 43 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 4].

Kenward v. Kenward, [1951] P. 124, refd to. [para. 4].

Starkowski v. A.G., [1954] A.C. 155 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 4].

Simonin v. Mallac (1860), 2 Sw. Tr. 67, refd to. [para. 4].

Lyell v. Kennedy (1889), 14 App. Cas. 437 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 4].

Lewkowicz v. Korzewich, [1956] S.C.R. 170, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Naguib, [1917] 1 K.B. 359; 116 L.T. 640, refd to. [para. 4].

Grassick v. Grassick, [1935] O.R. 50; [1935] 1 D.L.R. 351 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Terry v. Terry and MacKenzie, [1948] 2 W.W.R. 152 (Sask. K.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Casterton, Re (1978), 23 O.R.(2d) 24; 94 D.L.R.(3d) 290 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Saari v. Nykanen, [1944] O.R. 582; [1944] 4 D.L.R. 619 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

El-Sohemy v. El-Sohemy (1978), 21 O.R.(2d) 35; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 145 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Andrash v. Andrash (1965), 62 D.L.R.(2d) 441 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Datzoff v. Miller, 1962 CarswellAlta 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Porteous v. Dorn, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 37; 2 N.R. 501; 45 D.L.R.(3d) 596, refd to. [para. 4].

Taplin, Re; Watson v. Tate, [1937] 3 All E.R. 105, refd to. [para. 4].

Taylor v. Taylor et al., [1961] 1 All E.R. 55, refd to. [para. 4].

Cao v. Le, [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. C48; 37 R.F.L.(6th) 188; 2007 BCSC 499, refd to. [para. 4].

Uppal v. Uppal, [1977] 2 A.C.W.S. 634; 2 R.F.L.(2d) 287 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Mellen v. Dobenko , [1927] 4 D.L.R. 1128; 61 O.L.R. 340 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Lozinko v. Bazylok (1976), 27 R.F.L. 141 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Karnenas, Re (1978), 3 R.F.L.(2d) 213 (Ont. Surr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4].

Favor v. Favor (1971), 5 R.F.L. 197 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Peppiatt v. Peppiatt (1916), 36 O.L.R. 427; 30 D.L.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Lin, Re (1992), 137 A.R. 1; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 280 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Keobounphan v. Khamvongsa (1998), 220 A.R. 77; 1998 ABQB 143, refd to. [para. 4].

Merchant v. Dossani, [2007] A.R. Uned. 397; 2007 ABQB 487, refd to. [para. 4].

Bazzi v. Deschamps, [1995] O.J. No. 2461 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 4].

Lehoux v. Woolward (1994), 2 R.F.L.(4th) 382; 45 A.C.W.S.(3d) 908 (B.C.S.C.), affd. [2003] B.C.A.C. Uned. 201; 128 A.C.W.S.(3d) 207; 2003 BCCA 682, refd to. [para. 4].

H.L.C. v. M.A.L., [2003] B.C.T.C. 1461; 45 R.F.L.(5th) 106; 2003 BCSC 1461, refd to. [para. 4].

Friedman v. Smookler, [1964] 1 O.R. 577; 43 D.L.R.(2d) 210 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Rose v. Massey (1985), 54 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 161; 160 A.P.R. 161 (Nfld. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

A.S. v. A.S. (1988), 65 O.R.(2d) 720; 15 R.F.L.(3d) 443 (U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Segraves v. Fralick, [1951] O.R. 871; [1952] 1 D.L.R. 544 (H.C.), affd. [1951] O.R. 871; [1952] 1 D.L.R. 544 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Kerr v. Kerr, [1952] 4 D.L.R. 578 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Castel, Jean-Gabriel, Canadian Conflict of Laws (3rd Ed. 1994), para. 195 [para. 4].

Davies, Christine, Family Law in Canada (4th Ed. 1984), generally [paras. 4, 34]; p. 14 [para. 24].

Levy, Deborah, and Kashi, Tracy, Getting Married Abroad, [2000] Fam. Law 191, generally [paras. 4, 34].

Power on Divorce and other Matrimonial Causes, generally [para. 4].

Saunders, John B., Words and Phrases Legally Defined (3rd Ed. 2007), vol. 4, pp. 198, 199 [para. 4].

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases (5th Ed. 1986), pp. 2476, 2477 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Jonathan M.E. Healey, for Ms. Le;

Owen J. Kirkaldy, for Ms. Langley.

These applications were heard on June 9 and 16, 2008, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on June 19, 2008.