Alexiou v. Alexiou

• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Judge: Nash, J.
• Citation: (1996), 188 A.R. 149 (QB)
• Date: 26 July 1996

Alexiou v. Alexiou (1996), 188 A.R. 149 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

George Alexiou (petitioner) v. Archontoula Alexiou (respondent)

(Action No. 4803-102554)

Indexed As: Alexiou v. Alexiou

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Nash, J.

July 26, 1996.

Summary:

A couple married in Greece in 1982. They moved to Alberta in 1995. The husband petitioned for divorce. The wife claimed that the Alberta courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the divorce or alternatively should decline to exercise its jurisdiction.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Alberta courts had jurisdiction. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction where Greece was the forum conveniens.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2104

Family law - Divorce - Forum conveniens - A couple married in Greece in 1982 - In February 1995 the husband moved to Alberta on a temporary visitor's visa - In March 1995 he obtained employment as a Greek Orthodox priest - The husband applied for landed immigrant status for himself, the wife and their three children and purchased a home - The wife and children came to Alberta in July 1995 - The wife, a teacher in Greece, returned to Greece so that she could get enough years of service to receive a reduced pension - The children remained in Alberta - The husband petitioned for divorce - The family owned a house in Greece and both the husband and the wife had family in Greece - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that although it had jurisdiction it should decline to exercise it where Greece was the forum conveniens - See paragraphs 36 to 57.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2104

Family law - Divorce - Forum conveniens - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the following factors are rel­evant in determining the forum conveniens for a divorce proceeding involving collat­eral issues: a) the location of witnesses ... who have grown up with the children and have daily contact with the children and are capable of giving viva voce evidence on the issue of what is in the best interests of the children; b) the location of where the parties have lived and worked the majority of their lives; c) the location where the evidence will be readily avail­able to bring the matter to a quick and final determination." - See paragraph 49.

Family Law - Topic 3542

Divorce - Jurisdiction - Domicile - Resi­dence - "Ordinarily resident" - A couple married in Greece in 1982 - In February 1995 the husband moved to Alberta on a temporary visitor's visa - In March 1995 he obtained employment as a Greek Or­thodox priest - The husband applied for landed immigrant status for himself, the wife and their three children and purchased a home - The wife and children came to Alberta in July 1995 - The wife, a teacher in Greece, returned to Greece so that she could get enough years of service to receive a reduced pension - The children remained in Alberta - The husband peti­tioned for divorce - The wife claimed that Alberta did not have jurisdiction as the husband was not ordinarily resident in the province for one year prior to the com­mencement of proceedings - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the court had jurisdiction - See paragraphs 20 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

MacPherson v. MacPherson (1976), 70 D.L.R.(3d) 564 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Thomson v. Minister of National Revenue, [1946] 1 D.L.R. 689 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Girardin v. Girardin (1973), 15 R.F.L. 16 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Hardy v. Hardy (1969), 7 D.L.R.(3d) 307 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Trotter v. Trotter (1992), 90 D.L.R.(4th) 554 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 32].

Huang v. Chang, [1993] B.C.J. No. 2191 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 33].

United Oilseed Products Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, [1988] 5 W.W.R. 181; 87 A.R. 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Sturkenboom v. Davies (1993), 142 A.R. 144 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

Martini v. Martini (1993), 142 A.R. 321 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

Logothetis v. Logothetis (1985), 34 Man.R.(2d) 159; 46 R.F.L.(2d) 20 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Hilborn v. Hilborn (1977), 7 A.R. 62 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 46].

Nicholas v. Nicholas, [1995] O.J. No. 28 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8, sect. 5(1) [para. 27].

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 3(1) [para. 20]; sect. 11(1)(b) [para. 52].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 605(6) [para. 58].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Castel, J.G., Canadian Conflict of Laws (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 230 [para. 39].

Counsel:

Susan B. Lawson, for the petitioner;

Shirley A. McNeilly, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Nash, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on July 26, 1996.