Anand v. Anand, (2016) 609 A.R. 359

• Judge: McDonald, Bielby and Schutz, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 13, 2016
• Citations: (2016), 609 A.R. 359;2016 ABCA 23

Anand v. Anand (2016), 609 A.R. 359; 656 W.A.C. 359 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. JA.098

Jagdish Rai Anand (appellant)

(plaintiff/applicant) v. Chander Mohini Anand (respondent)

(defendant/respondent)

(1501-0183-AC; 2016 ABCA 23)

Indexed As: Anand v. Anand

Alberta Court of Appeal

McDonald, Bielby and Schutz, JJ.A.

January 26, 2016.

Summary:

Following a viva voce special chambers hearing, the special chambers judge ordered that the husband pay $15,000 per month in spousal support, on an interim basis. The husband appealed the order.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 2808

Language - Assistance of an interpreter - Right to - General - Following a viva voce special chambers hearing, in which the wife used a Punjabi-English interpreter, the special chambers judge ordered that the husband pay $15,000 per month in interim spousal support - The husband appealed the order - He contended that the proceedings were unfair to him, and irreparably flawed by the improper refusal of the special hearing judge to discharge the interpreter during cross-examination of the wife - The husband provided authority for the proposition that while s. 14 of the Charter guaranteed a party "who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted ..." a right to the assistance of an interpreter, that right had to be balanced against the opposite party's right to a fair hearing - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - There was sufficient evidence before the special chambers judge of the wife's need for an interpreter as an aid to linguistic understanding - There was no evidence before the special chambers judge, much less the required cogent and compelling evidence, to reasonably infer that the wife asked for, or used, an interpreter for an "improper advantage" - The court was not persuaded that the husband suffered any procedural unfairness, or that the record revealed a miscarriage of justice - The special chambers judge balanced the rights of the parties and correctly exercised his discretion to permit the interpreter to continue aiding the wife - See paragraphs 10 to 27.

Family Law - Topic 4084

Divorce - Corollary relief - Interim maintenance - Awards - [See Family Law - Topic 4085.3 ].

Family Law - Topic 4085.3

Divorce - Corollary relief - Interim maintenance - Appeals - The parties married in 2004 - They had two children (twins) - The husband filed for divorce in May 2013 - Following a viva voce special chambers hearing, the special chambers judge ordered on June 25, 2015 that the husband pay $15,000 per month in spousal support, on an interim basis - The special chambers judge found, inter alia, that the wife (a citizen of India) had been in Canada for approximately 10 years; the wife was then 46 years old; the wife was earning minimum wage; the husband's reported Line 150 income in 2014 was $1,856,000 - The husband appealed the June 25, 2015 order - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court stated that "When considering 'needs' the court must consider need relative to the station in life the parties have achieved before collapse of the marriage ... Through this prism, where there is an ability to pay, the court must determine a reasonable standard of living ... Having reviewed the record and the findings of the viva voce special chambers judge, we discern no error in principle or significant misapprehension of the evidence, nor is the award of interim spousal support clearly wrong. In particular, the factor mentioned by the viva voce special chambers judge relating to the need for the mother to have adequate means to promote better access to the children - she currently rents one room and cannot adequately accommodate the children - was not clearly wrong, given that parenting will be dealt with once a bilateral assessment is completed. We are not entitled to intervene simply because we may have made a different decision or balanced the factors differently, or set a different quantum of spousal support on an interim basis pending trial" - See paragraphs 28 to 67.

Cases Noticed:

Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518; 240 N.R. 312; 138 Man.R.(2d) 40; 202 W.A.C. 40, refd to. [para. 7].

Tomkins v. Tomkins (2011), 505 A.R. 316; 522 W.A.C. 316; 2011 ABCA 177, refd to. [para. 7].

Franklin Rodeo Co. v. Hertz Canada Ltd. et al. (2011), 515 A.R. 354; 532 W.A.C. 354; 2011 ABCA 364, refd to. [para. 8].

F.J.N. v. J.K. et al., [2015] A.R. Uned. 363; 2015 ABCA 353, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Tran (Q.D.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951; 170 N.R. 81; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 380 A.P.R. 81; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 218, refd to. [para. 13].

Mee Hoi Bros. Co. et al. v. Borving Investments (Canada) Ltd. et al., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1710; 2014 BCSC 1710, refd to. [para. 14].

Montreal (City) v. MacDonald, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460; 67 N.R. 1; 27 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 18].

Roy et al. v. Hackett et al. (1987), 23 O.A.C. 382; 62 O.R.(2d) 365; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 415 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Skorski v. St. Catharines Canadian Polish Society (1999), 90 O.T.C. 95; 30 C.P.C.(4th) 90 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 24].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 456, refd to. [para. 53].

Shields v. Shields (2008), 432 A.R. 266; 424 W.A.C. 266; 2008 ABCA 213, refd to. [para. 54].

Bennett v. Bennett (2005), 57 Alta. L.R.(4th) 380; 2005 ABQB 984, refd to. [para. 56].

Loesch v. Walji (2008), 255 B.C.A.C. 264; 430 W.A.C. 264; 52 R.F.L.(6th) 33; 2008 BCCA 214, refd to. [para. 56].

B.D.C. v. M.C.M., 2014 ONSC 6064, refd to. [para. 57].

MacMinn v. MacMinn (1995), 174 A.R. 261; 102 W.A.C. 261; 17 R.F.L.(4th) 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Peterson v. Ardiel, [2007] A.R. Uned. 347; 39 R.F.L.(6th) 41; 2007 ABCA 218, refd to. [para. 57].

Strang v. Strang, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 112; 137 N.R. 203; 125 A.R. 331; 14 W.A.C. 331; 92 D.L.R.(4th) 762, refd to. [para. 59].

Leskun v. Leskun, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 920; 349 N.R. 158; 226 B.C.A.C. 1; 373 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 59].

Riad v. Riad (2002), 317 A.R. 201; 284 W.A.C. 201; 2002 ABCA 254, refd to. [para. 61].

Hartley v. Del Pero (2010), 487 A.R. 248; 495 W.A.C. 248; 2010 ABCA 182, refd to. [para. 67].

Zaboschuk v. Zaboschuk, [2012] A.R. Uned. 128; 2012 ABCA 172, refd to. [para. 67].

Davies v. Davies, [2015] A.R. Uned. 8; 2015 ABCA 17, refd to. [para. 67].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 14 [para. 12].

Counsel:

D. Harms and M. Ghert, for the appellant (plaintiff/applicant);

A. Hayher, for the respondent (defendant/respondent).

This appeal was heard on January 13, 2016, before McDonald, Bielby and Schutz, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal delivered the following memorandum of judgment on January 26, 2016.