Armoyan v. Armoyan, 2015 NSSC 176

• Judge: Forgeron, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 26, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2015 NSSC 176;(2015), 361 N.S.R.(2d) 197 (SC)

Armoyan v. Armoyan (2015), 361 N.S.R.(2d) 197 (SC);

    1137 A.P.R. 197

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.032

Vrege Sami Armoyan (applicant) v. Lisa Armoyan (respondent)

(Hfx. No. 1201-65036; 73536; SFH CIV 70342; 2015 NSSC 176)

Indexed As: Armoyan v. Armoyan

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Family Division

Forgeron, J.

June 19, 2015.

Summary:

Prior to a pending contested Matrimonial Property Act hearing, the husband moved under rule 56.01 for an order permitting commission evidence from a lawyer and banker, who both resided in Lebanon, by way of video conferencing (Skype or Google Hangouts). The wife opposed the application.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, dismissed the motion.

Editor's Note: For 21 prior cases involving these parties in divorce and matrimonial property litigation search Indexed As: Armoyan v. Armoyan.

Evidence - Topic 4407

Witnesses - Testimony - Video conferencing or video link - Spouses were engaged in contested matrimonial property litigation - The husband had removed assets from Nova Scotia to Lebanon - The husband moved under rule 56.01 for an order permitting commission evidence from a lawyer and banker, who both resided in Lebanon, by way of video conferencing (Skype or Google Hangouts) - The husband stated that both witnesses were unprepared to travel to Nova Scotia because of the inconvenience, logistics, travel costs and the requirement to obtain a Visa, but that both were prepared to testify via video conference - The wife opposed the application, arguing that the quality of the transmission was questionable, her right to cross-examine the witnesses would be impaired, the allegation that the witnesses would not be available to testify in Nova Scotia was based on inadmissible hearsay, and the estimated $23,000 in travel costs was minimal given the millions of dollars of matrimonial property in dispute - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, dismissed the application - Although it would be inconvenient for the witnesses to travel to Nova Scotia to testify in person, there was no direct evidence (only hearsay) that neither would be unable or unwilling to travel to Nova Scotia - The estimated travel costs were insignificant and the proposed evidence was important to the ultimate resolution of the litigation - The court stated that convenience, standing alone, was a weak basis upon which to excuse a witness from attending in person - See paragraphs 1 to 28.

Cases Noticed:

Baker-Warren v. Denault (2009), 277 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 882 A.P.R. 271; 2009 NSSC 59, refd to. [para. 6].

Nybo v. Kralj, [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 674; 2010 BCSC 674. refd to. [para. 10, footnote 3].

Armoyan v. Armoyan (2011), 310 N.S.R.(2d) 212; 983 A.P.R. 212; 2011 NSSC 448, refd to. [para. 13].

Pack All Manufacturing Inc. v. Triad Plastics Inc., [2001] O.T.C. 1022 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

Aly et al. v. Nader Halal Meat Inc. et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 2585; 2012 ONSC 2585, refd to. [para. 15].

Maggio Holding Inc. v. Carrier Canada Ltd., [2003] O.J. No. 1810 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Feeney v. Labatt, [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 89 (Master), refd to. [para. 17].

Archambault v. Anstalt et al., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. S82, refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.), rule 56.03(3) [para. 11].

Rules of Civil Procedure (N.S.) - see Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.).

Rules of Court (N.S.) - see Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mewett, Alan M., and Sankoff, Peter J., Witnesses (looseleaf), vol. 2, §§ 19.3 [para. 9, footnote 1]; 19.3(a) [paras. 9, 10, footnotes 2, 4].

Counsel:

Gordon Kelly and Stacey O'Neill, for the applicant;

Harold Niman and Leigh Davis, for the respondent.

This motion was heard on February 26, 2015, at Halifax, N.S., before Forgeron, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, who delivered the following judgment on June 19, 2015.