Armoyan v. Armoyan, (2015) 363 N.S.R.(2d) 75 (SC)

• Judge: Forgeron, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: May 08, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2015), 363 N.S.R.(2d) 75 (SC);2015 NSSC 191

Armoyan v. Armoyan (2015), 363 N.S.R.(2d) 75 (SC);

    1143 A.P.R. 75

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.013

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

(Hfx. No. 1201-65036; 2015 NSSC 191)

Indexed As: Armoyan v. Armoyan

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Family Division

Forgeron, J.

July 3, 2015.

Summary:

Since spouses separated in 2009 after 16 years of marriage, they had been engaged in aggressive and acrimonious litigation in both Nova Scotia and Florida. There were over 20 court decisions in Nova Scotia alone and the matrimonial property application had yet to be heard. The husband was currently in contempt for failing to pay court-ordered (Florida) spousal and child support now exceeding $1.7 million. The husband, with rare exception, ignored all court orders, including numerous costs awards against him. The husband employed a "scorched earth approach" to derail court proceedings by filing a myriad of motions, applications, hearings and appeals. While doing so, he removed tens of millions of dollars of assets from Nova Scotia to the Middle East and encumbered any remaining assets in the jurisdiction to render them judgment-proof. In advance of the contempt hearing, the husband left the jurisdiction. The wife applied for the court to find the husband's egregious conduct an abuse of process and to strike his pleadings in the matrimonial property application.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, found that the husband's conduct constituted an abuse of the court's process. The court struck the pleadings. The husband could apply to vacate the order if he complied with all outstanding court orders.

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process -Since spouses separated in 2009 after 16 years of marriage, they had been engaged in aggressive and acrimonious litigation in both Nova Scotia and Florida - There were over 20 court decisions in Nova Scotia alone and the matrimonial property application had yet to be heard - The husband was in contempt for failing to pay court-ordered spousal and child support now exceeding $1.7 million - The husband, with rare exception, wilfully ignored all court orders, including numerous costs awards against him - The husband employed a "scorched earth approach" to frustrate the wife's collection of money judgments by filing a myriad of motions, applications, hearings and appeals - While doing so, he removed tens of millions of dollars of assets from Nova Scotia to the Middle East and encumbered any remaining assets remaining in the jurisdiction to render them judgment-proof - In advance of the contempt hearing, the husband left the jurisdiction to avoid personal liability for contempt - In many prior judgments, the courts in Nova Scotia and Florida had censured the husband's litigation conduct, labelling it is without merit, vexatious and aggressive tactics to delay hearings and shelter his assets - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, allowed the wife's application to find the husband's egregious conduct an abuse of process and to strike his pleadings in the matrimonial property application - Fairness dictated that the husband's "litigation shenanigans" cease - Warnings, rebukes, censures and a contempt finding did not stop the husband's errant behaviour - Abuse of process, although an exceptional and rare remedy, was the wife's only remaining remedy - The husband could apply to vacate the order if he complied with all outstanding court orders.

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process or delay - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Cases Noticed:

Barthe v. National Bank Financial Ltd. (2015), 359 N.S.R.(2d) 258; 1133 A.P.R. 258; 2015 NSCA 47, refd to. [para. 23].

Grewal v. Nijjer et al., [2011] B.C.A.C. Uned. 153; 2011 BCCA 505, refd to. [para. 32].

Homer Estate et al. v. Eurocopter S.A. et al. (2003), 180 B.C.A.C. 316; 297 W.A.C. 316; 2003 BCCA 229, refd to. [para. 32].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Torroni et al. (2009), 246 O.A.C. 212; 2009 ONCA 85, refd to. [para. 32].

Global Petroleum Corp. v. C.B.I. Industries Inc., 1997 NSCA 42, refd to. [para. 32].

Leskun v. Leskun (2006), 349 N.R. 158; 226 B.C.A.C. 1; 373 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 41].

Werner v. Werner, [2012] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 150; 2012 NSSC 230, refd to. [para. 51, footnote 7].

Counsel:

Harold Niman and Leigh Davis, for the applicant;

Gordon Kelly and Stacey O'Neill, for the respondent.

This application was heard on February 26 and May 8, 2015, at Halifax, N.S., before Forgeron, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, who delivered the following judgment on July 3, 2015.