Armoyan v. Armoyan, (2015) 368 N.S.R.(2d) 85 (SC)

• Judge: Forgeron, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: July 29, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2015), 368 N.S.R.(2d) 85 (SC);2015 NSSC 230

Armoyan v. Armoyan (2015), 368 N.S.R.(2d) 85 (SC);

    1160 A.P.R. 85

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.018

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

(Hfx. No. 1201-065036; 2015 NSSC 230)

Indexed As: Armoyan v. Armoyan

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Family Division

Forgeron, J.

July 29, 2015.

Summary:

Following litigation in Nova Scotia and Florida, the husband owed the wife millions of dollars in child and spousal support and costs. The husband had moved approximately $30,000,000 in assets from Nova Scotia to overseas jurisdictions and encumbered those assets remaining in Nova Scotia. The husband had abandoned any remaining Nova Scotia litigation. The wife's international recovery team located overseas assets and retained independent legal counsel to enforce judgments against the husband in those jurisdictions where assets were located. The wife filed two motions to assist with the recovery efforts. First, she requested that the motions proceed on an emergency, ex parte basis, without notice to the media and public and in camera, with all documents subject to a sealing order. Secondly, she sought to be relieved of the implied undertaking rule so that certain financial disclosure could be used by the recovery team in other jurisdictions.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, allowed the motions.

Editor's Note: For all of the related cases in this matter please search "Indexed As: Armoyan v. Armoyan" in our databases.

Courts - Topic 1404

Administration - General - Public access to judicial proceedings (incl. court records) - [See Practice - Topic 3131 ].

Courts - Topic 1408

Administration - General - Sealing of documents - [See Practice - Topic 3131 ].

Courts - Topic 1444

Administration - Documents filed by parties - Public right of access - Exceptions - [See Practice - Topic 3131 ].

Courts - Topic 4806

Common law - General - Hearings - Open court - [See Practice - Topic 3131 ].

Practice - Topic 3131

Applications and motions - Motions - Ex parte - Following litigation in Nova Scotia and Florida, the husband owed the wife millions of dollars in spousal and child support and costs - The husband had moved approximately $30,000,000 in assets from Nova Scotia to overseas jurisdictions and encumbered those assets remaining in Nova Scotia - The husband had abandoned any remaining Nova Scotia litigation - The wife's international recovery team located overseas assets and retained independent legal counsel to enforce judgments against the husband in those jurisdictions where assets were located - The wife filed two motions to assist with the recovery efforts - First, she requested that the motions proceed on an emergency, ex parte basis, without notice to the media and public and in camera, with all documents subject to a sealing order - Secondly, she sought to be relieved of the implied undertaking rule so that certain financial disclosure could be used by the recovery team in other jurisdictions - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, allowed the motions - The court stated that "Ms. Armoyan's motions to proceed on an emergency, ex parte basis are granted where Mr. Armoyan's pleadings have been struck and where notice will likely lead to the destruction of evidence or other serious loss of property, and an ex parte order will likely avoid the destruction or loss. Ms. Armoyan's motion for a temporary confidential order is granted. A confidential order which excludes the public and media from the motions hearing; which temporarily seals documents; which blocks public access to the recording of the motions hearing; and which waives notice to the media is appropriate because the court is satisfied that the need for confidentiality exceeds the public interest in having open and accessible court proceedings. ... Ms. Armoyan is granted relief from the implied undertaking rule as it relates to certain specified documents disclosed by Mr. Armoyan in the Nova Scotia litigation and which is intended to be used by Ms. Armoyan's asset recovery team in other jurisdictions where the team has located the assets which Mr. Armoyan removed from Nova Scotia. The public interest in ensuring Ms. Armoyan collects the outstanding judgements outweighs any value the implied undertaking is designed to protect".

Practice - Topic 3132

Applications and motions - Motions - In camera hearings and publication bans - [See Practice - Topic 3131 ].

Practice - Topic 4157

Discovery - General principles - Collateral use of discovery information (implied or deemed undertaking rule) - [See Practice - Topic 3131 ].

Cases Noticed:

Juman v. Doucette - see Doucette v. Wee Watch Day Care Systems Inc. et al.

Doucette v. Wee Watch Day Care Systems Inc. et al. (2008), 372 N.R. 95; 252 B.C.A.C. 1; 422 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 10].

S.A.D. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) et al. (2014), 349 N.S.R.(2d) 131; 1101 A.P.R. 131; 2014 NSCA 77, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 1].

Foster-Jacques v. Jacques (2012), 320 N.S.R.(2d) 166; 1014 A.P.R. 166; 2012 NSCA 83, refd to. [para. 13].

Fecteau v. Craft (2013), 420 N.B.R.(2d) 41; 1091 A.P.R. 41; 2013 NBQB 123, refd to. [para. 22].

Piche v. Chiu, [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 747; 2013 BCSC 747 (Master), refd to. [para. 22].

Counsel:

Vrege Armoyan, not present;

Harold Niman and Leigh Davis, for Lisa Armoyan.

These motions were heard on July 29, 2015, at Sydney, N.S., before Forgeron, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, who delivered the following judgment orally on the same date.