Armoyan v. Armoyan, (2013) 334 N.S.R.(2d) 204 (CA)

JurisdictionNova Scotia
JudgeMacDonald, C.J.N.S., Fichaud and Bryson, JJ.A.
Neutral Citation2013 NSCA 99
Subject MatterESTOPPEL,PRACTICE,FAMILY LAW,CONFLICT OF LAWS
Citation(2013), 334 N.S.R.(2d) 204 (CA),2013 NSCA 99,334 NSR(2d) 204,(2013), 334 NSR(2d) 204 (CA),334 N.S.R.(2d) 204
Date10 September 2013
CourtCourt of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)

Armoyan v. Armoyan (2013), 334 N.S.R.(2d) 204 (CA);

    1059 A.P.R. 204

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.010

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

(CA 389169; CA 407024; 2013 NSCA 99)

Indexed As: Armoyan v. Armoyan

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Fichaud and Bryson, JJ.A.

September 10, 2013.

Summary:

The husband petitioned for a divorce and corollary relief after the wife petitioned for divorce in Florida, where she and the children resided. At issue, apart from the divorce itself, was spousal and child support, the division of matrimonial property, a lis pendens respecting title to the former matrimonial home in Nova Scotia, the validity of a marriage contract, and custody and access. The wife moved to stay the Nova Scotia proceedings, arguing that Florida was the forum conveniens for all matters (except the lis pendens).

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, in a judgment reported (2012), 321 N.S.R.(2d) 61; 1018 A.P.R. 61, ruled (with reasons to be delivered later) that Nova Scotia had jurisdiction simpliciter and was the forum conveniens for all issues except custody and access (the husband abandoned his custody and access claim). In a judgment reported (2012), 321 N.S.R.(2d) 64; 1018 A.P.R. 64, the court provided reasons for its decision. Prior to that decision, the court had adjourned the Nova Scotia proceeding, subject to the condition that the wife be restrained from advancing the Florida divorce proceeding pending the court's ruling on forum conveniens. The wife appealed the adjournment condition and the forum conveniens ruling. The appeals were consolidated. Each spouse sought to admit fresh evidence.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence. The court allowed the wife's appeal respecting the adjournment condition respecting the Florida proceeding. The condition was excised. The court allowed the wife's forum conveniens appeal in part. Florida was the forum conveniens for all matters except the division of matrimonial property. That matter was to be determined in Nova Scotia on an application under the Matrimonial Property Act.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 603

Jurisdiction - General principles - Jurisdiction simpliciter - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 2064 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2064

Family law - Property - Forum conveniens - The spouses and their three children lived in Nova Scotia from 1996 until the summer of 2007 and Toronto for the 2007-2008 school year - The family moved to Florida to revitalize the marriage, but kept the Halifax house - The spouses separated in October 2009 - The husband returned to Halifax - The wife stayed in Florida with the two younger children - The oldest child was in Toronto attending a private school - The husband and wife both commenced divorce, corollary relief and matrimonial property proceedings (Nova Scotia and Florida) - The trial judge ruled that Nova Scotia courts had jurisdiction simpliciter (husband resident in Nova Scotia for at least one year) and accepted jurisdiction over all issues (except custody as husband withdrew his claim) on the basis of forum non conveniens - The trial judge held that there was no more convenient forum than Nova Scotia where: (1) the husband's ordinary residence was Nova Scotia even though he travelled considerably for business, pleasure and visiting; (2) the companies in which the husband had an interest and from which he derived net proceeds of $23 million were mostly in Nova Scotia; (3) the main witnesses were in Canada, most of them in Nova Scotia; (4) the Florida law would represent a "juridical advantage" to the wife with a corresponding disadvantage to the husband since business assets were exposed to division in Florida but not in Nova Scotia; and (5) family assets and income were not located in Florida but were partly situated in Nova Scotia - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in using the wife's disregard of an adjournment condition (restraining her from furthering Florida proceedings pending his decision on forum conveniens) against her in his forum non conveniens decision on the merits - The judge ignored an appropriate factor (Florida divorce judgment and corollary relief), effectively failing to address a required factor (avoiding conflicting decision of different courts) - The judge's inquiry into the "juridical advantage" the wife would receive if the Nova Scotia court declined jurisdiction failed to address required criteria (wife's connections with Florida, whether it would be just to deprive her of any juridical advantage) - The judge erred in determining that because the spouses were Canadian citizens, they deserved, as Nova Scotians, to have all their issues determined by a Nova Scotia court - There was a jurisdictional obstacle (Divorce Act, s. 22(1)) to having fresh "divorce proceedings" in Nova Scotia - That obstacle did not apply to matrimonial property - After considering all of the relevant factors, including access to justice, functional effectiveness and the need to respect stipulations made by the husband to the Florida courts, it was determined that Florida was the forum conveniens for all matters except the division of matrimonial property - That matter was to be determined in Nova Scotia on an application under the Matrimonial Property Act - See paragraphs 217 to 312.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2070

Family law - Property - Choice of law - Marriage contracts - Spouses were involved in parallel divorce, corollary relief and matrimonial property litigation in Florida and Nova Scotia by the husband - At issue before the Nova Scotia court was whether Nova Scotia should decline jurisdiction in favour of Florida, on the basis of forum non conveniens, for all issues (divorce, spousal and child support, matrimonial property and the validity of a marriage contract containing a forum selection clause in favour of Nova Scotia) - The judge found that Nova Scotia was the forum conveniens for all issues - In doing so, the judge used the forum selection clause to support his decision - The judge assumed that the clause was valid, notwithstanding the wife's continued challenge to its validity on the grounds of fraud and the husband's failure to fully disclose his assets - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that Florida, not Nova Scotia, was the forum conveniens for all issues except the division of matrimonial property - The judge made a palpable and overriding error of fact - The judge also erred in law in failing to first determine the validity of the forum selection clause before using it to support his decision that Nova Scotia was the appropriate forum - The validity of the forum selection clause was determined by the unappealed Florida divorce judgment, which found the clause to have been voided by fraud, financial non-disclosure and misrepresentation - The court held that "the forum selection clause of the Marital Agreement is void by reason of res judicata or issue estoppel that arises from the determination of the Florida Circuit Court ... Had the issue not been res judicata, I would have remitted that issue for a new trial, with entirely new evidence" - See paragraphs 313 to 356.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2104

Family law - Divorce - Forum conveniens - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 2064 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2223

Family law - Maintenance - Forum conveniens - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 2064 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 9201

Practice - General - Comity - General - [See Practice - Topic 3073.1 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 9303

Practice - Injunctions - To enjoin proceedings in another jurisdiction - [See Practice - Topic 3073.1 ].

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 2070 ].

Estoppel - Topic 400

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Foreign judgment in same cause of action or matter - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 2070 ].

Family Law - Topic 3542

Divorce - Jurisdiction, domicile, etc. - Residence - "Ordinarily resident" - The spouses lived in Nova Scotia from 1996 until at least the summer of 2007 - They resided in Toronto for the 2007-2008 school year - They kept their house in Halifax - The family decided to relocate to Florida, apparently in an attempt to revitalize the marriage - The husband found a job there, in a company in which he had an interest - Immigration permission to work in the United States was obtained - The family kept the house in Halifax - By mid-October 2009, the husband and the wife separated - A Florida court order prohibited the husband from leaving Florida but, on December 8, 2009, he was allowed to leave upon providing funds to the wife - The husband returned to the house in Halifax - The wife stayed in Florida with the two younger children - Until December 22, 2010, when he filed a petition for divorce and corollary relief, the husband had spent 28 weeks in Halifax, some time in Ottawa, Toronto, Boston and Florida to visit, and 15 weeks in Lebanon where he had a yacht - He lived on the yacht and travelled from it to pursue business and personal interests in Lebanon and Syria - At issue was whether the husband had, as provided by s. 3(1) of the Divorce Act, ordinarily resided in Nova Scotia for one year immediately before December 22, 2010 so as to give the Nova Scotia court jurisdiction - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal agreed that the husband was ordinarily resident in Halifax for the year immediately preceding to his filing of his petition for divorce - The court found it unnecessary to decide whether, as found by the trial judge, that while he was living in Florida the husband was also "ordinarily resident" in Nova Scotia - See paragraphs 210 to 216.

Practice - Topic 3073.1

Applications and motions - Applications - Adjournments - Spouses were involved in parallel divorce, corollary relief and matrimonial property litigation in Florida and Nova Scotia by the husband - A pending proceeding before the Nova Scotia court was whether Nova Scotia should decline jurisdiction in favour of Florida, on the basis of forum non conveniens - The wife applied to adjourn that hearing because, inter alia, her lawyer's husband was dying with cancer - The judge ruled that an adjournment was warranted - However, to avoid the wife obtaining an advantage, the adjournment was conditional on the wife being restrained from advancing the pending Florida proceedings until the court decided the forum conveniens issue - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, applying a deferential standard of review, held that the judge erred procedurally and substantively in imposing the condition, which was effectively an interim injunction - There was no written notice from the husband, supported by affidavit and an undertaking, as required by the Civil Procedure Rules - The court stated that: "the domestic court should not restrain the advancement of the foreign proceeding before the foreign court has determined the forum non conveniens issue, and has decided to accept jurisdiction ... even when the foreign court decides to accept jurisdiction as the convenient forum, the domestic court should not restrain the advancement of the foreign proceeding unless 'serious injustice' would result from the foreign court's exercise of jurisdiction ... if the foreign court's forum non conveniens ruling accepts jurisdiction, then, under principles of comity, the domestic court should not restrain the advancement of the foreign proceeding if the foreign court 'could reasonably have concluded' that its forum was clearly more appropriate, or '[w]hen there is a genuine disagreement between the courts of our country and another' ... [the judge] restrained the advancement of the Florida proceedings without ruling that Nova Scotia was the forum conveniens ... a domestic court's restraint on the advancement of a foreign proceeding should not deprive a foreign plaintiff of 'advantages in the foreign forum of which it would be unjust to deprive him' and the inquiry has 'regard to the extent that the party and the facts are connected' to the foreign forum" - See paragraphs 163 to 206.

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admission of "new evidence" or "fresh evidence" - Both parties to an appeal sought to introduce "fresh" evidence - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated "this court's practice is to (1) receive (without necessarily admitting) the fresh evidence at the appeal hearing, (2) hear counsel's submissions for or against admission, (3) hear the submissions on the merits of the appeal, (4) reserve on both the admissibility of the fresh evidence and the merits, then (5) issue one decision that rules on the fresh evidence motion and the merits of the appeal" - See paragraph 132.

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admission of "new evidence" or "fresh evidence" - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that "the admission [of fresh evidence] is governed by: (1) whether there was due diligence in the effort to adduce the evidence at trial, (2) relevance of the fresh evidence, (3) credibility of the fresh evidence, and (4) whether the fresh evidence could reasonably have affected the result. Further, the fresh evidence must be in admissible form." - See paragraph 131.

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admission of "new evidence" or "fresh evidence" - The spouses and their three children lived in Nova Scotia from 1996 until at least the summer of 2007 - They resided in Toronto for the 2007-2008 school year - They kept their house in Halifax - The family relocated to Florida in an attempt to revitalize the marriage, but they kept the house in Halifax - By mid-October 2009, the spouses separated - The husband returned to Halifax - The wife stayed in Florida with the two younger children - The oldest child was in Toronto attending a private school and with his maternal grandparents - The husband in Nova Scotia, and the wife in Florida, both commenced divorce and corollary relief proceedings - At issue was whether Nova Scotia should decline jurisdiction in favour of Florida, on the basis of forum non conveniens, with respect to the issues of the divorce itself, spousal and child support, custody, matrimonial property division, lis pendens in regard to the title to the former matrimonial home in Nova Scotia, and the validity of a marriage contract - The trial judge accepted jurisdiction over all matters except custody (husband's claim abandoned), as Nova Scotia had jurisdiction simpliciter and Florida was not a more convenient forum than Nova Scotia - The wife appealed and sought to introduce fresh evidence (Florida divorce judgment and enforcement steps, etc.) - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rejected the husband's objection to admission based on a lack of due diligence - The evidence came into existence after the close of evidence on the forum conveniens proceeding, after the court's decision and after the wife filed her notice of appeal - The court stated that "no principle of due diligence under Palmer requires an appellant to apply to the trial judge for a reversal of his own ruling, as a condition precedent to pursuing her appeal. If she may pursue her appeal, then she may engage rule 90's appellate process that includes a fresh evidence motion" - See paragraph 135.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 131].

T.G. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) et al. (2012), 316 N.S.R.(2d) 202; 1002 A.P.R. 202; 2012 NSCA 43, refd to. [para. 131].

Nova Scotia (Department of Community Services) v. McIntyre (2012), 321 N.S.R.(2d) 281; 1018 A.P.R. 281; 2012 NSCA 106, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Nielsen and Stolar, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 480; 82 N.R. 280; 52 Man.R.(2d) 46, refd to. [para. 132].

Waverley (Village Commissioners) et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Municipal Affairs) et al. (1993), 123 N.S.R.(2d) 46; 340 A.P.R. 46 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 144].

CNH Capital Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2013), 328 N.S.R.(2d) 213; 1039 A.P.R. 213; 2013 NSCA 35, refd to. [para. 146].

Secunda Marine Services Ltd. v. Caterpillar Inc. et al. (2010), 297 N.S.R.(2d) 279; 943 A.P.R. 279; 2010 NSCA 105, refd to. [para. 172].

Innocente v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 315 N.S.R.(2d) 273; 998 A.P.R. 273; 2012 NSCA 36, refd to. [para. 172].

Banro Corp. v. Editions Ecosociété Inc. et al., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 636; 429 N.R. 293; 291 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 172].

Darlington v. Moore (2012), 318 N.S.R.(2d) 246; 1005 A.P.R. 246; 2012 NSCA 68, refd to. [para. 175].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 189].

Amchem Products Inc. et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897; 150 N.R. 321; 23 B.C.A.C. 1; 39 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 191].

Quigley v. Willmore (2008), 264 N.S.R.(2d) 293; 847 A.P.R. 293; 2008 NSCA 33, refd to. [para. 214].

MacPherson v. MacPherson (1976), 70 D.L.R.(3d) 564 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 214].

Van Breda et al. v. Village Resorts Ltd., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 572; 429 N.R. 217, refd to. [para. 219].

Black v. Breeden et al., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 666; 429 N.R. 192, refd to. [para. 219].

Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Cominco Ltd. et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 321; 384 N.R. 351; 266 B.C.A.C. 32; 449 W.A.C. 32, refd to. [para. 221].

Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289; 161 N.R. 81; 37 B.C.A.C. 161; 60 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 265].

Tezcan v. Tezcan (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 277].

Foster-Jacques v. Jacques (2012), 320 N.S.R.(2d) 166; 1014 A.P.R. 166; 2012 NSCA 83, refd to. [para. 281].

Pompey (Z.I.) Industrie et al. v. Ecu-Line N.V. et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450; 303 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 326].

Momentous.ca Corp. et al. v. Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball Ltd. et al., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 359; 428 N.R. 141; 290 O.A.C. 202, refd to. [para. 326].

Expedition Helicopters Inc. v. Honeywell Inc. (2010), 262 O.A.C. 195; 2010 ONCA 351, refd to. [para. 329].

Hoque v. Montreal Trust Co. of Canada et al. (1997), 162 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 485 A.P.R. 321 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1998), 227 N.R. 288 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 335].

Williams v. Kameka et al. (2009), 282 N.S.R.(2d) 376; 895 A.P.R. 376; 2009 NSCA 107, refd to. [para. 336].

Saulnier v. Bain (2009), 277 N.S.R.(2d) 30; 882 A.P.R. 30; 2009 NSCA 51, refd to. [para. 336].

Can-Euro Investments Ltd. v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. (2013), 331 N.S.R.(2d) 341; 1051 A.P.R. 341; 2013 NSCA 76, refd to. [para. 336].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 337].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291, refd to. [para. 340].

Wright v. Nova Scotia Public Service Long Term Disability Plan Trust Fund (2006), 246 N.S.R.(2d) 308; 780 A.P.R. 308; 2006 NSCA 101, refd to. [para. 341].

CLE Owners Inc. et al. v. Wanlass et al. (2004), 182 Man.R.(2d) 94; 2004 MBQB 43, affd. (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 140; 340 W.A.C. 140; 2005 MBCA 32, leave to appeal denied (2005), 347 N.R. 198 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 351].

Law v. Hansen (1895), 25 S.C.R. 69, refd to. [para. 351].

Beals v. Saldanha et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416; 314 N.R. 209; 182 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 352].

El Qaoud v. Orabi, 2005 NSCA 28, refd to. [para. 353].

Jones v. Tsige (2012), 287 O.A.C. 56; 2012 ONCA 32, refd to. [para. 362].

Statutes Noticed:

Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, S.N.S. 2003, c. 2, sect. 12 [para. 223].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., The Law of Evidence in Canada (3rd Ed. 2009), para. 9.1 [para. 375].

Pitel, Stephen G.A., and Rafferty, Nicholas S., Conflict of Laws (2010), pp. 146, 147 [para. 195]; 463, 464 [para. 248].

Walker, Janet, Castel & Walker Canadian Conflict of Laws (6th Ed. 2005) (Looseleaf update), vol. 1, paras. 11.2 [para. 196]; 13.4 [para. 195]; 14.1 [para. 351]; 14.11(b) [para. 277]; 17.1(b) [para. 214]; 19.1, 19.2 [para. 249]; 23.1(a) [para. 277].

Counsel:

Mary Jane McGinty and Christine J. Doucet, for the appellant;

Gordon R. Kelly and Noémi Westergard, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 19-20, 2013, at Halifax, N.S., before MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Fichaud and Bryson, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On September 10, 2013, Fichaud, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court.

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 practice notes
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (February 19 – February 23)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • March 3, 2024
    ...(3d) 577 (C.A.), Virani v. Virani, 2006 BCCA 341, L.G.V. v. L.A.P., 2016 NBCA 23, Leonard v. Booker, 2007 NBCA 71, Armoyan v. Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 99, Okmyansky v. Okmyansky, 2007 ONCA 427, Cheng v. Liu, 2017 ONCA 104, Wilson v. Kovalev, 2016 ONSC 163, Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, Indyka v......
  • Divorce: Jurisdiction; Judgments; Foreign Divorces; Grounds for Divorce; Bars
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Canadian Family Law. Sixth Edition
    • August 29, 2015
    ...see Bullecer v Mayangat , 2010 ABQB 680 ; Roco v Roco , 2010 ABQB 683 ; Kanwar v Kanwar , 2010 BCCA 407 ; see also Armoyan v Armoyan , 2013 NSCA 99; Wang v Lin , 2013 ONCA 33 ; Karkulowski v Karkulowski , 2014 ONSC 1222 . 24 See Evans v Evans (1987), 6 RFL (3d) 166 (BCSC); Currie v C......
  • Divorce: Jurisdiction; Judgments; Foreign Divorces; Grounds for Divorce; Bars
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Canadian Family Law. Eighth Edition
    • August 3, 2020
    ...Mayangat, 2010 ABQB 680; Roco v Roco, 2010 ABQB 683; Kanwar v Kanwar, 2010 BCCA 407; LGV v LAP, 2016 NBCA 23; see also Armoyan v Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 99; Wang v 2013 ONCA 33; Karkulowski v Karkulowski, 2014 ONSC 1222. See Evans v Evans (1987), 6 RFL (3d) 166 (BCSC); Currie v Currie (1987), 6 ......
  • Divorce: Jurisdiction; Judgments; Foreign Divorces; Grounds for Divorce; Bars
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Canadian Family Law - Ninth edition
    • July 25, 2022
    ...for spousal or child support, or a parenting order, 30 31 32 33 34 35 2010 BCCA 407; LGV v LAP, 2016 NBCA 23; and see Armoyan v Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 99; Wang v Lin, 2013 ONCA 33; Karkulowski v Karkulowski, 2014 ONSC 1222. As to the jurisdiction of an Ontario court to entertain an application ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
47 cases
  • Ward v. Murphy,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • March 16, 2022
    ...2021 NSCA 30; Link v. Link, 2022 NSCA 14; Cunningham v. Seveny, 2017 ABCA 4; Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; Armoyan v. Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 99; Daigle v. Mark’s Work Wearhouse Ltd., 2022 NSCA 5; Jiang v. Shi, 2017 BCCA 232; Aubin v. Petrone, 2020 ABCA 13; Walker v. Walker, 2......
  • G (JD) v G (SL), 2017 MBCA 117
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • December 6, 2017
    ...Leiding and Kravit, 2003 BCCA 667 at para 37; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v VL, 2012 ONCA 890 at para 22; Armoyan v Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 99 at para 131; R v Roussin (B), 2014 MBCA 24 at paras 17-18; and HE v MM, 2015 ONCA 813 at para 72.[37] The starting point at common law is the exclu......
  • Bancroft v. Nova Scotia (Lands and Forestry),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • December 13, 2022
    ...this Court to admit fresh evidence where there are “special grounds”. As explained by Fichaud, J.A. in Armoyan v. Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 99: [131]    Rule 90.47(1) permits the Court of Appeal to admit fresh evidence on “special grounds”. The test for &......
  • 3289444 Nova Scotia Limited v. R.W. Armstrong & Associates Inc., 2018 NSCA 26
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • March 20, 2018
    ...v. T.G., 2012 NSCA 43, paras. 77-79, leave to appeal refused [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 237, and authorities cited, and Armoyan v. Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 99, leave to appeal refused [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 446, para. [28] I turn to the three categories of tendered fresh evidence. [29] Justice Arnold has n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (February 19 – February 23)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • March 3, 2024
    ...(3d) 577 (C.A.), Virani v. Virani, 2006 BCCA 341, L.G.V. v. L.A.P., 2016 NBCA 23, Leonard v. Booker, 2007 NBCA 71, Armoyan v. Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 99, Okmyansky v. Okmyansky, 2007 ONCA 427, Cheng v. Liu, 2017 ONCA 104, Wilson v. Kovalev, 2016 ONSC 163, Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, Indyka v......
6 books & journal articles
  • Divorce: Jurisdiction; Judgments; Foreign Divorces; Grounds for Divorce; Bars
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Canadian Family Law. Sixth Edition
    • August 29, 2015
    ...see Bullecer v Mayangat , 2010 ABQB 680 ; Roco v Roco , 2010 ABQB 683 ; Kanwar v Kanwar , 2010 BCCA 407 ; see also Armoyan v Armoyan , 2013 NSCA 99; Wang v Lin , 2013 ONCA 33 ; Karkulowski v Karkulowski , 2014 ONSC 1222 . 24 See Evans v Evans (1987), 6 RFL (3d) 166 (BCSC); Currie v C......
  • Divorce: Jurisdiction; Judgments; Foreign Divorces; Grounds for Divorce; Bars
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Canadian Family Law. Eighth Edition
    • August 3, 2020
    ...Mayangat, 2010 ABQB 680; Roco v Roco, 2010 ABQB 683; Kanwar v Kanwar, 2010 BCCA 407; LGV v LAP, 2016 NBCA 23; see also Armoyan v Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 99; Wang v 2013 ONCA 33; Karkulowski v Karkulowski, 2014 ONSC 1222. See Evans v Evans (1987), 6 RFL (3d) 166 (BCSC); Currie v Currie (1987), 6 ......
  • Divorce: Jurisdiction; Judgments; Foreign Divorces; Grounds for Divorce; Bars
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Canadian Family Law - Ninth edition
    • July 25, 2022
    ...for spousal or child support, or a parenting order, 30 31 32 33 34 35 2010 BCCA 407; LGV v LAP, 2016 NBCA 23; and see Armoyan v Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 99; Wang v Lin, 2013 ONCA 33; Karkulowski v Karkulowski, 2014 ONSC 1222. As to the jurisdiction of an Ontario court to entertain an application ......
  • Divorce: Jurisdiction; Judgments; Foreign Divorces; Grounds for Divorce; Bars
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Canadian Family Law. Seventh Edition
    • August 29, 2017
    ...2010 ABQB 680 ; Roco v Roco , 2010 ABQB 683 ; Kanwar v Kanwar , 2010 BCCA 407 ; LGV v LAP , 2016 NBCA 23 ; see also Armoyan v Armoyan , 2013 NSCA 99; Wang v Lin , 2013 ONCA 33 ; Karkulowski v Karkulowski , 2014 ONSC 1222 . 26 See Evans v Evans (1987), 6 RFL (3d) 166 (BCSC); Currie v ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT