Cosentino v. Cosentino, 2016 ABQB 331

JudgeGates, J.
CourtCourt of Queen''s Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateThursday June 16, 2016
Citations2016 ABQB 331

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
6 practice notes
  • ET v GT,
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • June 19, 2018
    ...list of commonly considered factors regarding the forum conveniens although it remains open-ended. Cosentino v Cosentino, 2016 ABQB 331: 1. What is the habitual or ordinary residence of the child? Where has the family lived? Is the child presently located in Alberta? If so, how long has tha......
  • Sharma v Pal, 2022 ABQB 158
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • February 23, 2022
    ...and the relative strengths of the connections of the two parties”: Club Resort at para 110; also see Cosentino v Cosentino, 2016 ABQB 331 at para 14. [19]        The Court must refrain from instinctively favouring its own jurisdiction: Club Resort a......
  • Hasham v Kanji, 2020 ABQB 483
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • August 20, 2020
    ...A determination of forum conveniens is discretionary and highly fact specific: Cosentino v Cosentino, 2016 ABQB 331 at para 14, aff’d 2016 ABCA 377. Courts have set out factors to consider, 1.     the location and availability of witnesses; 2.   &#x......
  • Howard v Dzineku,
    • Canada
    • Court of King's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • February 12, 2024
    ...of the forum conveniens. See: ET v GT, 2018 ABPC 147 at para 3; Hasham v Kanji, 2020 ABQB 483 at para 41; Consentino v Consentino, 2016 ABQB 331 at para 15 I decline to undertake a determination of whether this Court should exercise or decline its jurisdiction until after the Mother has for......
  • Get Started for Free
6 cases
  • ET v GT,
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • June 19, 2018
    ...list of commonly considered factors regarding the forum conveniens although it remains open-ended. Cosentino v Cosentino, 2016 ABQB 331: 1. What is the habitual or ordinary residence of the child? Where has the family lived? Is the child presently located in Alberta? If so, how long has tha......
  • Sharma v Pal, 2022 ABQB 158
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • February 23, 2022
    ...and the relative strengths of the connections of the two parties”: Club Resort at para 110; also see Cosentino v Cosentino, 2016 ABQB 331 at para 14. [19]        The Court must refrain from instinctively favouring its own jurisdiction: Club Resort a......
  • Hasham v Kanji, 2020 ABQB 483
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • August 20, 2020
    ...A determination of forum conveniens is discretionary and highly fact specific: Cosentino v Cosentino, 2016 ABQB 331 at para 14, aff’d 2016 ABCA 377. Courts have set out factors to consider, 1.     the location and availability of witnesses; 2.   &#x......
  • Howard v Dzineku,
    • Canada
    • Court of King's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • February 12, 2024
    ...of the forum conveniens. See: ET v GT, 2018 ABPC 147 at para 3; Hasham v Kanji, 2020 ABQB 483 at para 41; Consentino v Consentino, 2016 ABQB 331 at para 15 I decline to undertake a determination of whether this Court should exercise or decline its jurisdiction until after the Mother has for......
  • Get Started for Free