Gerski v. Gerski, 2006 SKCA 66
Judge | Richards, J.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan) |
Case Date | June 07, 2006 |
Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
Citations | 2006 SKCA 66;(2006), 285 Sask.R. 121 (CA) |
Gerski v. Gerski (2006), 285 Sask.R. 121 (CA);
378 W.A.C. 121
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.050
Lyle Paul Gerski (appellant/respondent) v. Jeannie Helen Gerski (respondent/applicant)
(No. 1308; 2006 SKCA 66)
Indexed As: Gerski v. Gerski
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
Richards, J.A.
June 9, 2006.
Summary:
A wife commenced divorce proceedings and sought a division of property. She obtained an ex parte order under s. 29 of the Family Property Act that put the family farming assets in her possession and under her exclusive management. The husband filed a notice of appeal and asserted that the order was stayed under rule 15(1). The wife asked the court to either confirm that the order was not stayed or lift the stay.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Richards, J.A., held that the order was stayed and lifted the stay.
Family Law - Topic 964
Husband and wife - Actions between husband and wife - Practice - Injunction to preserve property - In divorce proceedings, a wife alleged that the husband was dissipating assets due to a cocaine addiction - She obtained an order under s. 29 of the Family Property Act that gave her possession and exclusive management of the family farming assets - The husband filed a notice of appeal and asserted that the order was stayed under rule 15(1) - The wife asked the court to either confirm that the order was not stayed or lift the stay - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Richards, J.A., held that the order was stayed and lifted the stay - The wife acted on, and continued to act on, the authority of the order to manage the farming assets - She was executing the order within the meaning of rule 15(1) and that execution was stayed - The order was only broadly similar to some kinds of injunctions that were exempt from the rule's effect - However, leaving the stay in place would be inequitable as it might leave little or no family property to be divided.
Family Law - Topic 969
Husband and wife - Actions between husband and wife - Practice - Stay of orders pending appeal - [See Family Law - Topic 964 ].
Practice - Topic 8953
Appeals - Stay of proceedings pending appeal - Circumstances when stay may be lifted - [See Family Law - Topic 964 ].
Cases Noticed:
Kennibar Resources Ltd. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Energy and Mines) and Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. (1990), 90 Sask.R. 127 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].
Saskatchewan Union of Nurses v. Sherbrooke Community Centre et al. (1996), 141 Sask.R. 161; 114 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].
Mayrand v. Mayrand (1982), 20 Sask.R. 263 (C.A.), dist. [para. 9].
Bast v. Bast (1990), 89 Sask.R. 264 (C.A.), dist. [para. 9].
Ochapawace First Nation et al. v. Araya and Shepherd (1994), 123 Sask.R. 311; 74 W.A.C. 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].
Tekarra Properties Ltd. v. Saskatoon Drug and Stationery Co., [1985] 3 W.W.R. 282; 37 Sask.R. 286 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].
Statutes Noticed:
Rules of Court (Sask.), Court of Appeal Rules, rule 15(1) [para. 7].
Counsel:
Trent Forsyth, for Lyle Paul Gerski;
Mark Carson, for Jeannie Helen Gerski.
This application was heard in chambers on June 7, 2006, by Richards, J.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who delivered the following written reasons for judgment on June 9, 2006.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leibel v Tootoosis,
...Those cases established the approach to be taken by a Chambers judge when deciding whether to lift a stay. Gerski v Gerski, 2006 SKCA 66, 285 Sask R 121 [Gerski], is representative of the relevant case law. It says [11] The principles to be applied in adjudicat......
-
Aalbers v. Aalbers, (2011) 385 Sask.R. 141 (CA)
...terms would reduce the opportunity for conflict between the parents - See paragraphs 24 to 28. Cases Noticed: Gerski v. Gerski (2006), 285 Sask.R. 121; 378 W.A.C. 121; 2006 SKCA 66, refd to. [para. Wiegers v. Gray, [2007] Sask.R. Uned. 13; 2007 SKCA 30, refd to. [para. 17]. Causevic v. Caus......
-
Leibel v Tootoosis,
...Those cases established the approach to be taken by a Chambers judge when deciding whether to lift a stay. Gerski v Gerski, 2006 SKCA 66, 285 Sask R 121 [Gerski], is representative of the relevant case law. It says [11] The principles to be applied in adjudicat......
-
Aalbers v. Aalbers, (2011) 385 Sask.R. 141 (CA)
...terms would reduce the opportunity for conflict between the parents - See paragraphs 24 to 28. Cases Noticed: Gerski v. Gerski (2006), 285 Sask.R. 121; 378 W.A.C. 121; 2006 SKCA 66, refd to. [para. Wiegers v. Gray, [2007] Sask.R. Uned. 13; 2007 SKCA 30, refd to. [para. 17]. Causevic v. Caus......
-
Kemery v. Kemery, (2012) 399 Sask.R. 188 (CA)
...result is as fair and equitable as possible for all sides, to minimize prejudice, and to balance competing interests: Gerski v. Gerski , 2006 SKCA 66, 285 Sask. R. 121. However, where children are involved, the primary objective of the Chambers judge is to determine whether it is in the bes......
-
Propp v. Propp,
...Cases Noticed: MacKay Construction Ltd. v. Potts Construction Co. (1983), 25 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6]. Gerski v. Gerski (2006), 285 Sask.R. 121; 378 W.A.C. 121; 2006 SKCA 66, refd to. [para. Ochapowace First Nation v. Araya and Shepherd (1994), 123 Sask.R. 311; 74 W.A.C. 311 (C......