Goguen v. Goguen, (2015) 431 N.B.R.(2d) 367 (FD)

Judge:Ferguson, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
Case Date:February 02, 2015
Jurisdiction:New Brunswick
Citations:(2015), 431 N.B.R.(2d) 367 (FD);2015 NBQB 36
 
FREE EXCERPT

Goguen v. Goguen (2015), 431 N.B.R.(2d) 367 (FD);

    431 R.N.-B.(2e) 367; 1124 A.P.R. 367

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.019

Renvoi temp.: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.019

Dawn Marie Goguen (Dignam) (moving party/respondent) v. Shane Levi Goguen (responding party/petitioner)

(FDN-155-2014; 2015 NBQB 36; 2015 NBBR 36)

Indexed As: Goguen v. Goguen

Répertorié: Goguen v. Goguen

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Judicial District of Miramichi

Ferguson, J.

February 2, 2015.

Summary:

Résumé:

A husband filed a Petition for Divorce in June 2013 seeking a divorce and a division of marital assets and debts. The wife's Response and Counter-Petition asked for a divorce, a division of marital assets and debts, and spousal support. There were no children of the marriage. The wife brought a motion asking that the divorce be hived from the Petition and Counter-Petition and granted under s. 8(2)(a) of the Divorce Act. She expected the litigation to have been settled long ago and planned a Caribbean wedding to take place on April 11, 2015.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, granted the bifurcation and divorce. The court deferred the decision of costs to the trial judge.

Family Law - Topic 4124

Divorce - Practice - General - Severance of issues - A husband filed a Petition for Divorce in June 2013 seeking a divorce and a division of marital assets and debts - The wife's Response and Counter-Petition asked for a divorce, a division of marital assets and debts, and spousal support - The wife brought a motion asking that the divorce be hived from the Petition and Counter-Petition and granted under s. 8(2)(a) of the Divorce Act - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that "The guiding principles on a motion for bifurcation can be summarized to include: convenience, the interests of justice, prejudice to the responding party, whether a decision in the first trial will likely put an end to the action, whether severance will significantly narrow remaining issues or significantly increase the likelihood of settlement." - See paragraph 29.

Family Law - Topic 4124

Divorce - Practice - General - Severance of issues - A husband filed a Petition for Divorce in June 2013 seeking a divorce and a division of marital assets and debts - The wife's Response and Counter-Petition asked for a divorce, a division of marital assets and debts, and spousal support - There were no children of the marriage - The wife brought a motion asking that the divorce be hived from the Petition and Counter-Petition and granted under s. 8(2)(a) of the Divorce Act - She expected the litigation to have been settled long ago and planned a Caribbean wedding to take place on April 11, 2015 - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, granted the bifurcation and divorce - Refusing the bifurcation might put an end to the litigation not because it would promote a fair and just settlement but because the wife would likely be forced to accept the husband's settlement position in order to preserve her April wedding date in Jamaica - The motion, if granted, would not increase litigation costs in this matter nor would it add to the complexity of the trial - See paragraphs 1 to 31.

Practice - Topic 5204

Trials - General - Severance of issues or parties - General - [See first Family Law - Topic 4124 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4124

Divorce - Procédure - Généralités - Instruction séparée des questions en litige - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4124 ].

Procédure - Cote 5204

Procès - Généralités - Séparation des points en litige ou des parties - Généralités - [Voir Practice - Topic 5204 ].

Cases Noticed:

Simioni v. Simioni, [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 189 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

B.P. v. A.T. (2014), 423 N.B.R.(2d) 99; 1103 A.P.R. 99; 2014 NBCA 51, refd to. [para. 18].

Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420; 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 18].

Hall v. Sabri, [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 5495 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

Al-Khouri v. Al-Khouri (2011), 302 N.S.R.(2d) 45; 955 A.P.R. 45 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

O'Brien v. O'Brien, [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 5750 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

Rademaker v. Rademaker (2002), 251 N.B.R.(2d) 177; 654 A.P.R. 177 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Flieger v. Adams (2012), 387 N.B.R.(2d) 322; 1001 A.P.R. 322; 2012 NBCA 39, refd to. [para. 33].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Heather Maynes, Q.C., for the moving party;

Thomas Maillet, Q.C., for the responding party.

This motion was heard on February 2, 2015, by Ferguson, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Judicial District of Miramichi, who delivered the following decision on the same date.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP