Greither v. Greither, 2004 BCCA 660

• Judge: Low, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: December 13, 2004
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2004 BCCA 660;(2004), 207 B.C.A.C. 9 (CA)

Greither v. Greither (2004), 207 B.C.A.C. 9 (CA);

    341 W.A.C. 9

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.011

Thomas Hans Otto Greither (respondent/plaintiff) v. Lauren Novella Greither (appellant/defendant)

(CA032319; 2004 BCCA 660)

Indexed As: Greither v. Greither

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Low, J.A.

December 13, 2004.

Summary:

A husband sought a division of matrimonial property.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2004] B.C.T.C. 1183, per Parrett, J., ordered that the wife execute documents to transfer her interest in a certain business to the husband. The wife moved for a stay of execution of the order of Parrett, J. pending an appeal. Prior to an appeal being heard the husband objected to the Court of Appeal hearing the claim for interlocutory relief on the basis that this was a Family Relations Act proceeding and the power to grant such interim relief rested exclusively with the trial court under s. 14 of the Family Relations Act (i.e., that s. 14 overrode s. 18 of the Court of Appeal Act).

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Low, J.A., agreed that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to grant the stay of proceedings sought.

Family Law - Topic 969

Husband and wife - Actions between husband and wife - Practice - Stay of orders pending appeal - [See Practice - Topic 5854 ].

Practice - Topic 5854

Judgments and orders - Enforcement of judgments - Stay of - A husband sought a division of matrimonial property - The trial judge ordered that the wife execute documents to transfer her interest in a certain business to the husband - The wife moved for a stay of execution of the order pending an appeal - Prior to the appeal being heard the husband objected to the Court of Appeal hearing the claim for interlocutory relief on the basis that this was a Family Relations Act proceeding and the power to grant such interim relief rested exclusively with the trial court under s. 14 of the Family Relations Act (i.e., that s. 14 overrode s. 18 of the Court of Appeal Act) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Low, J.A., agreed that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to grant the stay of proceedings sought.  

Cases Noticed:

Ciachurski v. Ciachurski (1994), 47 B.C.A.C. 208; 76 W.A.C. 208;  2 B.C.L.R.(2d) 37 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

McPhail v. McPhail (1999), 132 B.C.A.C. 40; 214 W.A.C. 40; 182 D.L.R.(4th) 413 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Shute v. Shute (1996), 84 B.C.A.C. 3; 137 W.A.C. 3 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 77, sect. 18 [para. 1].

Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, sect. 14 [para. 2].

Counsel:

H. Shapray, Q.C., for the appellant;

R. Basham, Q.C., for the respondent.

This motion was heard on December 13, 2004, in Chambers, in Vancouver, British Columbia,  before Low, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following oral decision on the same date.