Hauser v. Hauser, (2008) 312 Sask.R. 233 (FD)
| Judge | Maher, J. |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada) |
| Case Date | February 01, 2008 |
| Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
| Citations | (2008), 312 Sask.R. 233 (FD);2008 SKQB 51 |
Hauser v. Hauser (2008), 312 Sask.R. 233 (FD)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2008] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.052
Veronica Edna Suzanna Hauser (petitioner) v. Arthur Hauser (respondent)
(2000 FLD No. 420; 2008 SKQB 51)
Indexed As: Hauser v. Hauser
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
Family Law Division
Judicial Centre of Saskatoon
Maher, J.
February 1, 2008.
Summary:
A wife commenced family law proceedings in Saskatoon. The husband applied to transfer the proceedings to Prince Albert.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, allowed the application.
Editor's note: For a related decision involving these parties, see 312 Sask.R. 239.
Family Law - Topic 4156
Divorce - Practice - Trial - Venue or change of venue - A wife commenced family law proceedings in Saskatoon - The husband applied to transfer the proceedings to Prince Albert - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, allowed the application - The most convenient judicial centre was Prince Albert - The court rejected the wife's assertions that a change of venue was inconvenient for her counsel and would increase her costs - The location of counsel and associated extra costs was irrelevant in determining the balance of convenience - Both of the parties were to testify and both resided in Prince Albert - The husband was calling an expert from Saskatoon who had no difficulty in travelling to Prince Albert - The wife was calling an expert from Regina - He had to travel in any event - An additional distance to testify in Prince Albert had no relevance in determining the balance of convenience - The cause of action arose in Prince Albert - The parties were both long term residents of that district and there were substantial family property assets located there - Further, the husband carried on business in Prince Albert.
Practice - Topic 5221
Trials - General - Venue or place of trial - Application for change of venue - [See Family Law - Topic 4156 ].
Cases Noticed:
Anderson v. Kent, [1981] A.J. No. 479 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].
Blue River Heavy Hauling Ltd. v. Cal-Van Auctioneering Ltd. (1987), 87 A.R. 67 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 10].
Van Horn v. Coal Valley Systems Ltd. (1987), 78 A.R. 203 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 10].
Nutech Brands Inc. v. Air Canada et al., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. D45 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].
Counsel:
D.J. Fisher, for the petitioner;
J.R. Beckman, Q.C., for the respondent.
This application was heard by Maher, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on February 1, 2008.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klapak v. Minty, (2015) 481 Sask.R. 162 (FD)
...an application to transfer a family law proceeding. Both s. 22 and the applicable rule were considered by Maher J. in Hauser v. Hauser , 2008 SKQB 51, 312 Sask R 233. In that instance, the main issue in contention was property. He clarified that the court is not to consider the convenience ......
-
Welter v Kequahtooway and El Mulla,
...In Hauser v Hauser, 2008 SKQB 51, 312 Sask R 233, a family property proceeding, the court identified a number of considerations that inform the balance of convenience and the exercise of the court’s discretion. The court considered where the cause of action arose, the residences......
-
Hauser v. Hauser, 2008 SKQB 57
...Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, allowed the application. Editor's note: For a related decision involving these parties, see 312 Sask.R. 233. Family Law - Topic Divorce - Practice - General - Pleadings - Amendment - A wife commenced proceedings by way of petition in 2000 - After......
-
Potzus v Potzus, 2017 SKQB 105
...of counsel is not a consideration in change of venue applications. I note the comments of Maher J. in Hauser v Hauser, 2008 SKQB 51, 312 Sask R 233, in this regard. However, I accept the respondent should not be in a position to cause financial difficulty to the petitioner by his actions in......
-
Klapak v. Minty, (2015) 481 Sask.R. 162 (FD)
...an application to transfer a family law proceeding. Both s. 22 and the applicable rule were considered by Maher J. in Hauser v. Hauser , 2008 SKQB 51, 312 Sask R 233. In that instance, the main issue in contention was property. He clarified that the court is not to consider the convenience ......
-
Welter v Kequahtooway and El Mulla,
...In Hauser v Hauser, 2008 SKQB 51, 312 Sask R 233, a family property proceeding, the court identified a number of considerations that inform the balance of convenience and the exercise of the court’s discretion. The court considered where the cause of action arose, the residences......
-
Hauser v. Hauser, 2008 SKQB 57
...Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, allowed the application. Editor's note: For a related decision involving these parties, see 312 Sask.R. 233. Family Law - Topic Divorce - Practice - General - Pleadings - Amendment - A wife commenced proceedings by way of petition in 2000 - After......
-
Potzus v Potzus, 2017 SKQB 105
...of counsel is not a consideration in change of venue applications. I note the comments of Maher J. in Hauser v Hauser, 2008 SKQB 51, 312 Sask R 233, in this regard. However, I accept the respondent should not be in a position to cause financial difficulty to the petitioner by his actions in......