Hosseini v. Hosseini,

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Judge: Doolan
• Neutral Citation: 2000 BCSC 1026
• Citation: 2000 BCSC 1026,[2000] B.C.T.C. 461 (SCM)
• Date: 25 May 2000
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)

Hosseini v. Hosseini, [2000] B.C.T.C. 461 (SCM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.T.C. TBEd. JL.080

Saeid Sayed Hosseini (plaintiff) v. Helen Hosseini, also known as Hegameh Raboubi (defendant)

(F993503; 2000 BCSC 1026)

Indexed As: Hosseini v. Hosseini

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Doolan, Master

June 30, 2000.

Summary:

The parties married in 1979, had a daughter in 1982 and divorced in Nevada in 1983. The parties resumed cohabitation but did not remarry and had a son in 1984. The parties obtained an Islamic divorce in 1988. The parties resumed cohabitation in 1988. The parties lived together in California and obtained a second Islamic divorce in 1991. In 1993, the California court approved a Stipulation and Order concerning custody and child support and under which the mother was to take the children to reside in British Columbia. Under the Stipulation and Order, if the mother lost custody of the children, the mother was to transfer the children's 50% interest in the Canadian residence to the father as trustee for the children's interest. The father obtained custody in 1995. He brought an action in British Columbia to enforce the trust for the children. The mother sold the residence in 1999 and moved to California. She counterclaimed for support and a division of family assets. The husband, a resident of California, applied for an order that the court decline jurisdiction with respect to his wife's claims in her counterclaim or, alternatively, a stay of the counterclaim.

A Master of the British Columbia Supreme Court held that the husband had properly brought his action in British Columbia where the residence and the proceeds of sale were located. However, the court declined jurisdiction over the wife's counterclaim. The matter should be dealt with by the California courts, where both parties resided in California and the issues could be more conveniently resolved in California.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 1664

Actions - General - Forum conveniens - Considerations - See paragraphs 1 to 36.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2064

Family law - Property - Forum conveniens - See paragraphs 1 to 36.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2222

Family law - Maintenance - Jurisdiction of court - See paragraphs 1 to 36.

Family Law - Topic 756

Husband and wife - Actions between husband and wife - Property - Jurisdiction of courts - See paragraphs 1 to 36.

Cases Noticed:

Tezcan v. Tezcan (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 2(1), sect. 4 [para. 22].

Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, sect. 1(1) [para. 25].

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 14(6) [para. 2].

Counsel:

David G.M. Nicol, for the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim;

Paul Daltrop, for the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim.

This application was heard on May 25, 2000, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Doolan, Master in Chambers, of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 30, 2000.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.