L.M.U. v. R.L.U.,

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Judge: Bouck, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2004 BCSC 95
• Citation: [2004] B.C.T.C. 95 (SC),2004 BCSC 95,25 BCLR (4th) 171,[2004] BCTC 95
• Date: 17 December 2003
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)

L.M.U. v. R.L.U., [2004] B.C.T.C. 95 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.T.C. TBEd. MR.051

L.M.U. (plaintiff) v. R.L.U. (defendant)

(02/1737; 2004 BCSC 95)

Indexed As: L.M.U. v. R.L.U.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Victoria

Bouck, J.

January 23, 2004.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Evidence - Topic 1500

Hearsay rule - General principles and definitions - Definition and general rule - See paragraphs 13 to 56.

Family Law - Topic 3202

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - General - What constitutes - See paragraphs 57 to 84.

Family Law - Topic 3354

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Effect of agreement - In matrimonial property application - See paragraphs 57 to 84.

Practice - Topic 3063

Applications and motions - General - Evidence - See paragraphs 13 to 56.

Practice - Topic 3077

Applications and motions - Applications - Affidavit evidence - Content of - See paragraphs 13 to 56.

Practice - Topic 3603

Evidence - Affidavits - General - Contents of (incl. attachments) - See paragraphs 13 to 56.

Practice - Topic 3679

Evidence - Affidavits - Use of - Affidavits - Evidence - Admissibility - See paragraphs 13 to 56.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 202; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 251; 39 B.C.L.R. 201; 29 C.R.(3d) 193; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 394, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Khan [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Young (J.L.) Manufacturing Co., Re, [1900] 2 Ch. 753 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Scarr v. Gower (1956), 18 W.W.R.(N.S.) 184 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Koscot Interplanetary (U.K.) Ltd., Re, [1972] 3 All E.R. 829, refd to. [para. 32].

Creber v. Franklin, [1993] B.C.D. Civil 1549-03 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

McKenzie v. McKenzie, [1975] 4 W.W.R. 214 (B.C.S.C.), affd. [1976] 5 W.W.R. 214 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Eden v. Nash (1878), 7 Ch. D. 781 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Nordstrom v. Baumann, [1962] S.C.R. 147, refd to. [para. 72].

Cannaday v. Sun Peaks Resort Corp. et al. (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 241; 166 W.A.C. 241; 44 B.C.L.R.(3d) 195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Cannaday v. Tod Mountain Development Ltd. - see Cannaday v. Sun Peaks Resort Corp. et al.

Mackenzie v. Brooks et al. (1999), 130 B.C.A.C. 95; 211 W.A.C. 95; 1999 BCCA 623 [para. 79].

Statutes Noticed:

Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253, sect. 8(2) [para. 8]; sect. 10 [para. 62].

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 51(10) [para. 19]; rule 52(8) [para. 18]; rule 52(11)(d) [paras. 45, 66].

Authors and Works Noticed:

British Columbia Annual Practice 1988, History of the Rules of Court, p. x [para. 71].

British Columbia Annual Practice 2004, p. SC-667-668 [para. 53].

Holdsworth, William Searle, A History of English Law, vol. 15, pp. 128 to 134 [para. 71].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 173 [para. 13]; 177, para. 6.16 [paras. 15, 24]; 189, para. 6.51 [para. 15]; 604 to 616, paras. 12.1 to 12.24 [para. 40]; 958, para. 16.154 [para. 42]; 1004, para. 18.3 [para. 27]; 1023, para. 18.43 [para. 26]; 1026, para. 1851 [para. 28]; 1051, paras 19.1 to 19.6 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Dalmar F. Tracy, for the plaintiff;

Robert C. Doell, for the defendant.

This application was heard on December 17, 2003, before Bouck, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on January 23, 2004.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.