Meeks v. Balzer, 2012 SKQB 125

• Judge: R.S. Smith, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 26, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2012 SKQB 125;(2012), 392 Sask.R. 316 (FD)

Meeks v. Balzer (2012), 392 Sask.R. 316 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.015

Deidre Helen Meeks (petitioner) v. Steven Dwight Allan Balzer (respondent)

(2010 DIV. No. 379; 2012 SKQB 125)

Indexed As: Meeks v. Balzer

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

R.S. Smith, J.

March 26, 2012.

Summary:

Before their separation, the parties executed a marriage contract under the Family Property Act. The wife sought spousal support and a division of property. The husband asserted that the marriage contract was a complete answer to the wife's petition. An issue arose as to the validity and enforceability of the marriage contract. The husband applied for an order directing a trial of that issue.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, allowed the application.

Family Law - Topic 4124

Divorce - Practice - General - Severance of issues - [See Practice - Topic 5204 ].

Practice - Topic 5204

Trials - General - Severance of issues or parties - General - Before their separation, the parties executed a marriage contract under the Family Property Act - The wife sought spousal support and a division of property - The husband asserted that the marriage contract was a complete answer to the wife's petition - An issue arose as to the validity and enforceability of the marriage contract - The husband applied for an order directing a trial of that issue - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, allowed the application - Common sense, the "interest of court resources" and the parties' interests all led inexorably to the conclusion that it was appropriate to sever the issue of the marriage contract's validity and enforceability.

Cases Noticed:

Central Canada Potash Co. v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General), [1974] 6 W.W.R. 374 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Grant (1879), 11 Ch. D. 918, refd to. [para. 15].

Sass v. St. Nicholas Mutual Benefit Association of Winnipeg, [1936] 4 D.L.R. 474 (Man. C.A.), affd. [1937] S.C.R. 415, refd to. [para. 15].

Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. B.C. Hydro & Power Authority, [1972] 3 W.W.R. 35 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Mining Ltd. v. Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. (1989), 80 Sask.R. 184 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Provencher v. Miller (2011), 384 Sask.R. 143; 2011 SKQB 375 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 18].

Verma v. Verma (1993), 115 Sask.R. 183 (Q.B.), revd. (1995), 134 Sask.R. 252; 101 W.A.C. 252 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

D.J. Kendall, for the petitioner;

G.V. Goebel, for the respondent.

This application was heard by R.S. Smith, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on March 26, 2012.