Rosin v. Rosin, (1994) 158 A.R. 14 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 23, 1994
• Citations: (1994), 158 A.R. 14 (QB)

Rosin v. Rosin (1994), 158 A.R. 14 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Patricia Lynn Rosin (applicant) v. Larry William Rosin (respondent)

(Action No. 4803-79662)

Indexed As: Rosin v. Rosin

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

August 31 and September 7, 1994.

Summary:

A wife issued a notice of motion seeking to vary child support (see paragraph 36). She sent her husband a "notice to disclose" seeking financial information. Issues arose respecting (1) whether a family law litigant has to establish a prima facie entitlement to a variation of an existing support order before the litigant is entitled to issue a notice to disclose, and (2) whether the court has jurisdiction to adjourn a motion which has been properly brought before the court.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench answered question (1) in the negative and the question (2) in the affirmative.

Family Law - Topic 4090

Divorce - Corollary relief - Notice to disclose - A wife issued a notice of motion seeking to vary child support - She sent her husband a "notice to disclose" seeking financial information - An issue arose respecting whether the wife had to establish a prima facie entitlement to a variation of an existing support order before she was entitled to issue a notice to disclose - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a litigant in a family law situation does not have to establish a prima facie right to relief before issuing a notice to disclose - The court noted that there are two checks and balances against abuse of the notice to disclose procedure, i.e., the costs rules and the procedure for striking out pleadings - See paragraphs 35 to 43.

Practice - Topic 3129

Applications and motions - Motions - Adjournments - A wife appealed a trial judgment respecting spousal support in a divorce proceeding - Before the appeal was heard, the wife filed a notice of motion seeking a variation of child support and served the husband with a notice to disclose - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench adjourned the proceedings for vari­ation of child support until the Court of Appeal decided the issue of spousal sup­port - The court held that it had jurisdic­tion to adjourn a motion properly brought before the court - See paragraphs 45 to 47.

Cases Noticed:

Mumby v. Mumby (1993), 158 A.R. 21 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 6 et seq.].

Levesque v. Levesque (1994), 155 A.R. 26; 73 W.A.C. 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 4, rule 129 [para. 42]; rule 607 [para. 12].

Counsel:

P.E. Kvill, for Ms. Rosin;

B.L. Stothert-Kennedy, for Mr. Rosin.

This motion was heard on August 23, 1994, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmon­ton, who initially delivered judgment on August 31, 1994, followed by supplementary reasons on September 7, 1994.