Rosin v. Rosin, (1994) 158 A.R. 14 (QB)
|Court:||Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta|
|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
August 31 and September 7, 1994.
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.
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].
Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 4, rule 129 [para. 42]; rule 607 [para. 12].
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.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP