Tkalych v. Tkalych, 2001 SKQB 208

• Judge: Ryan-Froslie, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 26, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2001 SKQB 208;(2001), 208 Sask.R. 19 (FD)

Tkalych v. Tkalych (2001), 208 Sask.R. 19 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.006

Ludmila Tkalych (petitioner) v. Paul Tkalych (respondent)

(1997 F.L.D. No. 377; 2001 SKQB 208)

Indexed As: Tkalych v. Tkalych

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Ryan-Froslie, J.

April 26, 2001.

Summary:

A wife petitioned for, inter alia, an unequal division of matrimonial property. The husband subsequently purchased a condominium, which was registered jointly in the names of the husband and the parties' son. The wife registered a lis pendens against the condo. The husband applied pursuant to s. 47 of the Queen's Bench Act to vacate the lis pendens.

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

Actions - Topic 5280

Lis pendens - Vacating certificate of lis pendens - [See Real Property - Topic 7855 ].

Real Property - Topic 7855

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Lis pendens or certificate of pending litigation - Vacating of - Grounds - A wife petitioned for, inter alia, an unequal division of matrimonial property - The husband subsequently purchased a condominium, which was registered jointly in the names of the husband and the parties' son - The wife registered a lis pendens against the condo - The husband applied to vacate the lis pendens, alleging that he needed to sell the condo because of financial difficulties - The husband argued that the condo was not matrimonial property because it did not exist when the wife commenced her petition - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed the husband's application - The wife's court action called into question the title to the condo - The husband had not provided evidence to support his allegation that he was undergoing financial difficulties and he had not yet obtained an offer to purchase the condo from a bona fide purchaser - Therefore, there was no convincing evidence why the lis pendens should be vacated at this time - The husband could reapply to vacate the lis pendens if he obtained an offer from a bona fide purchaser for value.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Ramsay et ux, [1973] 5 W.W.R. 751 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Penner's Construction Ltd. v. Ancel, [1980] 1 W.W.R. 698; 2 Man.R.(2d) 197 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Nycholot and Halpape v. Royal Bank of Canada (1997), 156 Sask.R. 226 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

Closson and Closson v. Howson (1962), 41 W.W.R.(N.S.) 275 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

Ross v. Eastbourne Investments Ltd. et al. (1994), 124 Sask.R. 97 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Counsel:

P.J. Bitz, for the petitioner;

G.G. Walen, Q.C., for the respondent.

This application was heard before Ryan-Froslie, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on April 26, 2001.