Ward v. Ward, (1985) 66 N.B.R.(2d) 44 (FD)

• Judge: Deschenes, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: May 29, 1985
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1985), 66 N.B.R.(2d) 44 (FD)

Ward v. Ward (1985), 66 N.B.R.(2d) 44 (FD);

    66 R.N.-B.(2e) 44; 169 A.P.R. 44

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Ward v. Ward

(FDM/290/85)

Indexed As: Ward v. Ward

Répertorié: Ward v. Ward

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Judicial District of Moncton

Deschenes, J.

October 24, 1985.

Summary:

Résumé:

A wife applied for an order that her purported marriage to the respondent be declared void ab initio.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, allowed the application and also ordered that a final decree of nullity be issued.

Family Law - Topic 6009

Annulment of marriage - Jurisdiction - General - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that whether the marriage is alleged to be void or voidable, Canadian courts have jurisdiction to annul a marriage if both parties are domiciled in the province where proceedings are commenced, if both parties are domiciled in such province at the time of commencement of proceedings, or if the respondent is a bona fide resident of the province at that time - See paragraph 25.

Family Law - Topic 6042

Annulment of marriage - Grounds - Capacity - Intention - Intoxication - A groom showed up for his wedding so intoxicated that he had to be held up to get through the ceremony - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that the marriage was void ab initio, because the groom lacked capacity - The court issued a final decree of nullity - The court held that the fact that the bride later made a false declaration under oath (that she and the groom were divorced), in order to obtain a licence to remarry, did not bar her action for an annulment of the first marriage.

Cases Noticed:

Hinds v. McDonald, [1932] 1 D.L.R. 96, ref'd to. [para. 7].

Stanley v. Stanley (1955), 37 M.P.R. 197, ref'd to. [para. 7].

Willoughby v. Willoughby (1980), 24 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 239; 65 A.P.R. 239, ref'd to. [para. 7].

Sullivan v. Sullivan (1818), 2 Hag. Con. 238, affd. 3 Phillim 45, ref'd to. [para. 30].

Roblin v. Roblin (1881), 28 Gr. 439, ref'd to. [para. 30].

Meilen v. Andersson (1977), 6 A.R. 427, ref'd to. [para. 30].

Batth v. Batth (1979), 9 R.F.L.(2d) 184, consd. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2, sect. 11.2(2) [para. 5]; sect. 11(4) [para. 2].

Divorce Court Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. D-12, sect. 2 [para. 2]; sect. 19 [para. 3]; sect. 38 [para. 6].

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 2.02 [para. 4].

Marriage and Divorce etc., An Act For Regulating (1791), 31 Geo. 3, c. 5, sect. 9 [para. 6].

Marriage Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-3, sect. 3 [para. 33]; sect. 12 [para. 34]; sect. 35 [para. 35].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Davies, Christine, Family Law in Canada, pp. 38-39 [para. 8]; 53 [para. 25]; 65, fn. 46 [para. 28]; 66 [para. 29].

McLeod, Annotation to Batth v. Batth (1979), 9 R.F.L.(2d) 184 [para. 45].

Counsel:

Mark M. Yeoman, Q.C., for the applicant;

No one acting on behalf of respondent.

This application was heard before Deschênes, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Judicial District of Moncton, at Moncton, N.B., on May 29, 1985. The decision of Deschênes, J., was delivered on October 24, 1985.