2,045 result(s)
-
1.
Ahmed v. Naseem - 2016 NSSC 74 - 2016-03-23
Supreme Court - Decision2.1.1 Talaq divorce 13 2.1.2 Khulla divorce 20 2.2 Documentary evidence 21 [...] The Naz/Ahmed divorce is a khulla divorce: the divorce initiated by wives. [...] The Mafooz/Ahmed divorce and the Ahsan/Ahmed divorce were both talaq divorces.
-
2.
Charapovich v. Charapovich - 2022 NSSC 124 - 2022-02-11
Supreme Court - DecisionDivorce Act, R.S.C. (2nd Supp.), c. 3, subsection 2(1) and section 22 [...] [3] The parties agree that the only basis on which I can recognize the Belarusian divorce is subsection 22(3) of the Divorce Act. This subsection allows that the common law rules about respecting foreign divorces are not affected by subsections 22(1) and 22(2). [...] [4] The common law rule for recognizing a foreign divorce was outlined by Professor Payne in “Payne on Divorce” (4th ed.).
-
3.
Guptill v. Wilfred - 2009 NSSC 44 - 2009-02-09
Supreme Court - Decision[57] The Husband denied telling his Wife or Ms. Muise that he had divorce papers, but rather only advised that he had signed divorce papers for Ms. Daniel. [...] The incident is not consistent with the Husband’s evidence that he believed that he had been divorced from Ms. Daniel many years before his marriage of September 29,2001, or that he had tried to divorce her in early 2002 but could not because he could not find her to serve divorce papers. [...] He, presumably, was in a better position to produce some evidence to the effect that Ms Daniel had divorced him, or why he could not complete his own divorce against her, or that she was deceased.
-
4.
Quigley v. Willmore - 2008 NSSC 353 - 2008-11-26
Supreme Court - DecisionThe pleading seeks, under the Divorce Act: - Divorce - Custody - Access [...] [37] I would recognize the Texas divorce, decline to grant the divorce here. [...] Not until a divorce is final. If the “Texas divorce” becomes final it may impact upon this Court’s divorce jurisdiction.
-
5.
Mohammadpoor v. Merati - 2020 NSSC 218 - 2020-08-11
Supreme Court - DecisionThere was no evidence that the divorce was finalized in Iran. The divorce is granted. [...] Even if the Iranian Court had finalized the divorce, the authority to recognize a foreign divorce is contained in section 22(1) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., C3, 1985, (2nd Suppl.)(as amended) which states: [...] She has fulfilled the jurisdictional requirements pursuant to section 3(1) of the Divorce Act, supra, to have the divorce proceed here.
-
6.
Sauer v. Vilandré - 2019 NSSC 166 - 2019-05-22
Supreme Court - Decision[1] The Respondent brought an application on November 21, 2018, pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1995, c. 3, to transfer the divorce proceedings to Quebec where she currently resides with the two children of the marriage. [...] [22] Subsection 6(1) of the Divorce Act is invoked with an opposed application for custody or access under section 16. [...] It is only when custody or access is an issue that the court has discretion to transfer divorce proceedings.
-
7.
Al-Khouri v. Al-Khouri - 2011 NSSC 122 - 2011-03-25
Supreme Court - DecisionMr. Al-Khouri wants an immediate divorce so he can marry another woman. [...] Mr. Al-Khouri commenced divorce proceedings in both Syria and Canada. [...] [9] Rule 59.48(1) allows a judge to grant a divorce if she is satisfied that the ground for divorce, and other necessary facts, are proved.
-
8.
Hayward Estate (Re) - 2010 NSSC 6 - 2010-06-07
Supreme Court - Decision[1] This case involves the not uncommon situation of a divorcing party not changing his or her will (which will names the other party as the primary beneficiary) when the divorce is finalized. [...] That Section effectively provided that a judgement absolute of divorce nullifies any bequests contained in a prior Will of divorced parties. [...] The separation agreement was incorporated into the divorce judgment. As soon as the Nevada divorce was finalized, the testator remarried and returned to Newfoundland with his second wife.
-
9.
Saunderson v. Lang - 2011 NSSC 282 - 2011-06-08
Supreme Court - DecisionThe divorce will be granted upon the filing of a Divorce Judgment. V. DIVISION OF ASSETS [...] The parties remarried May 17, 1996, only six months after their (first) divorce. [...] [26] The parties’ first divorce was silent on the issue of spousal support.
-
10.
Godin v. Godin - 2013 NSSC 401 - 2013-12-09
Supreme Court - Decision[4] The Petition for Divorce was filed in Nova Scotia in 2012 by Ms. Godin. [...] Each of these proceedings is defined by section 2 of the Divorce Act supra. [...] The Divorce proceeding means: a proceeding in a court in which either or both spouses seek a divorce alone or together with a child support order, a spousal support order or a custody order.
-
11.
Vanderlinden v. Vanderlinden - 2007 NSSC 80 - 2007-03-14
Supreme Court - DecisionIn quantifying spousal support in compliance with the Divorce Act, I find that reference to the Advisory Guidelines is not helpful because it fails to address need and ability to pay, fails to address the objectives of the Divorce Act enunciated in section 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act, and relies too much on the length of the [...] It follows that the analysis of “substantial compliance” under the Divorce Act is required. [...] THE DIVORCE: [68] I find all procedural and jurisdictional matters and the grounds for divorce have been proven and accordingly I will grant the divorce judgment.
-
12.
Green v Green - 2022 NSSC 120 - 2022-05-02
Supreme Court - DecisionDespite the 2021 divorce decision, the parenting issues continue to be litigated. [...] Mr. Green wants to vacate the parenting provisions of the divorce decision. [...] Mr. Green cannot engage in a collateral attack of my divorce decision.
-
13.
O'Neil v. O'Neil - 2013 NSSC 44 - 2013-01-31
Supreme Court - Decision[3] A divorce variation application is grounded in a consideration of the most recent order governing the parties’ affairs. [...] In the year the parties divorced the Respondent refinanced the previously mortgage free home on three occasions: to consolidate outstanding credit card debt at a lower interest rate, to pay outstanding legal fees incurred in the divorce litigation, and to raise cash of approximately $16,500.00. [...] [50] Clearly the Applicant here made a concerted effort to save and maximize his retirement potential after divorce.
-
14.
Grady v. Grady - 2009 NSSC 364 - 2009-12-10
Supreme Court - DecisionThe Interaction of the Separation Agreement and the Divorce Act, para. 30 [...] A divorce hearing was held on October 13, 2009 and November 2, 2009. Through the evidence of Mr. Grady, the parties marriage was established; the court’s jurisdiction to grant a divorce was established, the grounds for the divorce were established and there being no bars to the divorce, the divorce was granted. [...] The Interaction of the Separation Agreement and the Divorce Act [30] The Petition for Divorce was issued August 2, 2006 and served September 7, 2006.
-
15.
Quigley v. Willmore - 2007 NSSC 305 - 2007-10-22
Supreme Court - DecisionThe Respondent, Gary Willmore, commenced a divorce proceeding by filing an original Petition for Divorce in the District Court, Liberty County, Texas, USA on November 9th, 2006. [...] [40] The phrase “ordinarily resident” is not defined in the Divorce Act, 1985. [...] The husband commenced a petition for divorce in Dallas, Texas on June 12, 1997.
-
16.
McGrath v. McGrath - 2023 NSSC 50 - 2023-02-13
Supreme Court - DecisionLegislation: Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3 Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 [...] [6] The Divorce Act doesn’t require that a variation application be heard in the province where the former spouses divorced. [...] [7] The Divorce Act anticipates that one court may vary the order of another court.
-
17.
Evans v. Spicer - 2014 NSSC 95 - 2014-02-25
Supreme Court - Decision(i) The parties were in a mid-life marriage for 10.5 years and divorced on July 16, 2009. [...] (vii) Since divorce the Respondent has incurred considerable additional debt. [...] By then the Applicant will have received over eight years of support in recognition of the 10.5 year marriage, which should be sufficient to address her transition from her economic status pre-divorce to post-divorce.
-
18.
Pitts v. Noble - 2009 NSSC 325 - 2009-11-03
Supreme Court - Decision- Federal Law: Divorce Act [6] Incidental to the Federal jurisdiction over divorce, s. 91(26) Constitution Act, 1867, the Divorce Act , S.C. 1985, C. 3 (2ND Supp.) hereinafter referred to as the Divorce Act, addresses custody and access issues that arise in a Divorce proceeding. [...] [8] Section 6 of the Divorce Act permits the transfer of the divorce proceeding to another Province (Territory) if requested to do so on the basis of a child of the marriage being most substantially connected with another Province/Territory. [...] - Federal Law: Divorce Act [22] The discussion supra beginning at paragraph 6 also addresses support issues across domestic Provincial/Territirial boundaries as part of a Divorce proceeding.
-
19.
Green v Green - 2022 NSSC 164 - 2022-06-10
Supreme Court - DecisionDivorce Hearing [16] The parties’ high conflict divorce trial was held on October 26, 27, 28, 29; November 3 and 6; and December 17, 2020. [...] Mr. Green cannot engage in a collateral attack of my divorce decision. [...] The finality of my divorce decision must not be compromised in such a manner.
-
20.
Coles v. Coles - 2020 NSSC 200 - 2020-07-08
Supreme Court - DecisionLegislation: Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, subsection 17(4.1) [...] [47] Ms. Coles’s income hasn’t materially changed since the divorce. [...] Where we have this authority, we can also vary these orders: Divorce Act, subsection 17(3).
-
21.
Miller v. Miller - 2009 NSSC 294 - 2009-10-15
Supreme Court - Decision[44] Section 15.2 of the Divorce Act authorizes an order for spousal support: [...] It was not clear when the petition for divorce was filed in Lidstone. [...] This is because the federal power over child support only arises from the latter's relationship to an actual divorce and, before the divorce is granted, this jurisdiction does not arise.
-
22.
W.G.B. v. C.D.R. - 2004 NSSF 112 - 2004-12-08
Supreme Court - DecisionAt the time of divorce he was living with his mother. [48] His mother argued that he was a dependant at the time of divorce, even though he had left the parental care for intervening months. [...] [66] The Learned Trial Judge already took into consideration the effect of the divorce on N.. [...] The parties are responsible for putting credible evidence before the divorce court.
-
23.
Green v. Green - 2022 NSSC 247 - 2022-08-26
Supreme Court - Decision[5] The divorce decision and Corollary Relief Order established the parenting plan that was in the children’s best interests. [...] [6] After the divorce hearing, I decided several motions filed by Mr. Green as follows: [...] He also asked me to vacate the divorce decision and CRO and to order a new trial in the general division.
-
24.
Waterman v. Waterman - 2016 NSSC 1 - 2016-01-11
Supreme Court - Decision[4] On November 21, 2013, Mr. Waterman filed a petition for divorce in Ontario. [...] [7] Mr. Waterman’s divorce was heard by Justice Kruzick on January 22, 2014 and the divorce was granted on February 4, 2014. [...] Her application in the absence of a concurrent divorce proceeding is a corollary relief proceeding envisioned by subsection 2(1) of the Divorce Act.
-
25.
Stening-Riding v. Riding - 2006 NSSC 221 - 2006-07-12
Supreme Court - Decision(b) When a Divorce Judgment is obtained, all the terms of this Agreement shall survive the Divorce Judgment and continue in force. [...] He also had substantial debt to pay down as a result of the divorce agreement. [...] [41] The Applicant said that the divorce settlement has left her deeply in debt.