IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Citation: Thor v. Thor, 2005NSSC138
Date: 20050601
Docket: 1207-002460(26953)
Registry: Truro
Between:
Anne Marie Thor
Petitioner
v.
Ake Helge Thor
Respondent
DECISION
Judge: The Honourable Justice Charles E. Haliburton
Heard: May 2, 2005, Truro, Nova Scotia
Oral Decision: May 2, 2005
Written Decision: June 1, 2005
Counsel: Mr. Lloyd Berliner, Solicitor for the Petitioner
Mrs. Karen Killawee, Solicitor for the Respondent
Haliburton, J. (orally):
[1] I am persuaded that we cannot deal with the entire matter in this Court. There is material and information in Sweden that has to be produced. There is the question of Swedish law with respect certainly to the first contract. The parties were domiciled in Sweden and entered into a marriage under Swedish law, presumably their removal to Canada would not effect the law that they agreed to be governed by at that point. Different circumstances may apply to the contract that was signed in 1987. It seems to me that to be enforceable that contract would have to meet the criteria that would be applied to them as a Canadian couple.
[2] Valuation of property, the Swedish property I am speaking of, while not impossible in this Court, would be dealt with greater facility and I think probably more fairness in a Swedish Court. The assets that are Canadian are well established, or appear to be, so a Swedish Court should have no difficulty in dividing those assets.
[3] The cases that have been cited to me when I review them come down on the side of foregoing jurisdiction in favour of the Swedish Courts. In some cases that have been cited various issues are dealt with. In Huber v. Huber some issues were dealt with in the Canadian Court and some issues were dealt with in a foreign Court. It would be possible perhaps to split some of the jurisdictions and deal with divorce and matrimonial property here. The Swedish Court will be faced with applying Canadian law to those aspects of the matter. I am of the view that in the terms of these cases the Swedish Court could deal more comprehensively and knowledgeably with the factors that have to be taken into consideration. Therefore the Swedish Court is clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum. There is obviously the factor of Mr. Thor’s resistence, if not inability, to travel and while it may be exaggerated I have no doubt that it is to a large extent justified. There is also the fact that Mrs. Thor, as part of her plans, intends to travel back and forth to Sweden on occasion so it should not be a hardship on her to appear in Court there.
[4] The cost, looking again at some of the factors that are cited, of conducting the litigation from what I have heard should be less in Sweden than it would be here. In terms of obtaining information on Swedish law which is a factor with respect to the contracts and the valuation of the Swedish property, I think to be an issue with some concern.
[5] I will endeavour to enlarge those reasons if the parties wish.
[6] MR. BERLINER: I do My Lord.
[7] THE COURT: Alright I will attempt to add and enlarge and provide you with wording that you can get your teeth into Mr. Berliner.
J.
05/27/05