07 May C.G.H. v. N.M.H.

             THE COURT:  The plaintiff seeks an order for an interim sale of the family home in West Kelowna on Country Pines Drive. She seeks this order prior to trial pursuant to Rule 43 of the Supreme Court Rules. Rule 43 gives the court discretion to order an interim sale of the matrimonial home where it is necessary or expedient to do so. The court has considered many factors in determining necessity and expedience, including the factors set out in the Continuing Legal Education of B.C. Family Law Source Book at page 844. I am going to summarize some of those:(a)      whether a sale is apt to promote an early settlement;(b)      where a sale is apt to defeat a spouse’s claim for reapportionment;(c)      whether the sale is inevitable;(d)      whether the sale would put a spouse and children on the street pending resolution of the litigation;(e)      whether there is alterative accommodations available; and(f)       whether the proceeds would fall entirely to creditors....

Read More

06 Apr Pitcher v. Brown

             On March 10, 2010 an application was brought to adjourn the two‑week jury trial scheduled for March 15, 2010. This is a personal injury matter, arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about August 24, 2004 in Kelowna, B.C., where liability has been admitted and the only issue to be tried is the assessment of damages. Counsel requested the adjournment for these reasons:          1.       Counsel for the plaintiff is not available for trial on March 15, 2010. Plaintiff’s counsel says that the date was agreed to by Ms. Pitcher on condition that her new counsel be available, and when he filed an appearance plaintiff’s counsel advised defence counsel that he was not available on this day. Defence counsel refused to adjourn the trial.          2.       Plaintiff’s counsel also indicated that the damages are connected to damages incurred in 2003, prior to the motor vehicle accident, when the plaintiff fell at the Vancouver airport. She has commenced an action (S68745) and that matter has recently been transferred to Vancouver for trial.          3.       The plaintiff says she is unable to attend the trial on March 15, 2010 because her father‑in‑law passed away and the funeral is being held on March 11, 2010. Not only is she not in a position to conduct a trial, but her husband, who is her main support person, would not be available either....

Read More