Gaudet v. Crossman

Gaudet v. Crossman

The court exercised its discretion to dispense with personal service because exhaustive searches showed the respondent could not be located, substituted service was unlikely to give notice, and there was no matrimonial property or foreseeable expense requiring indemnification, so dispensing with personal service caused no prejudice.

Citation
2020 NSSC 204
Parties
Petitioner: Lissa Marie Rachel Gaudet; Respondent: David Lee Crossman
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Corollary Relief / Application to Dispense With Personal Service
Outcome
Petitioner’s request to dispense with personal service granted.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Substituted Service, Dispensing Service, Divorce, Corollary Relief
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Matrimonial Property Service of Process Substituted Service Dispensing Service Divorce Corollary Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lissa Marie Rachel Gaudet

Petitioner

David Lee Crossman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Corollary Relief / Application to Dispense With Personal Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should dispense with personal service of the divorce petition and corollary relief
  2. 2 Whether substituted service is practicable or likely to bring the petition to the respondent's attention
  3. 3 Whether indemnification should be ordered for expenses resulting from failure to personally serve

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to dispense with personal service because exhaustive searches showed the respondent could not be located, substituted service was unlikely to give notice, and there was no matrimonial property or foreseeable expense requiring indemnification, so dispensing with personal service caused no prejudice.

Court Disposition

Petitioner’s request to dispense with personal service granted.

Orders

  • Requirement to personally serve the Petition on David Lee Crossman is dispensed with.
  • No indemnification for expenses resulting from the failure to personally serve is ordered.