D.A.K. v. J.K.

D.A.K. v. J.K.

The September 30, 2002 order was vacated because the court accepted the District Registrar's finding that proper service was not effected and that the registered mail receipt purporting to be the petitioner's signature was not genuine, thereby defeating the factual basis for the order made in her absence.

Citation
2002 BCSC 1786
Parties
Petitioner: D.A.K.; Respondent: J.K.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Family Law Proceeding / Motion Hearing; Subsequent Reconsideration on Service Issue
Outcome
Order of September 30, 2002 vacated.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Vacating Orders, Inherent Jurisdiction, Forgery of Signature
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Service of Process Forgery Vacating Orders Inherent Jurisdiction Forgery of Signature

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D.A.K.

Petitioner

J.K.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Proceeding / Motion Hearing; Subsequent Reconsideration on Service Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order made in the absence of a party should be set aside for lack of proper service
  2. 2 Whether the registered mail receipt purporting to show service was forged and its effect on the validity of the order
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction to vacate an order obtained without notice

Ratio Decidendi

The September 30, 2002 order was vacated because the court accepted the District Registrar's finding that proper service was not effected and that the registered mail receipt purporting to be the petitioner's signature was not genuine, thereby defeating the factual basis for the order made in her absence.

Court Disposition

Order of September 30, 2002 vacated.

Orders

  • Order of September 30, 2002 vacated.
  • District Registrar's investigation accepted that proper service was not effected and that the registered mail receipt was not signed by the petitioner.