Kerpan v. Vovers

Kerpan v. Vovers

Trial judge accepted the affidavit and evidence of the process server, found documents were handed to Vovers (or left with him) on October 30, 1992, and that under the circumstances Vovers knew or reasonably ought to have known the documents were a petition for divorce and related claims; therefore service was valid and the orders of December 7, 1992, May 25, 1993 and October 18/19, 1995 are valid and enforceable; the stay of enforcement was set aside and costs awarded to Kerpan.

Citation
2012 BCSC 154
Parties
Petitioner: Janet Rae Kerpan; Respondent: Michael Francis Vovers
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Child Support / Application to Set Aside Prior Orders; Trial on Service and Legal Consequences
Outcome
Application dismissed; prior orders upheld and enforcement stay set aside; costs awarded to Kerpan.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Validity of Default Judgments, Child Support Enforcement, Personal Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Enforcement/recognition of Foreign Orders Service of Process Validity of Default Judgments Child Support Enforcement Personal Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janet Rae Kerpan

Petitioner

Michael Francis Vovers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Child Support / Application to Set Aside Prior Orders; Trial on Service and Legal Consequences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent was served with the petition and related documents on October 30, 1992
  2. 2 Legal effect of failure to serve the petition and related documents on validity of subsequent orders
  3. 3 Whether the 1992, 1993 and 1995 court orders are void or enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

Trial judge accepted the affidavit and evidence of the process server, found documents were handed to Vovers (or left with him) on October 30, 1992, and that under the circumstances Vovers knew or reasonably ought to have known the documents were a petition for divorce and related claims; therefore service was valid and the orders of December 7, 1992, May 25, 1993 and October 18/19, 1995 are valid and enforceable; the stay of enforcement was set aside and costs awarded to Kerpan.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; prior orders upheld and enforcement stay set aside; costs awarded to Kerpan.

Orders

  • Orders of December 7, 1992, May 25, 1993 and October 18/19, 1995 are valid and enforceable
  • Order of Goepel J. (August 31, 2011) staying enforcement is set aside