Nordio v. Nordio
- Citation
- 2010 BCSC 35
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 12 January 2010
- Posture
- Family Law Divorce / Supplementary Reasons and Judgment (nunc Pro Tunc)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 12 January 2010
- Posture
- Family Law Divorce / Supplementary Reasons and Judgment (nunc Pro Tunc)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court concluded the divorce claim was properly before it during the November/December 2007 hearings; the omission of the separate divorce docket reference was a clerical oversight that did not affect jurisdiction, and the divorce order is declared to have been heard on December 6, 2007 and made in action No. E028559 on March 31, 2008 nunc pro tunc.
Court disposition
Divorce order declared to have been heard on December 6, 2007 and to have been made in action No. E028559 on March 31, 2008 nunc pro tunc.
Orders
- The divorce claim in action No. E028559 is ordered to have been heard December 6, 2007 and the divorce order made in that action on March 31, 2008 nunc pro tunc.
02
Material facts
Parties
Erika Nordio
Plaintiff Counsel: P.C. BurkeMarco-Abel Nordio
Defendant Counsel: Self-representedMuli 36 Electrical Ltd.
DefendantErika Schrey
Plaintiff Counsel: P.C. Burke03
Procedural history
Posture
Family Law Divorce / Supplementary Reasons and Judgment (nunc Pro Tunc)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the divorce order was properly before the court despite being filed under a different docket number
- 02
Whether the court should correct the oversight by declaring the divorce heard on the earlier date and making the order nunc pro tunc
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant asserted that she requested the divorce order during the November/December 2007 hearings and that the court granted the divorce; the failure to reference the separate divorce file was an oversight and should be corrected by ordering the divorce nunc pro tunc to the date it was heard.
- Respondent
- No substantive opposition or alternative argument is recorded; the defendant appeared on his own behalf and the court records show no contested objection to correcting the clerical oversight.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Equitable jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of British Columbia / established case law
A superior court may correct clerical or docketing errors and make nunc pro tunc orders to reflect what occurred in court
- 02
Supreme Court practice and the court's supervisory authority (recorded in these Reasons)
Where the matter was properly before the court on the evidence, a misreference to a docket does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to make the order
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court concluded the divorce claim was properly before it during the November/December 2007 hearings; the omission of the separate divorce docket reference was a clerical oversight that did not affect jurisdiction, and the divorce order is declared to have been heard on December 6, 2007 and made in action No. E028559 on March 31, 2008 nunc pro tunc.
Obiter and limits
- The omission of the divorce file reference was an oversight by the parties and the court and may be corrected by the court's record-keeping and nunc pro tunc powers.
Court disposition
Divorce order declared to have been heard on December 6, 2007 and to have been made in action No. E028559 on March 31, 2008 nunc pro tunc.
- The divorce claim in action No. E028559 is ordered to have been heard December 6, 2007 and the divorce order made in that action on March 31, 2008 nunc pro tunc.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 12 January 2010
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 12 January 2010
2010 BCSC 35 Nordio v. Nordio
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Nordio v. Nordio, 2010 BCSC 35 Date: 20100112 Docket: E025703 Registry: New Westminster Between: Erika Nordio Plaintiff And Marco-Abel Nordio and Muli 36 Electrical Ltd. Defendants - and - Docket: E028559 Registry: New Westminster Between: Erika Schrey Plaintiff And Marco-Abel Nordio Defendant Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Crawford Supplementary Reasons to 2008 BCSC 383, Nordio v. Nordio [NW E025703], dated March 31, 2008 Supplementary Reasons for Judgment Counsel for Plaintiff: P.C. Burke Defendant Marco-Abel Nordio: Appearing on his own behalf Place and Date of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. November 8 and December 6, 2007 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. January 12, 2010 [1] The family law action New Westminster Registry No. E025703 of Mrs. Nordio initially came on for hearing before me in July 2007. [2] The hearing continued in November and December of 2007. [3] Mrs. Nordio, describing herself as Erica Schrey, commenced another action seeking a divorce on October 30, 2007: New Westminster Registry No. E028559. [4] During the November and December 2007 hearings, Mrs. Nordio asked for the divorce order and on the evidence before me, I granted that order in paragraph 9 of the Reasons given March 31, 2008. Those Reasons do not reference the divorce action No. E028559. [5] I am satisfied the matter was properly before me and simply by oversight the divorce file was not correctly referenced by the parties or myself at the time. The divorce claim is therefore ordered to have been heard December 6, 2007 and the divorce order made in action No. E028559 on March 31, 2008 nunc pro tunc. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Crawford"
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.