Une équipe à votre service :

ST-CLAIR ET ASSOCIÉS PARTAGE AVEC VOUS SES VICTOIRES!

The lawyers at St-Clair & Associates enjoy an excellent reputation for their winning record on the mandates entrusted to them. We care deeply about contributing to your personal, family and professional success. Winning is the final goal of any person who gets involved in Court proceedings and this is the prime motivation of the lawyer who will represent them: applying the best of his knowledge and skills to serve the client.

It is important to know a trial doesn’t always have an outcome as simple as a sports competition, in which one side is the winner and the other is defeated. The Judge must deal with a large number of variables, such as the facts of the case, the evidence that is conserved and presented, the applicable rules of law and the jurisprudence. Each case is unique, and the decision sometimes rules midway in between.

The decisions favouring our clients concretely apply the values we defend. The list of decisions presented is not exhaustive.   These are only some of the judgments rendered in the cases for which we were mandated. Only decisions of legal or factual interest are published.

+ Judgments rendered in French:

I., K., c. V., B., 2009 QCCS 329 (Can LII)

Keywords: Child custody, litispendence, child’s domicile, New York
Jurisdiction: Superior Court
District: Montreal

The parties resided together in New York with their child. Court proceedings concerning the custody of the child were instituted in New York State. While the wife was visiting her family in Quebec, she decided file and action for custody and support in Montreal. Our team obtained a judgment dismissing the proceedings on the grounds that the State of New York has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the dispute, given the circumstances.

I., K., c. V., B.,2009 QC CA 895 (Can LII)

Keywords: Child custody, litispendence, child’s domicile, New York, appeal
Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal
District: Montreal

On an appeal of the judgment in I., K., c. V., B., 2009 QCCS 329 (Can LII) , our team was able to establish at the outset that the appeal was manifestly unfounded since the trial judge had not abused her discretion in allowing the New York State Courts to decide on the custody of the parties’ child.

Z., A., c. H., H., 2007 QCCS 6139 Can LII

Keywords : Territorial jurisdiction, divorce, child custody, change of country, spousal support, sale of the family residence
Jurisdiction: Superior Court
District: Longueuil

The parties were born in Afghanistan and have lived in Quebec since 1991. The wife owned the family residence. In 2006, the family moved to Abu Dhabi for her work. The parties separated and returned to Quebec to institute divorce proceedings, which subsequently were amended to separation from bed and board. In the meantime, the father obtained custody of the child, while the mother had to return to Abu Dhabi for her job. At the provisional hearing, our team obtained custody of the child for our client and forced the sale of the family residence. The husband’s motion for spousal support was dismissed.

 

 

+ Judgments rendered in English:

H., H., c. Z., A., 2008 QC CA 172 (Can LII)

Keywords : Permission to appeal, provisional measures, child custody, leaving the country, sale of the family residence
Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal
District: Montreal

In a case involving separation from bed and board, our team had won custody of the child for our client at the provisional hearing, including authorization to travel abroad, and an order to force the sale of the family residence being occupied by the husband. The husband filed a motion for permission to appeal the judgment, which we successfully dismissed.

 

I., B., c. D., B.R., 2007 QC CS 4567 (Can LII)

Keywords : Interim measures, provision for costs, offer of settlement refused, engagement ring
Jurisdiction: Superior Court
District: Montreal

Within the context of divorce proceedings, the Defendant (the husband) refused an offer of settlement proposed by the plaintiff even though the offer was clearly to his advantage. The Plaintiff (the wife) then requested a provision for costs at the interim stage to cover additional legal expenses due to the other party’s refusal to settle. Our team successfully pleaded that a provision for costs should not be granted, given the circumstances.

Z., A., c. H., H., 2008 QC CS 6460 (Can LII)

Keywords : Separation from room and board, child custody, support, unequal partition, child’s residence
Jurisdiction: Superior Court
District: Longueuil

The parties were married in Quebec and moved to the United Arab Emirates for the Plaintiff’s work. The parties separated and the Defendant returned to live in Canada. Within the context of proceedings for separation from bed and board, the Defendant had obtained custody of their child at the preliminary stage, and the Plaintiff (the mother) later obtained custody of the child at the provisional stage. Pleading on the geographical distance between the parties and the best interests of the child, we successfully obtained custody of the child for our client, while the Defendant (the father) obtained access rights during the summer.