DATE: 20060310

DOCKET: C44193

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: RAJENDRA HARRIPRAIM DHANNA (Applicant/Respondent) – and – OMADAVI SHANTA DHANNA (Respondent/Appellant)

BEFORE: WEILER, BLAIR and ROULEAU JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Rochelle F. Cantor for the appellant No one appearing for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED: March 8, 2006

On appeal from the order of Justice Michael G. Bolan of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 25, 2005.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant, Omadvi S. Dhanna, swore she served the respondent’s solicitor’s clerk with the Divorce Petition. The respondent did not file any acceptance or admission of service of the application for Divorce. See: Rule 6(3)(b) and 6(19)(a) of the Family Law Rules. In addition under rule 6(3)(b) there was no lawyer “in the case” as service of the application for Divorce initiated proceedings in this “new case”. It appears there was no proper service under rule 6(3)(b) and therefore the order granting the divorce judgment must be set aside. Costs to the appellant fixed in the amount of $500.00 and disbursements of $460 for a total of $960 all inclusive.