Anaka v. Yeo, 2006 SKQB 201

• Judge: Maher, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 26, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2006 SKQB 201;(2006), 282 Sask.R. 279 (FD)

Anaka v. Yeo (2006), 282 Sask.R. 279 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.007

William John Anaka (petitioner) v. Karen Adelle Yeo (respondent)

(2006 FLD No. 46; 2006 SKQB 201)

Indexed As: Anaka v. Yeo

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Maher, J.

April 26, 2006.

Summary:

A father applied for joint custody and increased access to his son. The mother opposed the application and objected to the court's jurisdiction on the basis that she and the child had always resided in Manitoba.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that it lacked jurisdiction and awarded $1,500 costs to the mother.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 643

Jurisdiction - Submission to jurisdiction - What constitutes - A father applied for joint custody and increased access to his son - The mother opposed the application and objected to the court's jurisdiction on the basis that she and the child had always resided in Manitoba - The father argued that the consent transfer of the proceedings from one judicial centre to another resulted in the mother attorning to the jurisdiction of Saskatchewan - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, rejected the argument - The mother had objected to the Saskatchewan jurisdiction throughout - See paragraph 19.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2302

Family law - Custody of and access to children - Jurisdiction of court - [See Family Law - Topic 2115 ].

Courts - Topic 2004

Jurisdiction - General principles - Inherent jurisdiction (incl. parens patriae jurisdiction) - A father applied for joint custody and increased access to his son - The mother opposed the application and objected to the court's jurisdiction on the basis that she and the child had always resided in Manitoba - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that although the mother had not formally filed a motion under rule 99 objecting to the court's jurisdiction, it was required to make a determination as if there was an application under rule 99 - Therefore, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and proceeded to determine the jurisdiction issue as if a formal application had been made - See paragraph 15.

Family Law - Topic 2115

Custody and access - Jurisdiction - General principles - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that there was a conflict and inconsistency between the jurisdiction provisions of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA) and the jurisdiction provisions governing custody and access in the Children's Law Act (CLA) - Therefore, by virtue of s. 11 of the CJPTA, the matter of jurisdiction was to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the CLA - See paragraphs 8 to 13.

Family Law - Topic 2118

Custody and access - Jurisdiction - Where child is resident outside the province - [See Courts - Topic 2004 ].

Family Law - Topic 2180

Custody and access - Practice - General - [See Courts - Topic 2004 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hunter v. Hunter (2005), 269 Sask.R. 223; 357 W.A.C. 223; 2005 SKCA 76, refd to. [para. 10].

Sack v. Sack (1997), 159 Sask.R. 71 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 18].

M.M.K. v. K.R.M. (2003), 243 Sask.R. 209 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Children's Law Act, S.S. 1997, c. C-8.2, sect. 15 [para. 11].

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 99 [para. 9].

Counsel:

J.L. McCullagh, for the petitioner;

D. Blenner-Hassett, for the respondent.

This application was heard by Maher, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following decision on April 26, 2006.