Attendance Board (Alta.) v. D.G., (2000) 259 A.R. 105 (QB)

• Judge: Sulyma, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 14, 2000
• Citations: (2000), 259 A.R. 105 (QB)

Attendance Bd. v. D.G. (2000), 259 A.R. 105 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. MR.056

In The Matter Of the School Act, being c. S-3.1 of the Statutes of Alberta as amended

And In The Matter Of an order of the Attendance Board, issued pursuant to s. 110(2) of the School Act, in respect of D.G.

The Attendance Board (applicant) v. D.G. (respondent) and The Attorney General of Alberta (intervenor)

(Action No. 9903-02075)

Indexed As: Attendance Board (Alta.) v. D.G.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Sulyma, J.

February 14, 2000.

Summary:

A young person under the age of 16 failed to attend school. The Attendance Board issued an order ordering him to attend school. The order was filed in the Court of Queen's Bench. The youth failed to attend school. He was found in contempt of the order. He failed to purge his contempt by attending school. At issue was whether the youth could be incarcerated for civil con­tempt.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a custodial sentence could not be imposed on a youth for failure to purge his contempt by attending school.

Contempt - Topic 3047

Persons liable - Particular persons - Juve­niles - A young person under the age of 16 failed to attend school - The Attend­ance Board issued an order ordering him to attend school - The order was filed in the Court of Queen's Bench - The youth failed to attend school - He was found in contempt of the order - He failed to purge his contempt by attending school - The issue was whether the youth could be incarcerated for civil contempt - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a custodial sentence could not be imposed on a youth for failure to purge his con­tempt by attending school - See para­graphs 6 to 40.

Contempt - Topic 5504

Jurisdiction to punish for contempt - General - Provincial supreme courts - A young person under the age of 16 failed to attend school - The Attendance Board issued an order ordering him to attend school - The order was filed in the Court of Queen's Bench - The youth failed to attend school - He was found in contempt of the order - He failed to purge his con­tempt by attending school - At issue was whether he could be given a custodial sentence for contempt - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Young Offenders Act provided that the failure of a young person to attend school would be dealt with criminally or civilly by the exercise of powers of disposition of either the Youth Court or the Court of Queen's Bench, exclusive of incarceration - The provision of the Young Offenders Act was valid legislation, because it did not attempt to curtail the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court to deal with contempt, but regulated and prescribed the sanctions that could be imposed once contempt was found - See paragraphs 6 to 37.

Contempt - Topic 5509

Jurisdiction to punish for contempt - General - Youth courts - [See Contempt - Topic 5504 ].

Education - Topic 5111

Students - Attendance - Court-ordered - Enforcement - [See Contempt - Topic 3047 ].

Education - Topic 5116

Students - Attendance - Offences - Tru­ancy - [See Contempt - Topic 3047 ].

Cases Noticed:

K.G., Re (1987), 76 A.R. 93 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 225, affing. (1994), 43 B.C.A.C. 1; 69 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), affing. (1993), 12 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 81 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Walker v. Bentley (1995), 660 So.2d 313 (Fla. App. 2 Dist.), refd to. [para. 31].

Walker v. Bentley (1996), 678 So.2d 1265 (Fla.).

McKinney, In Re (1968), 447 P.2d 972 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 32].

Allsco Building Products Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Interna­tional Union, Local 1288P (1999), 245 N.R. 67; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 562 A.P.R. 1; 176 D.L.R.(4th) 647 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Cancoil Thermal Corp. and Parkinson (1986), 14 O.A.C. 225; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 296 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Martin (1991), 43 O.A.C. 378; 2 O.R.(3d) 16 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

School Act, S.A. 1988, c. S-3.1, sect. 8(1), sect. 108(1), sect. 110 [para. 9].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 702, rule 704 [para. 10].

Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-3, sect. 2(1), sect. 12, sect. 16, sect. 22 [para. 11].

Counsel:

L.H. Whittaker and B.A. James, for the Attendance Board;

B.J. Holtby, for D.G.;

R.C. Maybank, for the Attorney General of Alberta.

This application was heard before Sulyma, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 14, 2000.