C.J.F. v. B.B.H., (1996) 139 Sask.R. 66 (FD)

• Judge: Barclay, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 04, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 139 Sask.R. 66 (FD)

C.J.F. v. B.B.H. (1996), 139 Sask.R. 66 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

C.J.F. (claimant) v. B.B.H. (respondent)

(1995 F.L.D. No. 121)

Indexed As: C.J.F. v. B.B.H.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Estevan

Barclay, J.

January 4, 1996.

Summary:

A mother applied under the Saskatchewan Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act for confirmation of a provisional maintenance order made by the Provincial Court in British Columbia.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed the application.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - A couple had a child out of wedlock - In 1981, the child's father consented to a filiation order in Saskatchewan Provincial Court, agreeing to pay monthly maintenance until the mother got married - In 1984, the mother married and the father ceased paying maintenance - In 1995 the mother obtained a provisional maintenance order from the British Columbia Provincial Court - The mother then applied in Saskatchewan to confirm the provisional order under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act - The father argued in effect that the matter of maintenance was res judicata - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, agreed that the matter was res judicata and the court was powerless to confirm the provisional order - See paragraphs 18 to 26.

Family Law - Topic 2347

Maintenance of wives and children - Maintenance of children - Jurisdiction - Provisional orders - A couple had a child out of wedlock - In 1981, the child's father consented to a filiation order in Saskatchewan Provincial Court agreeing to pay $100 per month until the mother got married - In 1984, the mother married and the father ceased paying maintenance - In 1995 the mother obtained a provisional maintenance order from the British Columbia Provincial Court - The mother then applied in Saskatchewan to confirm the provisional order under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act - The father argued that the British Columbia Provincial Court lacked jurisdiction or authority to make the provisional order - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, rejected the father's argument - See paragraphs 8 to 11.

Family Law - Topic 2543

Maintenance of wives and children - Enforcement - Foreign orders - Jurisdiction - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that it had the necessary jurisdiction under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act to confirm provisional maintenance orders made in reciprocating states against a respondent in Saskatchewan - See paragraph 12.

Family Law - Topic 2543

Maintenance of wives and children - Enforcement - Foreign orders - Jurisdiction - [See Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Family Law - Topic 2546

Maintenance of wives and children - Enforcement - Foreign orders - Defences - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, discussed the nature of a confirmation hearing held under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Act - The court noted that s. 7 of the Act required the court to take judicial notice of the foreign law and apply it, but did not specifically or expressly bar domestic defences - See paragraphs 13, 14.

Family Law - Topic 2546

Maintenance of wives and children - Enforcement - Foreign orders - Defences - A couple had a child out of wedlock - In 1981, the child's father consented to a Saskatchewan filiation order, agreeing to pay maintenance until the mother got married - In 1984, the mother married - The father ceased paying maintenance - In 1995 the mother obtained a provisional maintenance order in British Columbia - She then applied in Saskatchewan to confirm the provisional order under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act - The father argued that he might not be the biological father and only consented to the filiation order to avoid court proceedings - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that because of the filiation order and in the absence of further evidence, there was a presumption that he was the father (Family Relations Act (B.C.), s. 61.2(1)(e)) - See paragraphs 15 to 17.

Family Law - Topic 2546

Maintenance of wives and children - Enforcement - Foreign orders - Defences - [See Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Cases Noticed:

P.L.D. v. K.D.B. (1994), 120 Sask.R. 241; 68 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Houde v. Crittin (1982), 20 Sask.R. 232 (U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Black v. Black (1973), 10 R.F.L. 388 (Sask. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 10].

Richards v. Watson (1991), 102 Sask.R. 46 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Larson v. Larson (1992), 106 Sask.R. 257 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Santa Clara (County) v. Hudson (1981), 8 Sask.R. 136 (U.F.C.), dist. [para. 14].

Kadziolka v. Royal Bank of Canada (1993), 111 Sask.R. 90 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Corcoran v. Baker (1992), 99 Sask.R. 253 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

Gessner v. Gessner (1990), 82 Sask.R. 223 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 121, sect. 1, sect. 6(1), sect. 6(2), sect. 56(1), sect. 59(1), sect. 59(3), sect. 59(5), sect. 61(1), sect. 61(3)(a) [para. 11]; sect. 61.1, sect. 61.2(1)(e) [para. 17]; sect. 70.11(1), sect. 70.11(2) [para. 11].

Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, S.S. 1983, c. R-4.1, sect. 2(c), sect. 2(d), sect. 2(h), sect. 2(i), sect. 6 [para. 12]; sect. 7(1), sect. 7(2) [para. 13]; sect. 16 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Kirk M. Rondeau, for the claimant;

Jonathan M. Goby, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Barclay, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Estevan, who delivered the following judgment on January 4, 1996.