Digest: Lloyd v Lloyd, 2018 SKQB 116

Date:April 20, 2018
 
FREE EXCERPT

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 116

Docket Number: QB17508 , FLD 43/18 JCS

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-04-20

Judges:

  • Goebel

Subjects:

  • Family Law � Custody and Access � Interim

Digest: The parties, the parents of one child aged three and a half years of age, separated in 2015. In 2016 they entered into an interspousal agreement that provided for joint custody as well as shared care of the child on a week-on/week-off basis. It contained a term that required the permission of the other parent to travel out of the province with the child. The petitioner father worked and resided in Warman and the mother lived and worked in nearby Saskatoon. The child moved between these two locations and attended different daycares. The agreement was not incorporated into the divorce judgment that issued in 2017. The shared parenting regime worked well until the respondent mother notified the petitioner that she was planning to move to Outlook, 125 kilometres from Saskatoon. She indicated that she did not believe that the current parenting arrangement would work in the long term but was prepared to continue it until summer. The petitioner advised that he would not consent to the child moving outside the vicinity of Saskatoon. The respondent took the position that his consent was not required as her relocation was akin to a move across the city. The petitioner then commenced this proceeding under The Children�s Law Act, 1997 and asked the court to make an order restraining the respondent from changing the child�s residence without written agreement or court order. If the respondent chose to move to Outlook, he requested that he be granted primary care of the child with the respondent having weekend access. The respondent argued that the court should defer to the agreement and dismiss the application on the basis that the petitioner had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances since it was executed. HELD: The court made an order directing that the parties should have joint interim custody and shared care on a week-on/week-off basis in order to maintain the child�s stability. It did...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP