Ermel v. Martin, 2006 SKQB 350

• Judge: Dawson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 28, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2006 SKQB 350;(2006), 284 Sask.R. 199 (FD)

Ermel v. Martin (2006), 284 Sask.R. 199 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.020

Timothy Ermel (petitioner) v. Tricia Leah Martin (respondent)

(2006 F.L.D. No. 85; 2006 SKQB 350)

Indexed As: Ermel v. Martin

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Regina

Dawson, J.

July 28, 2006.

Summary:

A father signed a custody agreement which provided that the mother would have sole custody of their daughter and the father would have supervised access. The mother wished to move to British Columbia (B.C.). The father sought custody. He applied for interim equal parenting and an order prohibiting the mother from moving to B.C.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed the father's application. The mother was entitled to interim custody with no restriction on her right to move to B.C. with the child.

Family Law - Topic 2051

Custody and access - Interim custody - Considerations - In 2002, a father signed a custody agreement which provided that the mother would have sole custody of their daughter and the father would have supervised access - The mother wished to move to British Columbia (B.C.) with the child, her new partner and their young child - Her brother had offered her a good job there and a place to live - Her parents, with whom the mother and child were very close, were moving to B.C. too - The father sought custody - He applied for interim equal parenting and an order prohibiting the mother from moving to B.C. - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed the application - The court stated that it should preserve the status quo on an interim application, in the absence of some compelling reason - It was in the child's best interest to remain in the mother's sole custody - It was likely that mother would be successful at trial on this issue - There were compelling reasons to allow the mother to move to B.C. with the child (employment, family support).

Family Law - Topic 2055

Custody and access - Interim custody - Removal of child from jurisdiction - [See Family Law - Topic 2051 ].

Cases Noticed:

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 33].

Haider v. Malach (1999), 177 Sask.R. 285; 199 W.A.C. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Harden v. Harden (1987), 54 Sask.R. 155 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Roebuck v. Roebuck, [1983] 5 W.W.R. 385; 45 A.R. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

McGillis v. McGillis (1996), 113 Man.R.(2d) 73; 131 W.A.C. 73; 24 R.F.L.(4th) 286 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Guenther v. Guenther (1999), 181 Sask.R. 83 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 35].

Plumley v. Plumley, [1999] O.T.C. Uned. 715 (Sup. Ct. Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

MacDonald v. MacDonald, [2002] O.T.C. Uned. 526 (Sup. Ct. Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

Terris v. Terris, [2002] O.J. No. 3018 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

Nunweiler v. Nunweiler (2000), 137 B.C.A.C. 1; 223 W.A.C. 1; 5 R.F.L.(5th) 442 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

Gerald B. Heinrichs, for the petitioner;

Gregory E. Murphy, for the respondent.

This application was heard by Dawson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on July 28, 2006.