Family Relations Act of British Columbia, Re, (1982) 40 N.R. 206 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 26, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1982), 40 N.R. 206 (SCC);[1982] 3 WWR 1;131 DLR (3d) 257;[1982] 1 SCR 62;26 RFL (2d) 113;40 NR 206;1982 CanLII 155 (SCC);36 BCLR 1

Family Relations Act of B.C., Re (1982), 40 N.R. 206 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Re Family Relations Act of British Columbia

Indexed As: Family Relations Act of British Columbia, Re

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.

January 26, 1982.

Summary:

The Family Relations Act, S.B.C. 1978, c. 20, in s. 6(1) gave the Provincial Court jurisdiction over guardianship of the person of the child; custody of or access to a child; occupancy of the family residence and the use of its contents; and the making of orders that a person shall not enter premises while they are occupied by a spouse, parent or child. The competence of the provincial legislature to enact the substantive terms of s. 6(1) was not challenged, but the issue of whether the granting of such jurisdiction to the Provincial Court was an infringement over the federal power of the appointment of judges under s. 96 of the British North America Act was raised. On a reference the British Columbia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1980] 6 W.W.R. 737; 116 D.L.R.(3d) 221, held that granting such jurisdiction to the Provincial Court was ultra vires. The Province appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and held that the granting of jurisdiction over guardianship and custody and access to the Provincial Court was intra vires. See paragraphs 1 to 38.

Laskin, C.J.C., dissenting in part, Ritchie, J., concurring, was of the opinion that the Provincial Court could not validly be granted jurisdiction over any of the matters without infringing upon s. 96. See paragraphs 39 to 94.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8601

Judicial power - Appointment of judges - British North America Act, 1867, s. 96 - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the tests for the application of s. 96 to a determination of the validity of Provincial Legislation - See paragraphs 12 to 21.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8607

Judicial power - Appointment of judges - B.N.A. Act, s. 96 - Provincial family law legislation - The B.C. Family Relations Act, s. 6, gave the Provincial Court jurisdiction over guardianship of the person of the child; custody of or access to a child; family residence occupancy and the use of its contents; and non-entry orders respecting premises occupied by a spouse, parent or child - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the matters of guardianship and custody and access could validly be granted to the Provincial Court without infringing s. 96, but that the matters of family residence occupation and non-entry orders could not be.

Cases Noticed:

Adoption Reference, [1938] S.C.R. 398, consd. [paras. 2, 51].

O. Martineau and Sons. Ltd. v. City of Montreal, [1932] A.C. 113, consd. [para. 2].

Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan v. John East Iron Works Ltd., [1949] A.C. 134, consd. [paras. 3, 44].

Dupont v. Inglis, [1958] S.C.R. 535, refd to. [para. 3].

Blayborough v. Brantford Gas Company (1909), 18 O.L.R. 243, consd. [para. 6].

Re Davis (1909), 18 O.L.R. 384, consd. [para. 6].

Hyman v. Hyman, [1929] A.C. 601, consd. [para. 17].

Re Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario (1981), 37 N.R. 158, consd. [para. 19].

Rimmer ex rel. Hannan (1921), 60 D.L.R. 637 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 28].

Tomko v. Labour Relations Board of Nova Scotia, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 112; 7 N.R. 317; 10 N.R. 35; 14 N.S.R.(2d) 191; 11 A.P.R. 191; 69 D.L.R.(3d) 250, consd. [paras. 44, 90].

Toronto v. York, [1938] A.C. 415, consd. [paras. 44, 46].

Farrah v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 638; 21 N.R. 595, consd. [para. 45].

Attorney General of Ontario v. Victoria Medical Building Ltd., [1960] S.C.R. 32, consd. [para. 46].

Reference re the Magistrate's Court of Quebec, [1965] S.C.R. 772, consd. [para. 47].

In re Vancini (1904), 34 S.C.R. 621, consd. [para. 59].

In re Small Debts Act (1896), 3 B.C.R. 246, consd. [para. 65].

Re Stannard (1858), 1 Ch. Cham. 15, consd. [para. 78].

Re McQueen (1876), 23 Gr. Ch. 191, consd. [para. 78].

Thomassett v. Thomassett, [1894] P. 295, consd. [para. 78].

Re Triskow and Children's Protection Act (1918), 43 D.L.R. 452, consd. [para. 78].

In re Agar-Ellis (1883), 24 Ch. D. 317, consd. [para. 81].

Anonymous (1858), 6 Gr. Ch. 632, consd. [para. 78].

Statutes Noticed:

Abolition of Tenures Act, 1660 (Imp.) [para. 74].

Adoption Act, R.S.O. 1937, c. 218 [para. 4].

Appointment of Guardians and The Custody of Infants Act, C.S.U.C. 1859, c. 74, sect. 1 [para. 27].

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 96 [para. 2]; sect. 129 [para. 14].

Children of Unmarried Parents Act, R.S.O. 1937, c. 217 [para. 4].

Children's Protection Act, R.S.O. 1937, c. 312 [para. 4].

Child Welfare Act, S.O. 1978, c. 85 [para. 64].

Deserted Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act, R.S.O. 1937, c. 211 [para. 4].

Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 121, sect. 5 [para. 32]; sect. 6(1) clauses (a),(b),(d),(e) [paras. 32, 40]; sect. 23 [para. 79]; sect. 25 [paras. 31, 73]; sect. 35 [paras. 31, 79]; sect. 37 [para. 88]; sect. 77, sect. 78 [para. 83]; sect. 79 [para. 87].

Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886 (Imp.) [para. 74].

Industrial's Schools Act, 1886 (Imp.), 29 & 30 Vict., c. 118, [para. 29].

Juvenile and Family Courts Act, R.S.O. 1937, c. 316 [para. 58].

Surrogate Courts Act, U.C. 1858, 22 Vict., c. 93, sect. 63 [para. 28].

Unified Family Court Act, S.O. 1976 (2nd Sess.), c. 85 [para. 64].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Eversley on Domestic Relations (3rd Ed.), p. 514 [para. 6].

DaCosta, Mendes, Studies in Canadian Family Law (1972), Hughes, M.E., Adoption in Canada [para. 6].

Hogg, P.W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1977), p. 135, [para. 19].

Hughes, M.E., Adoption In Canada, Studies in Canadian Family Law, Mendes DaCosta ed. (1972) [para. 6].

MacPherson on Infants (1844), p. 116 [para. 24].

Simpson on Infants (1875), pp. 114, 138-139 [para. 29].

Storey, Equity Jurisprudence (12th Ed. 1877), paras. 1333, [para. 22]; 1341 [para. 23].

Counsel:

D.M.M. GOLDIE, Q.C., and E.R.A. EDWARDS, supporting the legislation;

DONALD S. MOIR and CARMELA ALLEVATO, opposing the legislation;

D.W. MUNDELL, Q.C., and LORRAINE E. WEINRIB, for the Attorney General of Ontario;

HENRI BRUN, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

MOLLY DUNSMUIR and REINHOLD M. ENDRES, for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

ALAN D. REID and SHAUNA M. MacKENZIE, for the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

JOHN D. MONTGOMERY, Q.C., and FOSLYN M. DIAMOND, for the Attorney General of Manitoba;

MARGARET DONNELLY and B.A. CRANE, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Alberta;

W.I.C. BINNIE, Q.C., and HOLLY HARRIS, for the Attorney General of Canada.

This case was heard on January 28 and 29, 1981, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE and CHOUINARD, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 26, 1982, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

ESTEY, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 38;

LASKIN, C.J.C., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 39 to 94.

MARTLAND, BEETZ, McINTYRE and CHOUINARD, JJ., concurred with ESTEY, J.

RITCHIE, J., concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C.