Garvin v. Garvin,
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Judge | Chamberlist, J. |
| Neutral Citation | 2002 BCSC 1690 |
| Citation | 2002 BCSC 1690,[2002] B.C.T.C. 1690 (SC) |
| Date | 28 November 2002 |
| Court | Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) |
Garvin v. Garvin, [2002] B.C.T.C. 1690 (SC)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2003] B.C.T.C. TBEd. JA.072
Joanne Catherine Garvin also known as Joanne Garvin (plaintiff) v. Rodney Lawrence Garvin (defendant)
(8581; 2002 BCSC 1690)
Indexed As: Garvin v. Garvin
British Columbia Supreme Court
Quesnel
Chamberlist, J.
December 4, 2002.
Summary:
This headnote contains no summary.
Family Law - Topic 1865
Custody and access - Duties and rights of custodian - To remove child from jurisdiction - See paragraphs 1 to 62.
Cases Noticed:
Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241; [1996] 5 W.W.R. 457; 19 R.F.L.(4th) 177; 134 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 35].
C.B. v. E.C.C. (2002), 166 O.A.C. 44 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].
Cousens v. Ruddy, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1208 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].
Statutes Noticed:
Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 16(6), sect. 16(7), sect. 16(8), sect. 16(9) [para. 34]; sect. 17(1), sect. 17(3), sect. 17(5), sect. 17(6), sect. 17(9) [para. 33].
Counsel:
K. Repstock, for the plaintiff;
S. Hutchison, for the defendant.
This matter was heard at Prince George, British Columbia, on November 28, 2002, before Chamberlist, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on December 4, 2002.
Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dykens v. Van Horn, 2009 BCSC 418
...and certainly the greater part of Haley's lifetime. [66] I too, sitting on another mobility case some six years ago ( Garvin v. Garvin 2002 BCSC 1690, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2757) was faced with a somewhat similar mobility issue to that considered by Mr. Justice Rogers. I quoted extensively from......
-
McArthur v. Brown, [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 689
...permitted: para. 29. [146] A similar sentiment was expressed by this Court in Cousens (also cited by Chamberlist J. in Garvin v. Garvin , 2002 BCSC 1690), at paras. 91-92: Financial well-being is not, however the only measure by which Alex's best interests must be determined. It is in his b......
-
Barnetson v. Cook, [2005] B.C.T.C. 913 (SC)
...BCCA 300, refd to. [para. 47]. Munro v. Cowan, [2002] O.T.C. 663 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51]. Garvin v. Garvin, [2002] B.C.T.C. 1690; 2002 BCSC 1690, refd to. [para. C.B. v. E.C.C. (2002), 166 O.A.C. 44; 221 D.L.R.(4th) 489 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54]. Brown v. Brown (1997), 116 Man.R.(......
-
BOURKE v. DAVIS, 2020 ONSC 7667
...parent “who lives with the child and is charged with making decisions in its interest on a day-to-day basis.” [82] In Garvin v. Garvin, 2002 BCSC 1690 (B.C.S.C.) Chamberlist, J. suggested at para. 51 that the primary parent and custodial parent are the same in mobility cases, observing that......
-
Dykens v. Van Horn, 2009 BCSC 418
...and certainly the greater part of Haley's lifetime. [66] I too, sitting on another mobility case some six years ago ( Garvin v. Garvin 2002 BCSC 1690, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2757) was faced with a somewhat similar mobility issue to that considered by Mr. Justice Rogers. I quoted extensively from......
-
McArthur v. Brown, [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 689
...permitted: para. 29. [146] A similar sentiment was expressed by this Court in Cousens (also cited by Chamberlist J. in Garvin v. Garvin , 2002 BCSC 1690), at paras. 91-92: Financial well-being is not, however the only measure by which Alex's best interests must be determined. It is in his b......
-
Barnetson v. Cook, [2005] B.C.T.C. 913 (SC)
...BCCA 300, refd to. [para. 47]. Munro v. Cowan, [2002] O.T.C. 663 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51]. Garvin v. Garvin, [2002] B.C.T.C. 1690; 2002 BCSC 1690, refd to. [para. C.B. v. E.C.C. (2002), 166 O.A.C. 44; 221 D.L.R.(4th) 489 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54]. Brown v. Brown (1997), 116 Man.R.(......
-
BOURKE v. DAVIS, 2020 ONSC 7667
...parent “who lives with the child and is charged with making decisions in its interest on a day-to-day basis.” [82] In Garvin v. Garvin, 2002 BCSC 1690 (B.C.S.C.) Chamberlist, J. suggested at para. 51 that the primary parent and custodial parent are the same in mobility cases, observing that......