Gordon v. Goertz, (1996) 141 Sask.R. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 02, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 141 Sask.R. 241 (SCC)

Gordon v. Goertz (1996), 141 Sask.R. 241 (SCC);

    114 W.A.C. 241

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Robin James Goertz (appellant) v. Janet Rita Gordon (formerly Janette Rita Goertz)(respondent) and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) and Children's Lawyer of Ontario (interveners)

(24622)

Indexed As: Gordon v. Goertz

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

May 2, 1996.

Summary:

A wife petitioned for a divorce. As part of the proceeding, the wife also requested custody of one child, an order for child support and a division of matrimonial assets.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Unified Family Court, in a decision reported 111 Sask.R. 1, determined the issues accordingly including awarding cus­tody to the wife with access to the husband. Subsequently, after learning that the wife intended to move to Australia, the husband applied for custody of the child, or alterna­tively, an order restrain­ing the wife from moving the child from Saskatoon. The wife cross-applied to vary the access provi­sions of the custody order to permit her to move the child's residence to Australia.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, allowed the wife's applica­tion. The court awarded the husband liberal access to the child; however, the access had to be exercised in Australia. The husband appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 128 Sask.R. 156, dis­missed the appeal. The husband appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part.

Family Law - Topic 1808

Custody and access - General - At com­mon law - The Supreme Court of Canada, per L'Heureux-Dubé, J., in a dissenting judgment, reviewed the issue of custody at common law, "under the [Divorce] Act and provincial statutes as well as under the Civil Code of Quebec and various interna­tional documents, together with a com­parative analysis of the trend in other jurisdictions" - See paragraphs 71 to 94.

Family Law - Topic 1865

Custody and access - Duties and rights of custodian - To remove child from juris­diction - The parties divorced after 20 years of marriage - The wife sought cus­tody of the six year old child of the mar­riage - The trial judge awarded the wife custody, with access to the husband - Subsequently, after learning that the wife intended to move to Australia, the husband applied for custody, or alternatively, an order restraining the wife from moving the child from Saskatoon - The wife cross-applied to vary the access provisions of the custody order to permit her to move the child to Australia - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the wife's application - The court awarded the hus­band liberal access to the child; however, it had to be exercised in Australia - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the wife should have custody of the child; however, held that the husband, upon conditions, could exercise access to the child in Canada.

Family Law - Topic 1947

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Changed circumstances - [See second Family Law - Topic 4064 ].

Family Law - Topic 1947

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Changed circumstances - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that when determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances in an application to vary a custody order, change alone is not enough; "the change must have altered the child's needs or the ability of the parents to meet those needs in a fundamental way" - See paragraph 12 - For example relocation of a child will always be an example of a "change" - However, it does not always amount to a change which materially affects the cir­cumstances of the child and the ability of the parent to meet them - "A move to a neighbouring town might not affect the child or the parents' ability to meet its needs in any significant way. Similarly, if the child lacks a positive relationship with the access parent or extended family in the area, a move might not affect the child sufficiently to constitute a material change in the situation" - See paragraph 14.

Family Law - Topic 1947

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Changed circumstances - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that there were three branches to the thres­hold requirement that there be a material change in circumstances in a custody variation application - Particularly, "the judge must be satisfied of: (1) a change in the condition, means, needs or circum­stances of the child and/or the ability of the parents to meet the needs of the child; (2) which materially affects the child; and (3) which was either not foreseen or could not have been reasonably contemplated by the judge who made the initial order" - See paragraph 13 - Once a material change has been established, the judge must then embark on a fresh inquiry into the best interests of the child - In order to determine the child's best interest, the judge must consider how the change impacts on all aspects of the child's life - See paragraph 18.

Family Law - Topic 1948

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Change of residence of child - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Family Law - Topic 1950

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Changed circumstances of parents - [See second Family Law - Topic 1947 ].

Family Law - Topic 1950.1

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Changed circumstances of child - [See second Family Law - Topic 1947 ].

Family Law - Topic 1951

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Welfare of child - [See third Family Law - Topic 1947 ].

Family Law - Topic 1951

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Welfare of child - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected an argument that an inquiry into the best interest of the child in custody variation applications should begin with a presump­tion in favour of the custodial parent - Rather, the "parent seeking the change bears the initial burden of demonstrating a material change of circumstances. Once that burden has been discharged, the judge must embark of a fresh inquiry in light of the change and all other relevant factors to determine the best interests of the child" - The court further noted that the views of the custodial parent, who lived with the child and was charged with making deci­sions in the child's interest on a day-to-day basis, were entitled to great respect and the most serious consideration - See paragraphs 26 to 48.

Family Law - Topic 1951

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Welfare of child - [See second Family Law - Topic 4064 ].

Family Law - Topic 1951

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Welfare of child - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in making a variation order the court shall consider only the best interests of the child - While the court acknowledged that the best interests of the child test has been characterized as "indeterminate", it opined that it stands as an "eloquent expression of Parliament's view that the ultimate and only issue when it comes to custody and access is the welfare of the child whose future is a stake. The multitude of factors that may impinge on the child's best inter­est make a measure of indeterminacy inevitable. A more precise test would risk sacrificing the child's best interests to expediency and certainty" - See paragraph 20.

Family Law - Topic 1951

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Welfare of child - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the factors that a court should consider when determining what is in the best interests of the child in situations where an application to vary custody has been made - See paragraphs 17 to 50.

Family Law - Topic 1955

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Relevant considerations - [See second Family Law - Topic 4064 ].

Family Law - Topic 1955

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Relevant considerations - The Supreme Court of Canada summar­ized the law respecting variation of cus­tody applications - See paragraph 49.

Family Law - Topic 4064

Divorce - Corollary relief - Custody of children - Variation of custody order - [See second Family Law - Topic 1955 ].

Family Law - Topic 4064

Divorce - Corollary relief - Custody of children - Variation of custody order - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the "principles which govern an application for a variation of an order relating to custody and access are set out in the Divorce Act. The Act directs a two-stage inquiry. First, the party seeking variation must show a material change in the situ­ation of the child. If this is done, the judge must enter into a consideration of the merits and make the order that best reflects the interests of the child in the new cir­cumstances" - See paragraph 9.

Family Law - Topic 4069

Divorce - Corollary relief - Custody of children - Residence of children - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Cases Noticed:

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 7].

Wilson v. Grassick (1994), 120 Sask.R. 1; 68 W.A.C. 1; 2 R.F.L.(4th) 291 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Baynes v. Baynes (1987), 8 R.F.L.(3d) 139 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Docherty v. Beckett (1989), 21 R.F.L.(3d) 92 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 116].

Wesson v. Wesson (1973), 11 N.S.R.(2d) 652; 5 A.P.R. 652; 10 R.F.L. 193 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Watson v. Watson (1991), 35 R.F.L.(3d) 169 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

MacCallum v. MacCallum (1976), 30 R.F.L. 32 (P.E.I. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 12].

Messier v. Delage, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 401; 50 N.R. 16, refd to. [para. 15].

Wickham v. Wickham (1983), 35 R.F.L.(2d) 448 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Wright v. Wright (1973), 40 D.L.R.(3d) 321 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Wainwright v. Wainwright (1987), 81 N.S.R.(2d) 413; 203 A.P.R. 413; 10 R.F.L.(3d) 387 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Korpesho v. Korpesho (1982), 19 Man.R.(2d) 142; 31 R.F.L.(2d) 449 (C.A.), reving. (1982), 19 Man.R.(2d) 145; 31 R.F.L.(2d) 140 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Francis v. Francis (1972), 8 R.F.L. 209 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

MacGyver v. Richards (1995), 84 O.A.C. 349; 11 R.F.L.(4th) 432 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Carter v. Brooks (1990), 41 O.A.C. 389; 30 R.F.L.(3d) 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Colley v. Colley (1991), 31 R.F.L.(3d) 281 (Ont. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

McGowan v. McGowan (1979), 11 R.F.L.(2d) 281 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Wells v. Wells (1984), 32 Sask.R. 258; 38 R.F.L.(2d) 405 (Q.B.), affd. (1984), 35 Sask.R. 173; 42 R.F.L.(2d) 166 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 24].

Field v. Field (1978), 6 R.F.L.(2d) 278 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Landry v. Lavers (1985), 10 O.A.C. 244; 45 R.F.L.(2d) 235 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Bennett v. Drouillard (1988), 15 R.F.L.(3d) 353 (Ont. Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

Appleby v. Appleby (1989), 21 R.F.L.(3d) 307 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

K.A.T. v. J.T. (1989), 23 R.F.L.(3d) 214 (Ont. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Lapointe v. Lapointe, [1995] 10 W.W.R. 609; 107 Man.R.(2d) 1; 109 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Min­ister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 52].

Benoît v. Reid (1995), 171 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 437 A.P.R. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Talbot v. Henry (1990), 84 Sask.R. 170; 25 R.F.L.(3d) 415 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Brothwell v. Brothwell (1995), 135 Sask.R. 178 (Q.B.F.L.D.), refd to. [para. 64].

Woods v. Racine and Racine, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 173; 48 N.R. 362; 24 Man.R.(2d) 314, refd to. [para. 69].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 69].

Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801; 76 N.R. 81; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 481; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 14 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 69].

Richardson v. Richardson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 857; 77 N.R. 1; 22 O.A.C. 1; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 304; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 699; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 699, refd to. [para. 69].

L.G. v. G.B., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 370; 186 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 69].

Kruger v. Kruger (1979), 25 O.R.(2d) 673 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Adie v. Adie (1991), 89 Sask.R. 183 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 76].

Levesque v. Lapointe (1993), 21 B.C.A.C. 285; 37 W.A.C. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

M.P. v. G.L.B., [1993] R.J.Q. 1728; 57 Q.A.C. 241 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 4 S.C.R. 592; 190 N.R. 182, refd to. [para. 80].

Droit de la famille -- 1826 - see M.P. v. G.L.B.

V.W. v. D.S. (1996), 196 N.R. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 84].

C. v. F. and F., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 244; 78 N.R. 241; 9 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 86].

D.P. v. C.S., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 141; 159 N.R. 241; 58 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 86].

Thomson v. Thomson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 551; 173 N.R. 83; 97 Man.R.(2d) 81; 79 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 88].

P. v. P., [1970] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

Nash v. Nash, [1973] 2 All E.R. 704 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R and R, Re Marriage of (1985), 60 A.L.R. 727 (Fam. Ct. (Full Ct.)), refd to. [para. 90].

Holmes, Re Marriage of (1988), 92 F.L.R. 290 (Fam. Ct. (Full Ct.)), refd to. [para. 90].

Fragomeli, Re Marriage of (1993), 113 F.L.R. 229 (Fam. Ct. (Full Ct.)), refd to. [para. 90].

I, Re Marriage of (1995), 19 Fam. L.R. 147 (Full Ct.), refd to. [para. 90].

Cabott v. Binns (1987), 9 R.F.L.(3d) 390 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

Droit de la famille - 501, [1989] R.D.F. 316 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

Stewart v. Stewart (1990), 112 A.R. 137; 30 R.F.L.(3d) 67 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 229, refd to. [para. 103].

Burgess, Re Marriage of (1996), P.2d (Cal.), refd to. [para. 105].

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metro­politan Toronto v. C.M., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165; 165 N.R. 161; 71 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 121].

King v. Mr. and Mrs. B., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 87; 57 N.R. 17; 58 A.R. 275; 44 R.F.L.(2d) 113; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 1; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 576, refd to. [para. 121].

King v. Low - see King v. Mr. and Mrs. B.

K.K v. G.L. - see King v. Mr. and Mrs. B.

Grant v. Brotzel (1993), 115 Sask.R. 96 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 147].

Statutes Noticed:

Children's Act, R.S.Y.T. 1986, c. 22, sect. 31(2), sect. 31(5), sect. 31(6) [para. 82].

Children Act 1989 (U.K), c. 41, sect. 3(1), sect. 8(1), sect. 13(1)(b), sect. 13(3) [para 89].

Children's Law Act. S.S. 1990-91, c. C-8.1, sect. 6(5)(b), sect. 9(3) [para. 82].

Children's Law Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. C-13, sect. 26(2), sect. 26(6) [para. 82].

Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-12, sect. 20(2), sect. 20(5) [para. 82].

Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 604, art. 605 [para 86].

Convention on the Civil Aspects of Inter­national Child Abduction (Hague Con­vention), Can. T.S. 1983 No. 35, art. 5 [para. 88].

Convention on the Rights of the Child, Can. T.S. 1992 No. 3, art. 3(1) [para. 87].

Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. C-33, sect. 3(2), sect. 3(5) [para. 82].

Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1924) [para. 87].

Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) [para. 87].

Divorce Act, S.C. 1967-1968, c. 24, gen­erally [para. 27].

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 16(1), sect. 16(6), sect. 16(7), sect. 16(8), sect. 16(9), sect. 16(10), sect. 17(1)(b), sect. 17(5), sect. 17(6), sect. 17(9) [para. 7].

Family Law Act 1975 (Australia), c. 53, sect. 63E, sect. 64(1)(c) [para. 90].

Hague Convention - see Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Abella, Rosalie S. and L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire, Family Law: Dimensions of Justice (1983), p. 175 [para. 114].

Bailey, Martha J., Custody, Access and Religion: A Comment on Young v. Young and D.P. v. C.S. (1994), 11 C.F.L.Q. 317, p. 339 [para. 35].

Bala, Nicholas and Miklas, Susan, Rethinking Decisions About Children: Is the "Best Interests of the Child" Approach Really in the Best Interests of Children? (1993), pp. 46 to 53 [para. 135].

Boyd, Susan B., Women, Men and Rela­tionships with Children: Is Equality Possible?, in Equality Issues in Family Law: Consideration for Test Case Liti­gation (1990), 69, p. 84 [para. 110].

Bruch, Carol S. and Bowermaster, Janet M., The Relocation of Children and Custodial Parents: Public Policy, Past and Present (1996), 30 Fam. L.Q. [para. 91]; generally [paras. 104, 121, 134].

Busby, Karen, Fainstein, Lisa and Penner, Holly, Equality Issues in Family Law: Consideration for Test Case Litigation (1990), 69, p. 84 [para. 110].

Canada, Department of Justice, Bureau of Review, Evaluation of the Divorce Act - Phase II: Monitoring and Evaluation (1990), p. 111 [para. 109].

Canada, Department of Justice, Communi­cations and Consultation Branch, Cus­tody and Access: Public Discussion Paper (1993), pp. 9 [para. 110]; 18 [para. 112]; 19, 20 [para. 135].

Cohen, Mandy S., A Toss of the Dice ... The Gamble with Post-Divorce Reloca­tion Laws (1989), 18 Hofstra L. Rev. 127, p. 127 [para. 91].

Cornu, Gérard, Droit civil: la famille (3rd Ed. 1993), pp. 126, 127 [para. 92].

Eades, John, A custodial parent's rights to take a child out of Australia: limited or unlimited? (1995), 33 Law Soc. J. 46 [para. 90]; generally [para. 134].

Eekelaar, John and Maclean, Mavis, Fam­ily Law (1994), 249, p. 251 [para. 110].

Furstenberg, Frank F. and Cherlin, Andrew J., Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part (1991), pp. 107, 108 [para. 121].

Halsbury's Laws of Australia (1993), vol. 13, pp. 378, 788 [para. 90].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1993), vol. 5(2), para. 730 [para. 89].

Hovius, Berend, The Changing Role of the Access Parent (1994), 10 C.F.L.Q. 123, pp. 132 [para. 126]; 142, 143 [para. 135].

How, W. Glen, Young v. Young and D.P. v. C.S.: Custody and Access - The Supreme Court Compounds Confusion (1994), 11 C.F.L.Q. 109, pp. 125, 126 [para. 135].

King, Valerie, Nonresident Father Involve­ment and Child Well-Being: Can Dads Make a Difference? (1994), 15 J. Fam. Issues 78, p. 78 [para. 121].

Kramer, Donald T., Legal Rights of Children (2nd Ed. 1994), vol. 1, pp. 150 to 157 [para. 91].

Krell, Robert, The Emotional Impact on Children of Divorce and Custody Dis­putes, in Family Law: Dimensions of Justice (1983), p. 175 [para. 114].

Krause, Harry D., Family Law in a Nut­shell (3rd Ed. 1995), p. 227 [para. 91].

Maccoby, Eleanor E. and Mnookin, Robert E., Dividing the Child: Social and Legal Dilemmas of Custody (1992), p. 295 [para. 121].

Maidment, Susan, Child Custody and Divorce (1984), p. 253 [para. 109].

Marty, Gabriel and Raynaud, Pierre, Les personnes (3rd Ed. 1976), p. 288 [para. 92].

Mayrand, Albert, La garde conjointe, ré­équilibrage de l'autorité parentale (1988), 67 Can. Bar Rev. 193, p. 195 [para. 85].

McLeod, James G., Annotation to Mac­Gyver v. Richards (1995), 11 R.F.L.(4th) 433, pp. 435 [paras. 32, 126]; 436 [para. 135].

McLeod, James G., Annotation to Williams v. Williams (1992), 38 R.F.L.(3d) 100, p. 103 [para. 22].

McLeod, James G., Annotation to Young v. Young (1994), 49 R.F.L.(3d) 129, p. 133 [para. 95].

McLeod, James G., Child Custody Law and Practice (1992, Looseleaf), p. 11-5 [para. 12].

Mignault, Pierre Basile, Le droit civil canadien (1896), t. 2, p. 145 [para. 85].

Montgomery, John D., Long-Distance Visitation/Access in Family Law Cases: Some Creative Approaches (1991), 5 Am. J. Fam. L. 1, p. 4 [para. 123].

Ouellette, Monique, Droit de la famille (3rd Ed. 1995), p. 224 [para. 85].

Payne, Julien D., Payne on Divorce (3rd Ed. 1993), pp. 240, 242 [para. 78]; 243 [paras. 78, 81]; 279 [paras. 69, 120]; 305, 306 [para. 125]; 318 [para. 123].

Payne, Julien D. and Kallish, Kenneth L., A Behavioural Science and Legal Analy­sis of Access to the Child in the Post-Separation/Divorce Family (1981), 13 Ottawa L. Rev. 215, pp. 220 to 225 [para. 109]; 223 [para. 110].

Payne, Julien D. and Overend, Eileen, The Co-Parental Divorce: Removing the Children from the Jurisdiction (1984), 15 R.G.D. 645, pp. 652, 653, 654, 655 [para. 127].

Payne, Julien D. and Payne, Marilyn A., Introduction to Canadian Family Law (1994), p. 124 [para. 112].

Richards, Martin, Divorcing children: roles for parents and the state, in Family Law (1994), 249, pp. 251 [para. 110]; 252 [para. 126].

Simler, Philippe, La notion de garde de l'enfant (sa signification et son rôle au regard de l'autorité parentale) (1972), 70 Rev. trim. dr. civ. 685, p. 708 [para. 92].

Sivin, Edward, Residence Restrictions on Custodial Parents: Implications for the Right to Travel (1980-81), 12 Rutgers L.J. 341, p. 341 [para. 91].

Wallerstein, Judith S., Children of Divorce: Report of a Ten-Year Follow-Up of Early Latency-Age Children (1987), 57 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 199, p. 208 [para. 123].

Weisman, Norris, On Access After Par­ental Separation (1992), 36 R.F.L.(3d) 35, pp. 36 [para. 115]; 47 [para. 121]; 48 to 54 [para. 109]; 54 to 61 [para. 114]; 62 [para. 110].

Wilson, Jeffery, Wilson on Children and the Law (1994), p. 2.41.3 [para. 135].

Counsel:

Noel S. Sandomirsky, for the appellant;

Neil Turcotte and Deryk Kendall, for the respondent;

Carole Curtis and Donna Wilson, for the intervener LEAF;

Daniel L. Goldberg and Jocelyn Kapusta, for the intervener Children's Lawyer of Ontario.

Solicitors of Record:

Hleck Kanuka Thuringer, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the appellant;

Cuelenaere, Kendal, Katzman & Richards, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the re­spondent;

Carole Curtis, Toronto, Ontario; Woloshyn Mattison, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the intervener LEAF;

The Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Children's Lawyer of Ontario.

This appeal was heard on December 6, 1995, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

This judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages on May 2, 1996, and the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., con­curring) - see paragraphs 1 to 55;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (La Forest, J., con­curring) - see paragraphs 56 to 153;

Gonthier, J. - see paragraph 154.