Guenther v. Guenther, (1999) 181 Sask.R. 83 (FD)

• Judge: Laing, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 05, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 181 Sask.R. 83 (FD);1999 CanLII 12554 (FCA);1999 CanLII 12554 (SK QB);[1999] SJ No 120 (QL);181 Sask R 83

Guenther v. Guenther (1999), 181 Sask.R. 83 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.040

Sarah Louise Barnes Guenther (applicant) v. Paul Timothy Guenther (respondent)

(1999 F.L.D. No. 24)

Indexed As: Guenther v. Guenther

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Laing, J.

March 5, 1999.

Summary:

By agreement, a father had interim custody of a child. The mother applied for interim custody. The father brought a counter-appli­cation for interim custody.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed both applications but increased the mother's access to include overnight access.

Family Law - Topic 2054

Custody and access - Interim custody - Variation of - By agreement, a father had interim custody of a child - The mother applied for interim custody - The father brought a counter-application for interim custody - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed both applications - The court stated that "... it constitutes an error in principle, and a reversible error in law to vary interim custody arrangements pending trial in the absence of evidence of risk to the child. The foregoing case law indicates that once an interim custody arrangement has been in place for some time, whether de facto, by court order, or by agreement of the parties, the non-primary care parent should not apply on an interim basis to vary the arrangement (except where risk to the child exists), but proceed to final order." - See paragraph 8.

Cases Noticed:

Harden v. Harden (1987), 54 Sask.R. 155 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. R. (1983), 45 A.R. 180; 34 R.F.L.(2d) 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Prost v. Prost (1990), 30 R.F.L.(2d) 277 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Eaton v. Eaton (1987), 11 R.F.L.(3d) 92 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

S.R.M. v. J.K.M. (1997), 24 R.F.L.(4th) 286 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Counsel:

N.J. Sim, Q.C., for the applicant;

D.J. Fisher, for the respondent.

This application was heard by Laing, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on March 5, 1999.