Haider v. Malach

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Vancise, Wakeling and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Citation: (1999), 177 Sask.R. 285 (CA),1999 CanLII 12363 (SK CA),48 RFL (4th) 314,[1999] SJ No 315 (QL),177 Sask R 285,199 WAC 285
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Date: 17 May 1999

Haider v. Malach (1999), 177 Sask.R. 285 (CA);

    199 W.A.C. 285

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.027

Annette Haider (petitioner/appellant) v. Roderick Malach (respondent/respondent)

(3112)

Indexed As: Haider v. Malach

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Vancise, Wakeling and Jackson, JJ.A.

May 17, 1999.

Summary:

Following a lengthy trial, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, changed the custody of a child from mother to father (see [1998] Sask.R. Uned. 206). The mother appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the mother's custody.

Family Law - Topic 1897

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Status quo - [See Fam­ily Law - Topic 1912 ].

Family Law - Topic 1912

Custody and access - Appeals - Grounds - The trial judge, relying on a Custody and Access Report prepared by a social worker, changed the custody of a child from mother to father - The mother appealed - She had been the child's pri­mary caregiver since birth in 1991 to the appeal decision in 1999 - The mother argued that the trial judge materially mis­apprehended the evi­dence especially with respect to bed wet­ting and soiling and as to which parent would support access - The judge also relied heavily on the Report when the evidence with respect to the above aspects of the mother's parenting skills revealed that he should not have done so and when the writer of the Report had not followed the protocol for such Reports - Counsel for the mother argued that if the trial judge had not materially misap­prehended the evi­dence he would have found the parties to be equally bal­anced and would have then been required to consider the impact of a change of custody on the child - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Family Law - Topic 1916

Custody and access - Appeals - Standard of review - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated: "Any analysis of a custody decision by an appellate court must begin with a full appreciation of the applicable standard of appellate review. The pivotal case continues to be McKee v. McKee, [1951] ... where the [Privy Council] ruled that the trial judge's decision as to custody should not be overruled unless he or she has acted on some wrong principle or disregarded material evidence" - See para­graphs 10 and 11.

Family Law - Topic 2143

Custody and access - Evidence - Expert evidence - [See Family Law - Topic 1912 ].

Cases Noticed:

McKee v. McKee, [1951] A.C. 352 (P.C.), consd. [para. 10].

Adams and Adams v. McLeod and Ramstead, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621; 20 N.R. 203; 9 A.R. 1, consd. [para. 10].

New Brunswick (Minister of Social Ser­vices) v. G.C.C., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1073; 85 N.R. 10; 85 N.B.R.(2d) 252; 217 A.P.R. 252, refd to. [para. 10].

Nouveau-Brunswick (Ministre de la Santé des Services communautaires) v. M.L. et R.L. (1998), 230 N.R. 201; 204 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 520 A.P.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241, consd. [para. 82].

Chesko v. Chesko and Keirl (1985), 37 Sask.R. 135 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

Burgmaier v. Burgmaier (1986), 46 Sask.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

Wilson v. Grassick (1994), 120 Sask.R. 1; 68 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. B. (1984), 31 Sask.R. 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

Hardcastle v. Huculak and Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) (1987), 61 Sask.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

Olson v. Olson (1988), 67 Sask.R. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

Kitchen and Garvey v. Kitchen (1984), 34 Sask.R. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Yablonski v. Yablonski (1986), 50 Sask.R. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Evanoff v. Evanoff (1991), 97 Sask.R. 164; 12 W.A.C. 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Fiacco v. Fiacco (1988), 67 Sask.R. 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Fick v. Fick (1993), 113 Sask.R. 61; 52 W.A.C. 61 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Huggett v. Huggett (1997), 152 Sask.R. 210; 140 W.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Paterson v. Paterson, [1995] S.J. No. 547 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Verokosky v. Verokosky (1998), 163 Sask.R. 320; 165 W.A.C. 320 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Kastner v. Kastner (1990), 109 A.R. 241; 28 R.F.L.(3d) 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

G.H. v. J.L. (1996), 177 N.B.R.(2d) 184; 449 A.P.R. 184 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

Whey v. Brenton (1984), 49 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 19; 145 A.P.R. 19 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

Counsel:

S. Cybulski, for the appellant;

R.B. Hunter, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 21, 1999, by Vancise, Wakeling and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on May 17, 1999, by Jackson, J.A.