J.W. v. C.W., (2009) 329 Sask.R. 62 (QB)

• Judge: Dufour, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: February 19, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2009), 329 Sask.R. 62 (QB);2009 SKQB 80

J.W. v. C.W. (2009), 329 Sask.R. 62 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.063

J.W. (petitioner) v. C.W. (respondent)

(2007 Div. No. 639; 2009 SKQB 80)

Indexed As: J.W. v. C.W.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Dufour, J.

February 19, 2009.

Summary:

Parents of a now seven year old daughter ended a tumultuous marriage involving many separations and reconciliations over a five year period. In October 2008, the mother threatened to move with the daughter to her native Norway. The father obtained an ex parte order preventing them from leaving Saskatoon. Both sought custody of the daughter. The mother sought the court's permission to move to Norway with the daughter.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench awarded the parents joint custody, with the daughter's principal residence remaining in Saskatoon. The daughter was to spend equal time with each parent on a one-week rotating basis.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Family Law - Topic 1865

Custody and access - Duties and rights of custodian - To remove child from jurisdiction - Parents of a seven year old daughter had a tumultuous marriage involving many separations and reconciliations over a five year period - The mother repeatedly moved from Saskatoon to Norway and back - Following the final separation in October 2008, the mother's threat to move with the daughter to her native Norway resulted in the father obtaining an ex parte order precluding the daughter's removal from Saskatoon - The mother made unsubstantiated allegations that the father sexually abused the daughter, and continued to subject the daughter to intrusive internal medical examinations - The acrimony was so bad that the daughter was hospitalized after an anxiety attack - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the mother's request to move to Norway with the daughter as contrary to the daughter's best interests - Allowing the move would effectively end the father's relationship with his daughter - The mother was not credible - She defrauded the Norwegian government by receiving financial assistance as a single mother ($4,000 per month) while married and living with the father - She coached the daughter to make untrue allegations of sexual abuse and attempted to destroy their relationship - Further, after the trial concluded, but before judgment, the mother (with the complicity of the Norwegian government) obtained replacement passports for herself and the daughter and returned to Norway contrary to the court's order - Belatedly, the mother invoked the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction - Removal was effected without an application under the Hague Convention, which did not apply in any event as the mother elected to have custody determined in Saskatoon - The court had jurisdiction over custody under s. 15(1)(b) of the Children's Law Act - The court had "grave concerns" over the conduct of the Norwegian government which, along with the mother, surreptitiously removed the daughter from Canada in breach of court orders, then invoked the Hague Convention - The court awarded joint custody of the daughter, with the daughter's principal residence remaining in Saskatoon and the parents entitled to equal time with the daughter on a one-week rotating basis.

Family Law - Topic 1962

Custody and access - Child abduction legislation - Jurisdiction - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Family Law - Topic 2162

Custody and access - Enforcement of orders - International conventions - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Cases Noticed:

Rothgiesser v. Rothgiesser (2000), 128 O.A.C. 302; 2 R.F.L.(5th) 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

Booker v. Leonard (2007), 321 N.B.R.(2d) 340; 827 A.P.R. 340; 44 R.F.L.(6th) 237; 2007 NBCA 71, refd to. [para. 108].

Okmyansky v. Okmyansky (2007), 225 O.A.C. 60; 38 R.F.L.(6th) 291; 2007 ONCA 427, refd to. [para. 108].

N.J. v. R.Y. (2005), 272 Sask.R. 87; 2007 SKQB 513, refd to. [para. 110].

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 116].

C.B. v. E.C.C. (2002), 166 O.A.C. 44; 31 R.F.L.(5th) 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

Haider v. Malach (1999), 177 Sask.R. 285; 199 W.A.C. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

Gilles v. Gilles (2008), 311 Sask.R. 223; 428 W.A.C. 223; 2008 SKCA 97, refd to. [para. 131].

Stavric v. King (2008), 318 Sask.R. 262; 58 R.F.L.(6th) 175; 2008 SKQB 401, affd. (2009), 320 Sask.R. 37; 444 W.A.C. 37; 2009 SKCA 6, refd to. [para. 135].

McCalla v. McCalla (1980), 5 Sask.R. 224 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 148].

Statutes Noticed:

Children's Law Act, S.S. 1997, c. C-8.2, sect. 15(1)(b) [para. 109].

Counsel:

S. Fitzsimmons, for the petitioner;

G. Kuse and A. Cook, for the respondent.

This matter was heard before Dufour, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on February 19, 2009.