K.A.W. v. B.A.T., (2000) 282 A.R. 143 (QB)

• Judge: Clark, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 30, 2000
• Citations: (2000), 282 A.R. 143 (QB)

K.A.W. v. B.A.T. (2000), 282 A.R. 143 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. JA.024

In The Matter Of The Domestic Relations Act, R.S.A. 1989, c. D-37, as amended

K.A.W. (applicant) v. B.A.T. (respondent)

(Action No. 0008-00308)

Indexed As: K.A.W. v. B.A.T.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Medicine Hat

Clark, J.

November 30, 2000.

Summary:

T. began cohabitating with W. when W. was four months pregnant by another man. T. assumed parental responsibility for the child. They had another child together before the relationship ended. T. wished to apply for joint guardianship of both children. At issue in this proceeding was whether T. had standing to apply for joint guardianship of the first child.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that T. had standing to apply for joint guardianship as he stood in loco parentis to the first child.

Family Law - Topic 1812

Custody and access - General - Persons in loco parentis - [See Guardian and Ward - Topic 215 ].

Guardian and Ward - Topic 215

Appointment and qualifications of guardian - Of children - Jurisdiction (incl. who may apply) - T. began cohabitating with W. when W. was four months pregnant by another man - T. assumed parental responsibility for the child - They had another child together before the relationship ended - T. wished to apply for joint guardianship of both children - At issue in this proceeding was whether T. had standing to apply for joint guardianship of the first child - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that T. had standing to apply for joint guardianship as he stood in loco parentis to the first child - See paragraphs 1 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

G.D. v. G.M., [1999] N.W.T.J. No. 38 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Langdon v. York (1994), 161 A.R. 279 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

K.K.W. v. E.J.R., C.F.R. and C.T.W. (No. 1) (1989), 102 A.R. 106; 69 Alta. L.R.(2d) 95 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Williams v. Williams (1995), 172 A.R. 10 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Chartier v. Chartier, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 242; 235 N.R. 1; 134 Man.R.(2d) 19; 193 W.A.C. 19, refd to. [para. 17].

A.H.T. and C.L.T. v. E.P. and G.P. (1999), 232 A.R. 178; 195 W.A.C. (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1999), 249 N.R. 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

W.D. v. G.P. (1984), 54 A.R. 161; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Enkirch, [1983] 1 W.W.R. 530; 41 A.R. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Domestic Relations Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. D-37, sect. 46, sect. 47(1), sect. 49 [para. 8].

Counsel:

Bryce R. Farrell (Niblock & Company), for the applicant;

Susan E. Robertson, for the respondent.

This application was heard on September 19 and 20, 2000, by Clark, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Medicine Hat, who delivered the following decision on November 30, 2000.