King v. Mr. and Mrs. B., (1985) 57 N.R. 17 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Ritchie, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 14, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1985), 57 N.R. 17 (SCC);1985 CanLII 59 (SCC);44 RFL (2d) 113;AZ-85111022;[1985] ACS no 7;57 NR 17;[1985] CarswellNWT 58;30 ACWS (2d) 134;16 DLR (4th) 576;[1985] CarswellAlta 395;[1985] SCJ No 7 (QL);[1985] 3 WWR 1;[1985] 1 SCR 87;58 AR 275

King v. Mr. and Mrs. B. (1985), 57 N.R. 17 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

King v. Mr. and Mrs. B.

Indexed As: King v. Mr. and Mrs. B.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Ritchie, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.

March 14, 1985.

Summary:

An unwed mother gave her newborn son to Mr. and Mrs. B who intended to adopt the child. Later the mother changed her mind and applied for custody of her son. The trial court dismissed the application - see paragraphs 35 to 65 below. The mother appealed.

The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - see 45 A.R. 88. The mother appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Infants - Topic 2686

Custody of illegitimate children - Loss of right to custody by mother - An unwed mother gave her newborn son (five days old) to Mr. and Mrs. B for adoption - The mother signed a consent to adoption form; but the adoption was not completed - About two months after the birth the mother requested the return of the child and later applied for custody of the child - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed a dismissal of the mother's application - The court referred to the applicable legislation and stated that on such an application the welfare of the child is the predominant consideration (see paragraphs 27 and 34) - The court referred to the existence of bonding between the child and Mr. and Mrs. B (see paragraph 32).

Family Law - Topic 1881

Custody of children - Considerations in awarding custody - Welfare of child - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the meaning of the phrase "welfare of the child" (see paragraph 27).

Words and Phrases

Welfare of the child - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the phrase "welfare of the child" in the law of custody of children (see paragraph 27).

Cases Noticed:

Moores and Feldstein, Re, [1973] 3 O.R. 921; 12 R.F.L. 280; 38 D.L.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.), reving [1973] 2 O.R. 497; 12 R.F.L. 273; 34 D.L.R.(3d) 449, refd to. [paras. 13 and 59].

Duffell, Re Baby: Martin and Martin v. Duffell, [1950] S.C.R. 737, refd to. [paras. 13 and 59].

Hepton v. Maat, [1957] S.C.R. 606; 10 D.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [paras. 13 and 59].

Agar, Re; McNeilly v. Agar, [1958] S.C.R. 52; 11 D.L.R.(2d) 721, refd to. [paras. 13 and 59].

Hope v. Hope (1854), 43 E.R. 534, refd to. [para. 14].

McGrath, Re, [1893] 1 Ch. 143, refd to. [para. 14].

O'Hara, Re, [1900] 2 I.R. 232, refd to. [para. 14].

Beson v. Director of Child Welfare for the Province of Newfoundland, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 716; 44 N.R. 602, refd to. [para. 16].

Racine v. Woods, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 173; 48 N.R. 362, refd to. [para. 16].

Wells, Re (1962), 33 D.L.R.(2d) 243, refd to. [para. 17].

Jenkins, Re (1974), 5 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 325, refd to. [para. 17].

C.A.C. v. F.D.R. and S.J.R. (1977), 21 N.S.R.(2d) 631; 28 A.P.R. 631, refd to. [para. 17].

Elias v. Elias (1980), 14 R.F.L.(2d) 228 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

Nelson v. Findlay and Findlay (1974), 15 R.F.L. 181 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Power v. Crowe (1982), 52 N.S.R.(2d) 165; 106 A.P.R. 165 (N.S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Mugford, Re, [1970] 1 O.R. 601 (C.A.), affd. [1970] S.C.R. 261, refd to. [para. 19].

Blenus, Re (1980), 35 N.S.R.(2d) 396; 62 A.P.R. 396, refd to. [para. 19].

C. v. K. et ux (1959-60), 30 W.W.R. 310 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Gerk v. Ventress et ux (1964), 48 W.W.R. 245 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Ezekiel, Re (1980), 30 N.B.R.(2d) 343; 70 A.P.R. 343 (N.B.Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Meikle v. Authenac (1971), 3 R.F.L. 84 (Alta. S.C.A.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

J. v. C., [1970] A.C. 668; [1969] 1 All E.R. 788, refd to. [paras. 34 and 62].

R.H.M., Re, [1973] 2 W.W.R. 55; 10 R.F.L. 160, refd to. [para. 59].

Cullen, Re (1976), 2 R.F.L. 193 (N.S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Statutes Noticed:

Domestic Relations Ordinance, R.O.N.W.T. 1974, c. D-9, sect. 28(1), sect. 35(2), sect. 37 [para. 9].

Counsel:

James R. Scott and Teresa Bereznicki-Korol, for the appellant;

B.A. Crane, Q.C., for the respondents.

This appeal was heard by Dickson, C.J.C., Ritchie, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on May 23, 1984.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by McIntyre, J., on March 14, 1985. Ritchie, J., took no part in the judgment.