Knight v. Knight and Herringer, (1992) 132 A.R. 341 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Landerkin, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 24, 1992
• Citations: (1992), 132 A.R. 341 (ProvCt)

Knight v. Knight (1992), 132 A.R. 341 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Florence Knight and Raymond Donald Knight (applicants) v. Darrell Roy Knight and Susan Jane Herringer (respondents)

(Action No. CFC 114082)

Indexed As: Knight v. Knight and Herringer

Alberta Provincial Court

Family Division

Landerkin, P.C.J.

August 24, 1992.

Summary:

The paternal grandparents of a nine year old girl applied under s. 32 of the Provincial Court Act for access. The mother opposed the application. The father did not appear.

The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, held that the grandparents lacked status to apply for access under s. 32; ac­cordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.

Constitutional Law - Topic 3620

Paramountcy of federal statutes - Over­lapping legislation - Divorce, custody and access to children - The paternal grand­parents of a nine year old child applied under s. 32 of the Provincial Court Act for access - The mother claimed access was already dealt with by a superior court by order under the Divorce Act - The father was denied access, but the grandparents were not parties - The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, held that the doc­trine of paramountcy did not apply to deny the Provincial Court of jurisdiction - See paragraphs 6 to 16.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8607

Judicial power - Appointment of judges, s. 96 - Provincial family law legislation - [See Family Law - Topic 2005 ].

Courts - Topic 8426

Provincial courts - Alberta - Provincial Court, Family Division - Custody and access to children - [See Family Law - Topic 2005 ].

Family Law - Topic 2000.1

Custody and access - Children - Access - Right to access - Rights of strangers - The paternal grandparents of a nine year old child applied under s. 32 of the Prov­incial Court Act for access - Section 32 provided that an application may be made "by either parent of the child, or by the child ..." - The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, held that grandparents lacked status to apply under s. 32, accord­ingly; the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the application - See paragraphs 17 to 21.

Family Law - Topic 2005

Custody and access - Children - Access order - Jurisdiction of court respecting - A s. 96 superior court, in a Divorce Act order, denied a father access to his daugh­ter - The paternal grandparents applied under s. 32 of the Provincial Court Act for custody - The grandparents lacked status to apply under s. 32 - The grandparents argued that the court had jurisdiction in the best interests of the child - The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, stated that it was a statutory court of record having no equitable jurisdiction to go beyond the four corners of the Act to act in the child's best interests - Only s. 96 judges had such power - See paragraphs 17 to 21.

Family Law - Topic 2139

Custody and access - Children - Evidence - Affidavits requirements - The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, dis­cussed the content requirements of an affidavit in support of an application for access under s. 32 of the Provincial Court Act - See paragraphs 64 to 75.

Cases Noticed:

N.P.P. and M.E.P. v. Regional Children's Guardian (Calgary) (1988), 88 A.R. 114 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R 161, refd to. [para. 9].

Williams v. Hillier, [1982] 1 W.W.R. 397; 33 A.R. 613 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Hutchings, Re (1976), 9 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 438; 12 A.P.R. 438; 71 D.L.R.(3d) 356 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Scott v. Hotchkiss (1990), 105 A.R. 354 (Prov. Ct.), disagreed with [para. 18].

L.G.A.B., Re (1989), 101 A.R. 92; 72 Alta. L.R.(2d) 9 (Prov. Ct.), disagreed with [para. 20].

Reference Re Young Offenders Act and Youth Court Judges, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 253; 121 N.R. 81; 89 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 278 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 24].

Reference Re Adoption Act, [1938] S.C.R. 398, refd to. [para. 33].

Family Relations Act of British Columbia, Re, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 62; 40 N.R. 206, refd to. [para. 37].

Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan v. John East Iron Works, [1948] 4 D.L.R. 673 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

W.D. v. G.P. (1984), 54 A.R. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Enkirch, [1983] 1 W.W.R. 530; 41 A.R. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Bensmiller v. Bensmiller (1974), 14 R.F.L. 212 (Alta. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 59].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 8 C.R.R. 193; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 60].

St. Denis v. Trumbley (1977), 4 A.R. 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Statutes Noticed:

Child Welfare Act, S.A. 1984, c. C-8.1, generally [para. 12].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 96 [para. 33].

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 16(1) [para. 15].

Domestic Relations Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. D-37, sect. 46 [para. 53]; sect. 47 [para. 51]; sect. 56 [para. 50].

Domestic Relations Act, S.A. 1927, c. 5, generally [para. 25].

Family Court Act, S.A. 1951, c. 32, gen­erally [para. 25].

Family Court Act, An Act to Amend, S.A. 1967, c. 133, sect. 10 [para. 25].

Provincial Court Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-20, sect. 32 [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Corry, J.A., The Interpretation of Statutes, in Driedger, E.A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), generally [para. 22].

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), generally [para. 22].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1985), pp. 354 [para. 8]; 363 [para. 10].

Hurst, Willard, The Growth of American Law: The Law Makers (1950), generally [para. 26].

Paton, A Textbook of Jurisprudence (1964), generally [para. 22].

Counsel:

Brian Nelson, Q.C., for the applicants;

Richard Dudelzak, Q.C., for the respon­dent;

Robert Maybank, for the Attorney-Gen­eral.

This application was heard before Lander­kin, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, who delivered the follow­ing judgment on August 24, 1992.