L.P. et al. v. S.P. et al., (2006) 287 Sask.R. 228 (FD)

• Judge: Sandomirsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 31, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2006), 287 Sask.R. 228 (FD);2006 SKQB 478

L.P. v. S.P. (2006), 287 Sask.R. 228 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.019

L.P. and C.C. (petitioners) v. S.P. (respondent) and the Government of Saskatchewan (Minister of Community Resources and Employment) (respondent)

(2006 F.L.D. No. 267; 2006 SKQB 478)

Indexed As: L.P. et al. v. S.P. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Regina

Sandomirsky, J.

October 31, 2006.

Summary:

S. was apprehended three days after birth and placed with foster parents, the plaintiffs. Both the plaintiffs and extended family members of S. brought applications to be designated as persons of sufficient interest regarding S. and for custody of S. The plaintiffs obtained a fiat preserving the status quo. The actions were consolidated. At issue was the family members' access to S. and the advancement of the consolidated action. The plaintiffs asked the court to order the dispute to mediation.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, determined the issues. The family members were to have limited access, no more than 8 hours every second weekend. The consolidated action required a two-step inquiry, determining (i) who qualified as persons of sufficient interest and (ii) who was best qualified to provide for S.'s best interests. This necessitated a full trial, failing a pretrial conference or mediated settlement. The court refused to designate a mediator but granted the parties the option to opt for mediation by joint request within 15 days.

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 2001.3

Custody and access - Access - Access to children under guardianship order - S. was apprehended three days after birth and placed with foster parents, the plaintiffs - The Department of Community Resources (DCR) applied for an extension of the temporary protection order - The plaintiffs applied to be designated as persons of sufficient interest - Extended family members of S. sought the same designation and custody of S. - DCR supported the family members' application - The plaintiffs obtained an order staying the DCR's action and preserving the status quo - The actions were consolidated - At issue was advancement of the action and the family members' access - DCR requested overnight and weekend access to familiarize S. with the family members - The plaintiffs asked the court to order mediation - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, determined the issues - DCR's request for extended access presupposed a final outcome in favour of the family members - The family members were to have limited access, no more than 8 hours every second weekend - The consolidated action required a determination of who qualified as persons of sufficient interest and who could best provide for S.'s best interests - This necessitated a full trial, failing a pretrial conference or mediated settlement - The court refused to designate a mediator but granted the parties the option to opt for mediation.

Family Law - Topic 2091.1

Custody and access - The hearing - When trial necessary - [See Family Law - Topic 2001.3 ].

Guardian and Ward - Topic 230

Appointment and qualifications of guardian - Of children - Access - [See Family Law - Topic 2001.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

M.B.D. et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) (2002), 221 Sask.R. 180; 2002 SKQB 308, refd to. [para. 23].

C.H. and R.H. v. D.G. and Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) (1996), 147 Sask.R. 230 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

G.E.S. v. D.L.C. (2006), 285 Sask.R. 19; 378 W.A.C. 19; 2006 SKCA 79, refd to. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Child and Family Services Act, S.S. 1989-90, c. C-7.2, sect. 23(1) [para. 7].

Counsel:

Randall M. Sandbeck, for the petitioners;

David W. Andrews, Q.C., for the respondent, S.P.;

Nancy M. Drew, for the respondent, Government of Saskatchewan.

This application was heard by Sandomirsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following fiat on October 31, 2006.