Langdon v. York, (1994) 161 A.R. 279 (QB)

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 26, 1994
• Citations: (1994), 161 A.R. 279 (QB)

Langdon v. York (1994), 161 A.R. 279 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Tara Lee Langdon (plaintiff) v. Brian David York (defendant)

(Action No. 8501-02634)

Indexed As: Langdon v. York

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Rooke, J.

October 26, 1994.

Summary:

York applied for joint guardianship, cus­tody and access respecting his former com­mon law partner's child. York was not the child's father, but was treated and acted as such. At issue was whether the natural mother could unilaterally withdraw York's in loco parentis status and the test to be applied to his application.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the natural parent could not unilaterally withdraw in loco parentis status. The in loco parentis status gave jurisdiction for York to apply for joint guardianship, custody and access under s. 49 of the Domestic Relations Act. The court held that the proper test to be applied to such an application was the best interest of the child.

Family Law - Topic 1812

Custody and access - General - Persons in loco parentis - York applied for joint guardianship, custody and access respect­ing his former common law partner's child - York was not the child's father, but was treated and acted as such for the first 3.5 years of the child's life - The natural mother purported to unilaterally withdraw York's in loco parentis status which she had created - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that in loco parentis was "status vis-à-vis the child, indepen­dent of the mother" - The court held that the natural mother could not unilaterally terminate the status - The court held that York had status to apply - See paragraphs 10 to 12.

Family Law - Topic 1812

Custody and access - General - Persons in loco parentis - York applied for joint guardianship, custody and access respect­ing his former common law partner's child - York was not the child's father, but was treated and acted as such for the first 3.5 years of the child's life - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that York was a person in loco parentis - The court held that the proper test in the application was the "best interests of the child" - The court stated that if York had been found to be a legal stranger, the test would have been "fitness of the natural mother" - See paragraphs 6 to 7, 13 to 33.

Family Law - Topic 1881

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Welfare of child, paramount - [See second Family Law - Topic 1812 ].

Family Law - Topic 1893

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Contest between par­ents and non-parents - [See second Fam­ily Law - Topic 1812 ].

Family Law - Topic 1991

Custody and access - Access - Consider­ations in awarding access - Welfare of child - [See second Family Law - Topic 1812 ].

Family Law - Topic 1998

Custody and access - Access - Consider­ations in awarding access - Contest between parents and non-parents - [See second Family Law - Topic 1812 ].

Cases Noticed:

Theriault v. Theriault (1994), 149 A.R. 210; 63 W.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

Laraque v. Allooloo [1992], N.W.T.J. No. 208; 44 R.F.L.(3d) 10, (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

Larter v. Larter, [1993] N.W.T.J. No. 109; 50 R.F.L.(3d) 386 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

W.A.B., R.M.B. and L.M.M., Re (1988), 96 A.R. 45 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

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. 5].

R. v. Enkirch (1982), 41 A.R. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

H.A.D. and R.M.D. v. N.C.M. (1993), 10 Alta. L.R.(3d) 395 (Q.B.), affd. (1993), 145 A.R. 200; 55 W.A.C. 200; 12 Alta. L.R.(3d) 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

J.W.S. v. N.C.M. - see H.A.D. and R.M.D. v. N.C.M.

King v. Mr. and Mrs. B., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 87; 57 N.R. 17; 58 A.R. 275; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 1; 44 R.F.L.(2d) 113, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 3].

King v. Low - see King v. Mr. and Mrs. B.

K.K. v. G.L. and B.J.L. - see King v. Mr. and Mrs. B.

McGee v. Waldern and Cunningham, [1974] 4 W.W.R. 684 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 3].

Malette v. Moulun (1989), 99 A.R. 65; 68 Alta. L.R.(2d) 142; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 21 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

C.G.M. v. M.D.M. - see Malette v. Moulun.

T.L.M. v. G.E.F. (1988), 88 A.R. 259; 60 Alta. L.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

S.L.B. v. J.M.C. and P.S.C. (1987), 81 A.R. 121 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

K.N. v. K.M.M. and D.J.M. (1989), 100 A.R. 1; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 42 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

B.B.M. v. W.W.M. (1994), 156 A.R. 392 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Rathwell v. Rathwell (1981), 10 Sask.R. 407; 21 R.F.L.(2d) 301 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

McCarthy v. McCarthy (1984), 44 R.F.L.(2d) 92 (Ont. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

W.J.H. v. D.T.H. (1993), 140 A.R. 268 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Pickup v. Pickup; Pickup v. Heerah (1985), 34 Man.R.(2d) 217; 47 R.F.L.(2d) 188; 20 D.L.R.(3d) 190 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 10].

Hock v. Hock, [1971] 4 W.W.R. 262 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Andrews v. Andrews (1992), 97 Sask.R. 213; 12 W.A.C. 213; 38 R.F.L.(3d) 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Schuster v. Laroque, [1994] A.J. No. 580 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Eschak v. Biron, [1993] N.W.T.R. 255 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Carignan v. Carignan, [1989] 1 W.W.R. 641; 61 Man.R.(2d) 66; 22 R.F.L.(3d) 376; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 119 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Desjardines v. Desjardines (1991), 113 A.R. 168; 31 R.F.L.(3d) 449 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Slama v. Slama (1992), 126 A.R. 210; 38 R.F.L.(3d) 187 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Scott v. Hotchkiss (1990), 105 A.R. 354; 26 R.F.L.(3d) 26 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 10].

Hildebrand et al. v. Jacobson (1993), 137 A.R. 134 (Prov. Ct. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 10].

Knight v. Knight and Herringer (1992), 132 A.R. 341 (Prov. Ct. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 10].

W.D. v. G.P., [1984] 5 W.W.R. 289; 54 A.R. 161; 32 Alta. L.R.(2d) 232; 41 R.F.L.(2d) 229; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

O'Neill v. Drummond (1986), 68 A.R. 394 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Valiquette v. Jabs (1986), 72 A.R. 133 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 10]

Rodger v. Rodger, [1988] N.W.T.R. 163 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Oxenham v. Oxenham (1982), 35 O.R.(2d) 379; 26 R.F.L.(2d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Lawrence v. Lawrence (1978), 5 Alta. L.R.(2d) 231 (Prov. Ct. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 12].

Nelson v. Findlay and Findlay (1974), 15 R.F.L. 181 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Moores and Feldstein, Re, [1973] 3 O.R. 921; 12 R.F.L. 273; 38 D.L.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Martin v. Duffell, [1950] S.C.R. 737; [1950] 4 D.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Hepton v. Maat, [1957] S.C.R. 606; 10 D.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

McNeilly v. Agar, [1958] S.C.R. 52, refd to. [para. 15].

S.I.L. v. L.J.L. (1985), 47 R.F.L.(2d) 155 (Ont. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

D.E.J., Re; R.D. and C.D. v. H.J., [1986] N.W.T.R. 32 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

C.S. v. G.T., [1985] N.W.T.R. 269 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Durkee v. Poirier (1983), 29 Alta. L.R.(2d) 145 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

U.M. v. R.W.B., [1988] A.W.L.D. 443; [1988] W.D.F.L. 551, refd to. [para. 21].

Lachance v. Cloutier (1982), 36 A.R. 124; 18 Alta. L.R.(2d) 328 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

G.D.G. v. B.H.K. (1992), 136 A.R. 324 (Prov. Ct. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 30].

Maher, Re (1975), 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 224; 17 A.P.R. 224; 25 R.F.L. 252 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

Walker v. Smith (D.) (1987), 87 A.R. 65 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

Fishburne v. Eggleton (1987), 12 R.F.L.(3d) 215 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Child Welfare Act, S.A. 1984, c. C-8.1, sect. 64(1)(b) [para. 16].

Domestic Relations Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. D-37, sect. 46, sect. 47, sect. 49 [para. 4]; sect. 50 [para. 22]; sect. 50(b) [para. 7]; sect. 56 [para. 30]; sect. 61 [para. 15].

Provincial Court Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-20, sect. 32 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Ms. Morris, for the defendant;

T. Glen, for the plaintiff.

This matter was heard by Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who gave oral reasons on October 26, 1994, with written reasons released on December 16, 1994.