M v. M, (1985) 70 A.R. 205 (QB)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 30, 1985
• Citations: (1985), 70 A.R. 205 (QB)

M v. M (1985), 70 A.R. 205 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

M v. M

(Action No. 4801-50911)

Indexed As: M v. M

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Moore, C.J.

December 30, 1985.

Summary:

The respondent in a custody application applied for, inter alia, the appointment of an amicus curiae. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application.

Family Law - Topic 2146

Custody and access to children - Evidence - Report of amicus curiae - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench appointed an amicus curiae in custody proceedings involving three girls, aged seven, three and one, where both parents sought custody and there was great bitterness between the parties - The court defined the limits of the role of the amicus curiae - See paragraphs 10 to 11.

Family Law - Topic 2146

Custody and access to children - Evidence - Report of amicus curiae - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to the role in custody proceedings of a report prepared by an amicus curiae, including the weight to be given to the report's findings - See paragraph 5.

Family Law - Topic 2146

Custody and access to children - Evidence - Report of amicus curiae - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to the advantages and disadvantages of ordering a report from an amicus curiae in custody proceedings - See paragraphs 3 to 4.

Family Law - Topic 2146

Custody and access to children - Evidence - Report of amicus curiae - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that any evidence in a report prepared by an amicus curiae in custody proceedings must be subjected to cross-examination by any party - The amicus curiae should advise any person being interviewed by him that anything stated by them may be challenged in court if they are subpoenaed - See paragraph 9.

Practice - Topic 687

Parties - Adding parties - Intervenors - Amicus curiae - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that an amicus curiae has no inherent right to cross-examine witnesses, since this is a privilege granted with leave of the court in the interests of the children - See paragraph 8.

Practice - Topic 687

Parties - Adding parties - Intervenors - Amicus curiae - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that if an amicus curiae is appointed by a judge and directed to prepare a report, the report is not the property of either party, but of the court - Each party should receive a copy of the report at least 30 days prior to the court hearing - See paragraph 9.

Cases Noticed:

Copithorne v. Copithorne (1976), 2 A.R. 431, refd to. [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Amicus Curiae, Report of Alberta Institute of Law Research and Reform on (1984), pp. 31-32 [para. 3].

Counsel:

G.S. Graham, for the petitioner M;

Neil Whitman (Code Hunter), for the respondent.

This application was heard before Moore, C.J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, whose decision was delivered at Calgary, Alberta on December 30, 1985.