Noble Estate, Re, (1996) 192 A.R. 207 (SurCt)

• Judge: Clarke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 12, 1996
• Citations: (1996), 192 A.R. 207 (SurCt)

Noble Estate, Re (1996), 192 A.R. 207 (SurCt)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of the Dependent Adults Act being Chapter D-32 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980, and amendments thereto;

    

And In The Matter Of an Application for an order for the appointment of a guardian of the person and trustee of the estate of Mary Ellen Noble.

(Action No. DA01-7711)

Indexed As: Noble Estate, Re

Alberta Surrogate Court

Judicial District of Calgary

Clarke, J.

November 12, 1996.

Summary:

At issue was whether the Alberta Surrogate Court had jurisdiction to deal with matters under the Dependent Adults Act.

The Alberta Surrogate Court held that it had jurisdiction.

Courts - Topic 8464

Provincial courts - Alberta - Surrogate Court - Jurisdiction - The Alberta Surro­gate Court held that it had jurisdiction to deal with matters under the Dependent Adults Act - The court stated that "[t]he power and the jurisdiction is contained in the grant of authority contained in the many sections of the Dependent Adults Act which defines the role the court is to play in this area." - The court was not attempting to "usurp a jurisdiction with which it is not clearly vested" - Grant of a jurisdiction clause was unnecessary as no English court had statutory jurisdiction over dependent adults and no court was specifically referred to in the transfer of jurisdiction - Alternatively, jurisdiction would reside with the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and all judges from the Surrogate Court were also judges of the Court of Queen's Bench - See paragraphs 6 to 9.

Courts - Topic 8464

Provincial courts - Alberta - Surrogate Court - Jurisdiction - The Alberta Surro­gate Court held that it had jurisdiction to deal with matters under the Dependent Adults Act - The court stated that until the issue of the jurisdiction was settled, appli­cations and orders should be styled in both the Surrogate Court and in the Court of Queen's Bench - Furthermore, "[f]or the purposes of administrative expediency parties should continue to use the Surro­gate Court numbering and filing system as the primary style of cause" - See para­graph 9.

Guardian and Ward - Topic 361

Appointment of guardian - Practice - General - [See second Courts - Topic 8464 ].

Cases Noticed:

Lacombe Estate, Re (1996), 192 A.R. 124 (Surr. Ct), disagreed with [para. 2].

Canadian National Railway v. Lewis, [1930] 4 D.L.R. 537 (Ex. Ct), refd to. [para. 4].

Mullins et al. v. Ship Goring, [1988] 1 All E.R. 641; 99 N.R. 309 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 5].

Board v. Board, [1919] 2 W.W.R. 940 (Alta. P.C.), folld. [para. 8].

Statutes Noticed:

Dependent Adults Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. D-32, sect. 1(c) [para. 3].

Surrogate Court Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. S-28, sect. 9(1) [para. 3].

Counsel:

Kenneth and Shirley Tryon, proposed trustees of the Noble Estate, on their own behalf.

This matter was heard before Clarke, J., of the Alberta Surrogate Court, Judicial District of Calgary, who rendered the following decision on November 12, 1996.