P.T. v. R.B. et al., 2001 ABQB 739

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 08, 2001
• Citations: 2001 ABQB 739;(2001), 296 A.R. 232 (QB)

P.T. v. R.B. (2001), 296 A.R. 232 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. AU.076

P.T. (applicant/respondent) v. R.B. (respondent/applicant) and the Attorney General of Alberta (intervener)

(Action No. 8603-13025; 2001 ABQB 739)

Indexed As: P.T. v. R.B. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

August 9, 2001.

Summary:

A father was required to pay child support for his daughter born out of wedlock. After the daughter turned 18, the father applied to terminate support on the ground that s. 16(2)(c) of the Parentage and Maintenance Act provided a support obligation "until the child reached the age of 18 years". The mother applied for an order that s. 16(2)(c) was inconsistent with the equality guarantee under s. 15 of the Charter.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 5641

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Dissimilar provincial laws - Dissimilarity with federal law - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench agreed that "one has to be very wary of claims under s. 15 of the Charter which effectively rest upon the difference between federal legislation under its jurisdiction, and provincial legislation under its jurisdiction, particularly where the legislation in both cases is designed to confer a benefit. This is particularly so when the benefit is contained in legislation which was aimed at eliminating discrimination. ... even if a Court were to consider measuring a piece of provincial legislation against a piece of federal legislation, it would at least be required to measure the total effect of all relevant federal and provincial legislation in relation to the relevant area of subject matter. To approach the topic otherwise might permit one to select one section of a Provincial Act, and impugn it on s. 15 grounds, despite the existence of exceptions or qualifications elsewhere in the body of legislation, or even in the same Act." - See paragraph 83 to 85.

Civil Rights - Topic 5660.6

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Children of unmarried parents legislation - Section 16(2)(c) of the Parentage and Maintenance Act (PMA) permitted an order for periodic support for a child of unmarried parents "until the child reached the age of 18 years" - The unmarried mother of an 18 year old daughter, argued that s. 16(2)(c) was inconsistent with the equality guarantee under s. 15 of the Charter - In particular, she claimed that she was denied equal benefit of law arising from the difference between the common law interpretation of language in the Divorce Act and the age limitation in the PMA, particularly because she, as the mother, could not apply - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - A child of unmarried parents over the age of 18 could apply for maintenance under the Maintenance Order Act - Therefore, the Maintenance Order Act provided equal benefit to the daughter - The fact that the mother herself could not apply for child support on the daughter's behalf did not violate s. 15.

Civil Rights - Topic 5666.1

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Child support legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5660.6 ].

Family Law - Topic 2342

Maintenance of wives and children - Maintenance of children - Status to apply -Section 2(1) of the Maintenance Order Act provided, inter alia, that a father or mother of "any ... destitute person who is not able to work" were required to provide "maintenance" for that person - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Maintenance Order Act should be interpreted as permitting a child, including a child of unmarried parents, pursuing post-secondary education to seek maintenance - See paragraphs 92 to 103.

Family Law - Topic 2342.1

Maintenance of wives and children - Maintenance of children - Dependant child - [See Family Law - Topic 2342 ].

Family Law - Topic 2343

Maintenance of wives and children - Maintenance of children - When available - [See Family Law - Topic 2342 ].

Infants - Topic 2551

Parentage of children - Support and other claims - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5660.6 ].

Infants - Topic 2553

Parentage of children - Support and other claims - By mother of child - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5660.6 ].

Infants - Topic 2569.9

Parentage of children - Support and other claims - Post-secondary education - [See Family Law - Topic 2342 ].

Cases Noticed:

Massingham-Pearce v. Konkolus (1995), 170 A.R. 10 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 15, footnote 1].

Spracklin v. Kichton (2000), 278 A.R. 27; [2001] 13 A.W.L.D. 5 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 3].

Pollard v. Pollard (1999), 257 A.R. 36; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 350 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 4].

Farden v. Farden (1993), 48 R.F.L.(3d) 60 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 5].

Van De Pol v. Van De Pol (1996), 179 A.R. 221 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 6].

Tapson v. Tapson (1969), 2 R.F.L. 305 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 7].

Jackson v. Jackson, [1973] S.C.R. 205, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 8].

Bates v. Bates (1995), 165 A.R. 71; 89 W.A.C. 71; 10 R.F.L.(4th) 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 9].

Sherlow v. Zubko (1999), 247 A.R. 66 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 10].

Collins v. Collins (1998), 221 A.R. 111 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 11].

McKinnon v. McKinnon (1998), 217 A.R. 342 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 12].

Martell v. Height (1994), 130 N.S.R.(2d) 318; 367 A.P.R. 318; 3 R.F.L.(4th) 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 13].

Wahl v. Wahl (2000), 257 A.R. 212 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 14].

Whitton v. Whitton (1989), 34 O.A.C. 31; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 16].

Souliere v. Leclair (1998), 59 O.T.C. 293; 38 R.F.L.(4th) 68 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 17].

Bradley v. Zaba (1996), 137 Sask.R. 295; 107 W.A.C. 295; 18 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 18].

Gamache v. Gamache (1999), 241 A.R. 388 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 19].

Darlington v. Darlington (1997), 99 B.C.A.C. 134; 162 W.A.C. 134; 32 R.F.L.(4th) 406 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 20].

Bachorick v. Verdejo (1999), 180 Sask.R. 89; 205 W.A.C. 89; 175 D.L.R.(4th) 633 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 21].

Oswald v. Oswald (2001), 152 Man.R.(2d) 252 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 22].

Penner v. Danbrook and Saskatchewan (Attorney General) (1992), 100 Sask.R. 125; 18 W.A.C. 125; 39 R.F.L.(3d) 286; [1992] 4 W.W.R. 385; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 379 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1993] 1 S.C.R. viii; 148 N.R. 239; 116 Sask.R. 27; 59 W.A.C. 27; [1993] 1 W.W.R. lix; 12 C.R.R.(2d) 383; 44 R.F.L.(3d) 85, refd to. [para. 44, footnote 23].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 693; 13 R.F.L.(4th) 1; 10 M.V.R.(3d) 151; 23 O.R.(3d) 160; 29 C.R.R.(2d) 189, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 24].

Taylor v. Rossu (1998), 216 A.R. 348; 175 W.A.C. 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 48].

R.H.M. v. S.S.H. (1994), 150 A.R. 67; 18 Alta. L.R.(3d) 208; 112 D.L.R.(4th) 220 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 26].

R.H.M. v. S.S.H., [1994] A.J. No. 1055; (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 27].

Marin v. Rask (2000), 282 A.R. 308 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 28].

Kemp v. Rath (1996), 193 A.R. 26; 135 W.A.C. 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 29].

M.C. v. V.Z. (1998), 228 A.R. 283; 188 W.A.C. 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53, footnote 30].

Janfield v. Foote (1999), 254 A.R. 124 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 53, footnote 31].

R. v. Raine (L.) (1994), 149 A.R. 263; 63 W.A.C. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55, footnote 32].

R. v. Unland (1989), 98 A.R. 193 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 55, footnote 33].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 25 C.C.E.L. 255; 10 C.H.R.R. D/5719; 36 C.R.R. 193; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 35].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al. (2001), 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), reving. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 225; 42 O.R.(3d) 235; 167 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 12 Admin. L.R.(3d) 1; 41 C.C.E.L.(2d) 19; 27 C.P.C.(4th) 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 36].

R. v. Beaudry (M.J.) (2000), 271 A.R. 219; 234 W.A.C. 219; 36 C.R.(5th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 37].

R. v. Rahime (S.) et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 377; 253 W.A.C. 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 38].

Varga v. Sihvon et al. (2001), 288 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 39].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 1, affing. (1996), 196 N.R. 73; 135 D.L.R.(4th) 293 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 40].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 73, footnote 41].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 303; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 38 C.R.(5th) 209; 193 D.L.R.(4th) 193; [2001] 2 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 43].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81; [1998] 1 W.W.R. 50; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 78, footnote 44].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 45].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 34 C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 46].

Trinity Western University et al. v. College of Teachers (B.C.) et al. (2001), 269 N.R. 1; 151 B.C.A.C. 161; 249 W.A.C. 161; 199 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 47].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237; [1995] 5 W.W.R. 451, refd to. [para. 87, footnote 48]].

R. v. Albright, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 383; 79 N.R. 129; 60 C.R.(3d) 97; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 105; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 311; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 577; 18 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 11, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 49].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 5 C.R.(4th) 253; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 12 W.C.B.(2d) 582, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 50].

Winko v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625; 241 N.R. 1; 124 B.C.A.C. 1; 203 W.A.C. 1; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 25 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 51].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 39 C.R.(5th) 72; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 52].

R. v. Gisby (K.) et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 303; 234 W.A.C. 3093; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 549 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 96, footnote 54].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 99, footnote 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Parentage and Maintenance Act, S.A. 1990, c. P-0.7, sect. 16(2), sect. 16(3), sect. 16(4) [para. 11].

Maintenance Order Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-1, sect. 2 [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Hansard, (1990), vol. 111, pp. 1601, 1770-1, 2270 [para. 96, footnote 53].

Hansard (Alta.) - see Alberta, Hansard.

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997), pp. 52 to 61 [para. 74, footnote 42].

Counsel:

Steven N. Mandziuk (Barr Picard), for the applicant;

Brenda Stothert-Kennedy (Pollock, Stothert-Kennedy), for the respondent;

Bonnie Commandeur (Alberta Justice), for the Attorney General of Alberta.

This application was heard on August 8, 2001, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on August 9, 2001.