Persaud v. Ejylesson, (1990) 108 A.R. 125 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Landerkin, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 31, 1990
• Citations: (1990), 108 A.R. 125 (ProvCt)

Persaud v. Ejylesson (1990), 108 A.R. 125 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Leila Persaud (applicant) v. Gregory Ejylesson (respondent)

(No. CFC 111515)

Indexed As: Persaud v. Ejylesson

Alberta Provincial Court

Family Division

Landerkin, P.C.J.

July 31, 1990.

Summary:

Persaud obtained in Ontario a provisional order requiring Ejylesson, the alleged father of her child, to pay child maintenance. Persaud sought to enforce the order in Alberta under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act (REMO). Section 6(1) of the Act required Alberta courts to apply Ontario law. At the commencement of the confirmation hearing Ejylesson challenged that the REMO enforcement provisions, including s. 6(1), violated ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, dismissed the application; there was no denial of Ejylesson's s. 7 or 15 Charter rights.

Civil Rights - Topic 3222

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Civil proceedings - Right to cross-examination - A mother sought to enforce an Ontario maintenance order against the Alberta father under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act - The father was entitled to notice of the provisional hearing in Ontario, but had no right to cross-examine the mother - He did have the right to pretrial discovery in Alberta - The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, held that in this context, as opposed to the criminal law context, the lack of the right of cross-examination was not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 29 to 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 5679.6

Equality and protection of the law - Reciprocal enforcement of maintenance - The Alberta Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act provided that the law of the reciprocating state determined the maintenance obligation - An Ontario order was sought to be enforced in Alberta - The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, held that Ontario law did not discriminate against men, where the law was gender neutral - Even though most claims were made by women, men were not precluded from claiming under the Act - See paragraphs 69 to 76.

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Nongovernmental or private interference - A father challenged that the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act violated his rights under ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter - The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, discussed whether the Charter applied to family disputes - The court stated that since the Act invoked state assistance to permit claims to be initiated and transmitted from one jurisdiction to another, there was a sufficient level of government intervention to make the Charter applicable - See paragraphs 23 to 28.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Principles of fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3222].

Civil Rights - Topic 8587.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Notice - General - A mother obtained a provisional child maintenance order in Ontario and sought to enforce it in Alberta under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act - The father challenged that the Act violated his Charter rights - No notice of the challenge was given to the mother - The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, held that the mother was entitled to notice where her claim for support was jeopardized by the father's application - The court stated that it would dismiss the father's application for lack of notice as well as on substantive grounds - See paragraphs 77 to 88.

Family Law - Topic 2541

Maintenance of wives and children - Enforcement - Foreign orders - General - A mother obtained a provisional child maintenance order in Ontario and sought to enforce it against the Alberta father under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act - The father claimed provisions of the Act violated his rights under ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, held that the father's Charter rights were not denied.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morgentaler (1988), 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Potvin (1989), 93 N.R. 42; 21 Q.A.C. 258; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.) refd to. [paras. 12, 38].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 27 B.L.R. 297; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; 84 D.T.C. 6467, refd to. [para. 24].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 25].

Richardson v. Richardson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 857; 77 N.R. 1; 22 O.A.C. 1; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 304, refd to. [para. 26].

Bailey v. Bailey, [1968] S.C.R. 617, refd to. [para. 27].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins (1989), 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 31].

Boca v. Mende (1989), 20 R.F.L.(3d) 421, refd to. [para. 33].

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. T.S. and C.S. et al. (1989), 33 O.A.C. 213; 20 R.F.L.(3d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 37].

Family Relations Act of British Columbia, Re (1982), 40 N.R. 206; 131 D.L.R.(3d) 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 47].

St. Denis v. Trumbley (1977), 4 A.R. 212; 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193, (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Ross v. Polak, [1971] 2 W.W.R. 241, refd to. [para. 50].

M. v. M. (1989), 22 R.F.L.(3d) 395, refd to. [para. 51].

Sayer v. Rollin (1980), 16 R.F.L.(2d) 289 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

E.A.S. v. K.M.B. (1990), 24 R.F.L.(3d) 220, refd to. [para. 54].

Totino v. Totino (1986), 4 R.F.L.(3d) 148 (Ont. D.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

U.S. and Smith, Re (1984), 38 C.R.(3d) 228, refd to. [para. 59].

Potma and R., Re (1983), 31 C.R.(3d) 231, refd to. [para. 59].

Cooper v. Stern (1988), 73 Sask.R. 5, refd to. [para. 60].

Gilliland v. Walker (1985), 19 C.R.R. 340, (Ont. P.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Becker v. Alberta (1983), 45 A.R. 36; 148 D.L.R.(3d) 539 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 66].

P.K. v. J.B.M. and B.L.M. (1990), 107 A.R. 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. Lyttle, [1973] S.C.R. 568, refd to. [para. 80].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 9]; sect. 15 [paras. 16, 69].

Judicature Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. J-1, sect. 25 [para. 81].

Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. R-7.1, sect. 5(6) [para. 85]; sect. 6(1) [para. 8]; sect. 11(1) [para. 84].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, How Much and Why? Economic Implications of Marriage Breakdown: Spousal and Child Support (1989), generally [para. 51].

Thompson, D.A.R., Taking Children and Facts Seriously: Evidence Law in Child Protection Proceedings, Part I (1988), 7 C.J.F.L. 7, pp. 24-28 [paras. 44, 45].

United States Department of Health and Human Services, A Guide for Judges in Child Support Enforcement (2nd Ed.), ch. 6 [para. 56]; p. 79 [para. 57].

Counsel:

B. Limpert and S. Rutwind, for the Attorney General;

R. Ady, for the respondent, Gregory Ejylesson.

This application was heard before Landerkin, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, who delivered the following judgment on July 31, 1990.