Persaud v. Ejylesson, (1990) 109 A.R. 58 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Landerkin, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 15, 1990
• Citations: (1990), 109 A.R. 58 (ProvCt)

Persaud v. Ejylesson (1990), 109 A.R. 58 (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.

September 15, 1990.

Summary:

An Ontario resident applied to confirm a child support order under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act against an Alberta resident. The putative father denied paternity. He raised a preliminary objection, namely, that the Act was ultra vires because (1) paternity could only be determined by a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench and (2) the Act was an improper delegation of provincial legislative power.

The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the preliminary objection.

Constitutional Law - Topic 604

Powers of Parliament and the Legislatures - Delegation of power - Delegation of legislative power - What constitutes - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act was constitutionally valid - The Act was not delegation of legislation - A province validly created in favour of a nonresident a civil right within the province, such as the right to maintenance - The right could be enforced against an individual within its jurisdiction.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8607

Judicial power - Appointment of judges - B.N.A. Act, s. 96 - Provincial family law legislation - A mother applied to confirm an Ontario provisional maintenance order under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. R-7 (REMO) - The putative father denied paternity - He submitted that the Provincial Court under REMO had no jurisdiction to determine paternity because the issue was within the exclusive jurisdiction of a s. 96 court (B.N.A. Act, s. 96) - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the Provincial Court had nonexclusive jurisdiction to determine paternity when it is in aid of maintenance - See paragraphs 6 to 14.

Cases Noticed:

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 8 C.R.R. 193; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 4].

Stagman v. Hamm (1984), 40 R.F.L.(2d) 337 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

O'Neil v. Drummond (1986), 68 A.R. 394 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 8].

Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1951] S.C.R. 31, consd. [paras. 8, 13].

Reference re Adoption Act, [1938] 3 D.L.R. 497 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 13].

Attorney General of Ontario v. Scott (1955), 114 C.C.C. 224 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 13].

Family Relations Act of British Columbia, Re, [1982] 3 W.W.R. 1; 40 N.R. 206 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 13].

Ross v. Polak, [1971] 2 W.W.R. 241 (Alta. S.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 13].

Labour Relations Board (Sask.) v. John East Iron Works Ltd., [1948] 2 W.W.R. 1055, refd to. [para. 19].

Polgase v. Polgase, [1980] 2 W.W.R. 393; 12 R.F.L.(2d) 296, refd to. [para. 20].

Bailey v. Bailey (1968), 64 W.W.R.(N.S.) 502; 68 D.L.R.(2d) 537, refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 92(16) [para. 18]; sect. 96 [paras. 7, 12, 17].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 15 [para. 3].

Maintenance and Recovery Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-2, generally [para. 6].

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

Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. R-7, sect. 4(1) [para. 11]; sect. 5 (para. 2]; sect. 6(1) [para. 3]; generally [paras. 7, 9, 16, 21, 22].

Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, S.O. 1982, c. 9, generally [paras. 16, 17, 18, 21]; sect. 4 [para. 21].

Counsel:

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

R. Ady, for the respondent.

This case was heard before Landerkin, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, who delivered the following judgment on September 15, 1990.