Rask v. Rask,

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: R.S. Smith, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2005 SKQB 159
• Citation: 2005 SKQB 159,(2005), 261 Sask.R. 269 (FD),[2006] 7 WWR 559,[2005] SJ No 242 (QL),261 Sask R 269,[2005] S.J. No 242 (QL),(2005), 261 SaskR 269 (FD),261 Sask.R. 269,261 SaskR 269
• Date: 04 April 2005
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)

Rask v. Rask (2005), 261 Sask.R. 269 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.051

Dean Michael Rask (petitioner) v. Holly Maureen Rask (respondent)

(2003 DIV. No. 308; 2005 SKQB 159)

Indexed As: Rask v. Rask

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

R.S. Smith, J.

April 4, 2005.

Summary:

Parents of two children, now aged eight and five, separated in 2003 after 15 years' marriage. They agreed to joint custody with the children's primary residence being with the mother. The mother's employment was being phased out and her only reasonable prospect, other than relocating to Winnipeg with much travel, was an extension faculty position at the University of Nevada, located in a small Nevada town with a population of 800. The mother sought to move to Nevada with the children. The father opposed the move as contrary to the children's best interests.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that it was in the children's best interests that they relocate to Nevada with their mother, who had always been the primary caregiver and was the psychological parent.

Family Law - Topic 1865

Custody and access - Duties and rights of custodian - To remove child from jurisdiction - Parents of two children, now aged eight and five, separated in 2003 after 15 years' marriage - They agreed to joint custody with the children's primary residence being with the mother - The mother's employment was being phased out and her only reasonable prospect, other than relocating to Winnipeg with much travel, was an extension faculty position at the University of Nevada, located in a small Nevada town with a population of 800 - The mother sought to move to Nevada with the children - The father opposed the move as contrary to the children's best interests - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that it was in the children's best interests that they relocate to Nevada with their mother - The court stated that "one of the most determinative factors for a child's long-term welfare is the continuity and emotional bonding of a child with his or her psychological parent and that the major focus of custody decisions should be to preserve and protect that relationship. ... it is not in the children's best interest to change the primary residence from that of their mother".

Family Law - Topic 1948

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Change of residence of child - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Cases Noticed:

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241; 19 R.F.L.(4th) 177, refd to. [para. 51].

Haider v. Malach (1999), 177 Sask.R. 285; 199 W.A.C. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Delaire v. Delaire (2002), 223 Sask.R. 229; 277 W.A.C. 229; 2002 SKCA 71, refd to. [para. 54].

Saunders v. Saunders (2005), 230 N.S.R.(2d) 115; 729 A.P.R. 115; 2005 NSSF 10, refd to. [para. 58].

Bartlett v. Bartlett, 2004 ONCJ 276, refd to. [para. 58].

M.S. v. K.R., 2004 BCPC 343, refd to. [para. 58].

Rizzoli v. Rizzoli, 2004 ABQB 614, refd to. [para. 58].

Maillet v. Gauld, [2005] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 4; 2004 NBQB 23 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 60].

Wyatt v. Wyatt, [2004] B.C.T.C. Uned. 419; 2004 BCSC 917, refd to. [para. 60].

K.J.B. v. W.S.B., [2004] B.C.T.C. Uned. 399; 2004 BCSC 837, refd to. [para. 60].

Rosenau v. Rosenau (2004), 6 R.F.L.(6th) 372; 2004 SKQB 275, refd to. [para. 60].

Pike v. Cook, [2005] O.J. No. 248 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

Roberge v. Roberge, [2005] B.C.T.C. Uned. 51; 2005 BCSC 86, refd to. [para. 62].

Z.A.F. v. S.S.F., [2004] A.R. Uned. 775; 2004 ABQB 953, refd to. [para. 62].

Harrison v. Pankratz, [2004] Sask.R. Uned. 208; 2004 SKQB 442, refd to. [para. 62].

Macgregor v. Stone, [2004] O.T.C. Uned. 899 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

Wilkinson v. Edward, [2004] O.J. No. 3796 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

K.A.T. v. P.T.O., 2004 BCPC 317, refd to. [para. 62].

Sloss v. Forget, [2004] O.T.C. Uned. 877 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

Haché v. Haché, [2004] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 53; 2004 NBQB 301 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 62].

Hebert v. Laine (2004), 224 N.S.R.(2d) 216; 708 A.P.R. 216; 2004 NSSF 67, refd to. [para. 62].

Ingram v. Ingram (2004), 248 Sask.R. 104; 2004 SKQB 224 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 62].

Cherry v. Ciotka-Cherry (2004), 248 Sask.R. 230; 2004 SKQB 205 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 62].

Pilsworth v. Pilsworth, [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 58; 2002 SKQB 126 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 62].

Grueter v. Grueter (2002), 226 Sask.R. 246; 2002 SKQB 429 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 62].

Gader v. Gader, [1997] Sask.R. Uned. 233 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 62].

Murphy v. Ridgeley (2005), 244 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 253; 726 A.P.R. 253; 2005 NLUFC 3, refd to. [para. 63].

G.K. v. T.A.K., [2004] Sask.R. Uned. 193; 2004 SKQB 467 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 63].

C.M.S. v. S.F.G., 2004 BCPC 458, refd to. [para. 63].

Johnstone v. Brighton, [2004] O.T.C. 748; 6 R.F.L.(6th) 294 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 63].

Wojtyla v. Wojtyla, [2004] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 81; 2004 MBQB 170, refd to. [para. 63].

T.A.B. v. A.E.B., [2004] Yukon Cases (SC) 56; 2004 YKSC 56, refd to. [para. 63].

Livingstone v. Trainor, [2004] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. Uned. 60 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

Norris v. Norris, [2004] O.T.C. Uned. 759 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 63].

Laturnus v. Laturnus (2004), 252 Sask.R. 76; 2004 SKQB 298, refd to. [para. 63].

Hillier v. Rajwani (2004), 239 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 285; 709 A.P.R. 285; 2004 NLSCTD 108, refd to. [para. 63].

A.M.G. v. S.W.G., [2004] B.C.T.C. Uned. 297; 2004 BCSC 579, refd to. [para. 63].

Burgin v. Howells, [2004] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 12; 2004 NSSC 31, refd to. [para. 63].

Counsel:

G.G. Walen, Q.C., for the petitioner;

C.A. Cuelenaere, for the respondent.

This application was heard before R.S. Smith, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on April 4, 2005.