Rink v. Rempel, (2015) 460 Sask.R. 172 (CA)

• Judge: Jackson, Lane and Whitmore, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: May 26, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2015), 460 Sask.R. 172 (CA);2015 SKCA 62

Rink v. Rempel (2015), 460 Sask.R. 172 (CA);

    639 W.A.C. 172

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.024

Angie Lynn Rink (prospective appellant/petitioner) v. Ryan William Rempel (prospective respondent/respondent)

(CACV2651; 2015 SKCA 62)

Indexed As: Rink v. Rempel

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Jackson, Lane and Whitmore, JJ.A.

May 26, 2015.

Summary:

Spouses divorced. They had two children. In a 2010 interspousal contract, they agreed on joint custody of the children, primary residence with the mother and generous access to the father. The mother brought an application seeking directions with respect to custody and access in light of her proposed (and disputed) plan to move a substantial distance away from the father's home.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, in a decision reported at (2011), 388 Sask.R. 104, ordered joint custody of the children, primary residence with the mother, and generous access to the father. If the mother should move, then primary residence would shift to the father with generous access to the mother (2011 judgment). Three years later, the mother applied again for permission to move with the children, citing a series of material changes in her circumstances and those of the children.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed the application (chambers judge judgment). The mother appealed. She moved. Her move triggered the 2011 judgment and primary residence of the children was moved from the mother to the father. The mother asked that the chambers judge judgment be set aside, or alternatively, that a trial of the issues be ordered.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal directed an expedited trial to determine whether the best interests of the children were the same as they were in 2011.

Family Law - Topic 1861

Custody and access - Duties and rights of custodian - Residence - Spouses divorced - They had two children - In a 2010 interspousal contract, they agreed on joint custody of the children, primary residence with the mother and generous access to the father - The mother brought an application seeking directions with respect to custody and access in light of her proposed (and disputed) plan to move a substantial distance away from the father's home - Danyluik, J., ordered joint custody of the children, primary residence with the mother, and generous access to the father - If the mother should move, then primary residence would shift to the father with generous access to the mother (2011 judgment) - Three years later, the mother applied again for permission to move with the children, citing a series of material changes in her circumstances and those of the children - The chambers judge dismissed the application - The mother appealed - She moved - Her move triggered the 2011 judgment and primary residence of the children was moved from the mother to the father - The mother asked that the chambers judge judgment be set aside, or alternatively, that a trial of the issues be ordered - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal directed an expedited trial to determine whether the best interests of the children were the same as they were in 2011.

Family Law - Topic 1865

Custody and access - Duties and rights of custodian - To remove child from jurisdiction - [See Family Law - Topic 1861 ].

Family Law - Topic 1898

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Custodial parent moving from jurisdiction - [See Family Law - Topic 1861 ].

Family Law - Topic 1915

Custody and access - Appeals - New trials - [See Family Law - Topic 1861 ].

Counsel:

P. Michael Mahon, for the Prospective appellant;

Gregory M. Kuse, for the Prospective respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 26, 2015, by Jackson, Lane and Whitmore, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Jackson, J.A., on the same date.