Robbins v. Robbins, (1986) 43 Man.R.(2d) 53 (QBFD)
|Court:||Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba|
|Case Date:||July 09, 1986|
|Citations:||(1986), 43 Man.R.(2d) 53 (QBFD)|
Robbins v. Robbins (1986), 43 Man.R.(2d) 53 (QBFD)
MLB headnote and full text
Robbins v. Robbins
(Suit No. 84-01-01586)
Indexed As: Robbins v. Robbins
Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench
July 9, 1986.
By consent, a husband agreed to pay maintenance to his wife for a limited period of time. Five months later, the wife, through her next friend, applied for an extension of time during which maintenance would be payable to her and for maintenance for her child, such maintenance to be paid to the wife's half-sister, who was caring for the child. The husband challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an application by the wife by her next friend.
The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that it had jurisdiction to proceed through the wife's next friend. The court, however, was unable to award any maintenance to the wife, where her whereabouts, and thus the needs, were unknown. The court, however, ordered the husband to pay child maintenance to his wife's half-sister as trustee for the child.
Family Law - Topic 2358
Maintenance of wives and children - Maintenance of children - Payments to trustee - A child of separated parents was being cared for by the mother's half-sister (because of the mother's mental instability) - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, ordered the child's father to pay maintenance for the child to the half-sister as trustee for the child - See paragraph 8.
Practice - Topic 215
Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals - Status or standing - Mental capacity - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that after an action has begun and the mental health of a party deteriorates, that party can continue his or her case through a next friend without leave of the court - See paragraph 3 - The court also held that when an action is proceeded with by a person of unsound mind not so found, then no determination need be made by the court as to the competency of the individual and the court can rely on the evidence submitted to determine whether the matter should proceed by way of the next friend without direct evidence from the party - See paragraph 5.
Radons v. Radons and Tel (1956), 64 Man.R. 161, dist. [para. 3].
Poteryko v. Poteryko and The King's Proctor et al. (1950), 57 Man.R. 560, consd. [para. 3].
Rules of Court (Man.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 77 [para. 2].
Family Maintenance Act, S.M. 1978, c. 25; C.C.S.M., c. F-20, sect. 14, sect. 15 [para. 8].
Queen's Bench Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. C-280; C.C.S.M., c. C-280, generally [para. 3].
Mental Health Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. M-110; C.C.S.M., c. M-110, generally [para. 3].
John Sinclair, for the petitioner;
Esther Hirsch, for the respondent.
This application was heard before Helper, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, whose decision was delivered on July 9, 1986.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP