Rode v. Moyer, 2006 SKQB 126

• Judge: Gabrielson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 20, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2006 SKQB 126;(2006), 278 Sask.R. 203 (FD)

Rode v. Moyer (2006), 278 Sask.R. 203 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.028

Orchid Crystal Rode (petitioner) v. Gordon Michael Moyer (respondent)

(2003 DIV. No. 438; 2006 SKQB 126)

Indexed As: Rode v. Moyer

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Gabrielson, J.

March 20, 2006.

Summary:

The parties divorced. At issue was custody and access respecting their two children. The mother proposed joint custody with the children's primary residence to be with her and wished to relocate to a small community 25 miles away. The father sought sole custody with equal access and opposed the mother's move.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench granted joint custody. The children's primary residence was to be with the mother. The mother was permitted to relocate her primary residence.

Family Law - Topic 1882

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Child's religious or educational training - The parties divorced - At issue was custody and access respecting their two children - The mother proposed joint custody with the children's primary residence to be with her and wished to relocate to a small community (Asquith) 25 miles away to be with her fiancé - The father sought sole custody because of past difficulties in obtaining access - He adamantly opposed the mother's move because of increased difficulties in him exercising access and because French Immersion was not available in Asquith - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench granted joint custody - The children's primary residence was to be with the mother, who the court found was the children's primary caregiver - The mother was permitted to relocate her primary residence to Asquith - One of the children was having social and academic difficulties at her current French Immersion school - A move to a smaller English only school might provide the child with a fresh start - The mother was to drop off and pick up the children from the father's residence.

Family Law - Topic 1898

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Custodial parent moving from jurisdiction - [See Family Law - Topic 1882 ].

Family Law - Topic 2076

Custody and access - Joint custody - Principal home - [See Family Law - Topic 1882 ].

Family Law - Topic 2143

Custody and access - Evidence - Expert evidence - A custody and access report was prepared - A father's counsel requested that the author of the report (Lucyk) attend the trial for the purposes of cross-examination on her report - The mother's counsel objected to this and to the introduction of the report on the basis that Lucyk was not qualified to provide the custody and access report - Lucyk had obtained a Bachelor of Science in Social Work in 1995 - Thereafter, she worked as a child welfare worker for five years and had done 60 to 70 reports in which she had made recommendations as to the custody of children based upon the best interests of the children - This was her first formal custody and access report she had prepared for a court proceeding and the first time she had been asked to testify as an expert in a court proceeding - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that as Lucyk met the minimum qualifications provided for in the Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluations (Bachelor of Social Work degree and five years of prior related work experience), Lucyk was qualified to give opinion evidence - However, the court held that any concerns as to her lack of experience in preparing custody and access reports would be reflected in the weight given to her report and its recommendations - See paragraphs 20 and 21.

Cases Noticed:

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161; 49 R.F.L.(3d) 117, refd to. [para. 15].

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 16].

C.B. v. E.C.C. (2002), 166 O.A.C. 44; 31 R.F.L.(5th) 242; 62 O.R.(3d) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Rask v. Rask (2005), 261 Sask.R. 269; 2005 SKQB 159 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 18].

G.M.P. v. T.K., [2005] Sask.R. Uned. 23; 138 A.C.W.S.(3d) 874; 2005 SKQB 152 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 18].

Gader v. Gader, [1997] Sask.R. Uned. 233; 76 A.C.W.S.(3d) 771 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

Smith v. Smith (1997), 160 Sask.R. 161 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 18].

Haider v. Malach (1999), 177 Sask.R. 285; 199 W.A.C. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Delaire v. Delaire (2002), 223 Sask.R. 229; 277 W.A.C. 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Counsel:

Dennis J. Fisher, for the petitioner, Orchid Crystal Rode;

Lynne G. Greenhorn, for the respondent, Gordon Michael Moyer.

This matter was heard by Gabrielson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on March 20, 2006.