S.L. v. C.B., 2013 SKQB 333

• Judge: Barrington-Foote, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: Wednesday September 11, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2013 SKQB 333;(2013), 429 Sask.R. 221 (FD)

S.L. v. C.B. (2013), 429 Sask.R. 221 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.074

S.L. (petitioner) v. C.B. (respondent)

(2012 DIV. No. 166; 2013 SKQB 333)

Indexed As: S.L. v. C.B.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Regina

Barrington-Foote, J.

September 11, 2013.

Summary:

The parties were divorced. The petitioner was granted custody of the child of the marriage, born in 2007. The divorce judgment also provided that child support and the division of family property be determined. The parties lived in Regina. The petitioner became engaged to S.C., who lived near Las Vegas, Nevada, and unilaterally moved there, with the child. The respondent was granted an ex parte order that the petitioner return the child, and that the child reside with him pending further order. The petitioner applied to move to Nevada, with the child.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, concluded that it was in the child's best interests to allow the application.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Family Law - Topic 1898

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Custodial parent moving from jurisdiction - The parties were granted a divorce - The petitioner was granted custody of their son, now six - The parties lived in Regina - The petitioner became engaged to S.C., who lived near Las Vegas, Nevada, and unilaterally moved there, with the child - The respondent was granted an ex parte order that the petitioner return the child, and that the child reside with him pending further order - The petitioner applied to move to Nevada, with the child - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, concluded that it was in the child's best interests to allow the application - If the court refused the petitioner's application, she might move to Nevada in any event - If she did so, the child would no longer have close and continuous contact with her - That was particularly important due to the fact that the petitioner was found to be the primary parent - The petitioner and S.C. had developed an extremely close and positive relationship - The move would result in a significant improvement in the petitioner's standard of living - S.C. had a very good income, stable employment, and worked an average of only eight days per month - The petitioner's well developed career plan in Nevada would result in a significant improvement in her work life and income - The respondent chose to be sporadically employed, and was more than an occasional user of marijuana - The respondent's flexible work schedule would make it possible for him to exercise generous access - See paragraphs 53 to 71.

Cases Noticed:

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241; 134 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 53].

Gilles v. Gilles (2008), 311 Sask.R. 223; 428 W.A.C. 223; 2008 SKCA 97, refd to. [para. 56].

N.D.L. v. M.S.L. (2010), 289 N.S.R.(2d) 8; 916 A.P.R. 8; 83 R.F.L.(6th) 214; 2010 NSSC 68 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 57].

Olfert v. Olfert (2013), 417 Sask.R. 283; 580 W.A.C. 283; 2013 SKCA 89, refd to. [para. 57].

One v. One, [2000] B.C.T.C. 822; 81 B.C.L.R.(3d) 315; 2000 BCSC 1584, refd to. [para. 58].

C.B. v. E.C.C. (2002), 166 O.A.C. 44; 62 O.R.(3d) 236; 31 R.F.L.(5th) 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Bjornson v. Creighton - see C.B. v. E.C.C.

McCullough v. Smith, [2007] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 77; 2007 NSFC 23, refd to. [para. 59].

Heinriette et al. v. Dittberner, [2005] B.C.T.C. 481; 2005 BCSC 481, refd to. [para. 59].

Dittberner v. Dittberner - see Heinriette et al. v. Dittberner.

McArthur v. Brown, [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 689; 57 R.F.L.(6th) 82; 2008 BCSC 1061, refd to. [para. 59].

Woodhouse v. Woodhouse (1996), 91 O.A.C. 91; 29 O.R.(3d) 417; 20 R.F.L.(4th) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

H.S. v. C.S. (2006), 279 Sask.R. 55; 372 W.A.C. 55; 2006 SKCA 45, refd to. [para. 61].

Thurston v. Maystrowich (2010), 354 Sask.R. 113; 2010 SKQB 154 (Fam. Div.), affd. (2010), 359 Sask.R. 287; 494 W.A.C. 287; 2010 SKCA 113, refd to. [para. 61].

S.D. v. J.B. (2001), 209 Sask.R. 298; 2001 SKQB 321 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 65].

Dybvig v. Brunen - see S.D. v. J.B.

Delaire v. Delaire (2002), 223 Sask.R. 229; 277 W.A.C. 229; 2002 SKCA 71, refd to. [para. 65].

Rask v. Rask (2005), 261 Sask.R. 269; 2005 SKQB 159 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 65].

R.G.S.J. v. B.D.K. (2005), 270 Sask.R. 194; 2005 SKQB 362 (Fam. Div.), affd. (2006), 285 Sask.R. 289; 378 W.A.C. 289; 2006 SKCA 106, refd to. [para. 65].

Johnston v. Kurz - see R.G.S.J. v. B.D.K.

Haider v. Malach (1999), 177 Sask.R. 285; 199 W.A.C. 285; 48 R.F.L.(4th) 314 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Spencer v. Spencer (2005), 371 A.R. 78; 354 W.A.C. 78; 15 R.F.L.(6th) 237; 2005 ABCA 262, refd to. [para. 69].

Pecore v. Pecore, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 795; 361 N.R. 1; 224 O.A.C. 330; 2007 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 72].

J.A.M. v. D.L.M. (2008), 326 N.B.R.(2d) 111; 838 A.P.R. 111; 289 D.L.R.(4th) 37; 2008 NBCA 2, refd to. [para. 73].

MacLean v. Mio, [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1109; 2010 BCSC 1109, refd to. [para. 74].

Thurrott v. Thurrott, [2011] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 32; 11 R.F.L.(7th) 119; 2011 NBQB 125 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 74].

Locke v. Locke, [2000] B.C.T.C. 681; 2000 BCSC 1300, refd to. [para. 74].

Counsel:

Foster J. Weisgerber, for the petitioner;

Drew R. Filyk, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Barrington-Foote, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Regina. The following judgment was delivered on September 11, 2013.