Sack v. Sack, (1997) 159 Sask.R. 71 (FD)

• Judge: M.E.R. Wright, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 11, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1997), 159 Sask.R. 71 (FD)

Sack v. Sack (1997), 159 Sask.R. 71 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.025

Debbie Lynne Sack (petitioner) v. John Casper Sack (respondent)

(1997 F.L.D. No. 194)

Indexed As: Sack v. Sack

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

M.E.R. Wright, J.

June 11, 1997.

Summary:

A wife removed her two children from Alberta to Saskatchewan and sought interim custody. The husband disputed the jurisdic­tion of the court to deal with the issue on the ground that the children were ordinarily resident in Alberta.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2302

Family law - Custody of and access to children - Jurisdiction of court - [See Family Law - Topic 2123 ].

Family Law - Topic 2118

Custody and access - Jurisdiction - Where child is resident outside the province - [See Family Law - Topic 2123 ].

Family Law - Topic 2120

Custody and access - Jurisdiction - Founded on residence of child - [See Fam­ily Law - Topic 2123 ].

Family Law - Topic 2123

Custody and access - Jurisdiction - Where child taken from one jurisdiction to another without other parent's consent - A wife removed her two children from Alberta to Saskatchewan to be near her family - She sought interim custody - The husband disputed the court's jurisdiction - He also filed a counterpetition seeking interim custody - The wife submitted that the husband had attorned to the jurisdiction of the court - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that it lacked jurisdiction - The children were habitually resident in Alberta (Child­ren's Law Act, s. 15(1)(a)) - Substantial evidence concerning the children's best interests was not available in Saskatchewan and the balance of conveni­ence did not favour Saskatchewan (s. 15(1)(b)) - There was no consent jurisdic­tion, where the husband consistently objected to the juris­diction of Saskatchewan despite his in­advertent filing of a counterpetition (s. 15(1)(c)).

Cases Noticed:

G.L. v. L.L., [1996] W.D.F.L. 2559; 149 Sask.R. 32 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 11].

D.A.S. v. M.K.V., [1996] Sask.D. 1542-02; 149 Sask.R. 5 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Children's Law Act, S.S. 1990-91, c. C-8.1, sect. 15, sect. 16 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Audrey S. Brent, for the petitioner;

Gregory G. Walen, for the respondent.

This application was heard before M.E.R. Wright, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judi­cial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on June 11, 1997.