Scott v. Hotchkiss, (1990) 105 A.R. 354 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Cook-Stanhope, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 21, 1990
• Citations: (1990), 105 A.R. 354 (ProvCt)

Scott v. Hotchkiss (1990), 105 A.R. 354 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Larry David Scott (applicant) v. Linda Diane Hotchkiss (respondent)

(No. CFC111952)

Indexed As: Scott v. Hotchkiss

Alberta Provincial Court

Cook-Stanhope, P.C.J.

March 21, 1990.

Summary:

Scott cohabited with Hotchkiss and her daughter for almost four years. Scott, who was not the father, applied under s. 32 of the Provincial Court Act for access. Hotchkiss submitted that Scott, as a legal stranger, had no status to apply to the Provincial Court under s. 32.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that it had jurisdiction. The court stated that a legal stranger could apply for access under s. 32(2)(b) as a "person interested on the child's behalf".

Family Law - Topic 2000.1

Custody - Access - Right to access - Rights of strangers - Section 32(2)(b) of the Provincial Court Act provided that a "person interested on the child's behalf" may apply to the Provincial Court for access - The Alberta Provincial Court held that a legal stranger (e.g., man who cohabited with a woman and her child) was a "person interested" and had status to apply for access - The court stated that s. 47 of the Domestic Relations Act was not inconsistent with such status and it was unnecessary for the legal stranger to first obtain guardianship status.

Cases Noticed:

Haskell, Re (1979), 100 D.L.R.(3d) 329, refd to. [para. 7].

O'Neil v. Drummond (1986), 50 R.F.L. (2d) 310 (Alta. Q.B.), disagreed with [para. 8].

Kuhn v. Hamilton, [1979] 5 W.W.R. 187; 9 R.F.L.(2d) 387, refd to. [para. 8].

Valiquette v. Jabs (1986), 72 A.R. 133, dist. [para. 8].

W.D. v. G.P., [1984] 5 W.W.R. 289; 54 A.R. 161 (C.A.), consd. [para. 11].

W.A.B., R.M.B. and L.M.M., Re (1989), 96 A.R. 45, consd. [para. 11].

K.K.W. v. E.J.R., C.F.R. and C.T.W. (No. 2) (1989), 102 A.R. 118; 69 Alta. L.R.(2d) 95 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 11].

H.J.L. v. L.A. and R.D.A. (1986), 69 A.R. 243; 45 Alta. L.R.(2d) 125 (C. A.), consd. [para. 11].

Kastening v. Charles et al. (1987), 80 A.R. 150; 8 R.F.L. 147 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 11].

Walker v. Smith (D.) (1987), 87 A.R. 65; 56 Alta. L.R.(2d) 285, consd. [para. 11].

Cardinal v. Cardinal (1989), 62 Alta. L.R.(2d) 66, consd. [para. 11].

B.D.W. v. G.B.G.R. (1989), 68 Alta. L.R.(2d) 377 (C.A.), consd. [para. 11].

King v. Mr. and Mrs. B. (1985), 57 N.R. 17; 58 A.R. 275; 44 R.F.L.(2d) 113 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 11].

A.J.G., Re (1988), 87 A.R. 362, consd. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Child Welfare Act, S.A. 1984, c. C-8.1, generally [para. 8].

Domestic Relations Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. D-37, sect. 46 [para. 7]; sect. 47 [para. 2].

Provincial Court Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-20, sect. 32(1)(b) [para. 6]; sect. 32(2)(b) [para. 2]; sect. 32(3), sect. 32(4) [para. 6]; sect. 32(6) [para. 12].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 58 [para. 2]; rule 59 [para. 7].

Counsel:

C. Ouellette, for the applicant;

B.A. Paterson, for the respondent.

This case was heard before Cook-Stanhope, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment orally on March 21, 1990.