Strickland et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2014) 460 N.R. 240 (FCA)

• Judge: Blais, C.J., Sharlow and Gauthier, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: February 05, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 460 N.R. 240 (FCA);2014 FCA 33

Strickland v. Can. (A.G.) (2014), 460 N.R. 240 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.R. TBEd. JL.007

Robert T. Strickland, George Connon, Roland Auer, Iwona Auer-Grzesiak, Mark Auer, and Vladimir Auer by his Litigation Representative Roland Auer (appellants) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(A-199-13; 2014 FCA 33; 2014 CAF 33)

Indexed As: Strickland et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Blais, C.J., Sharlow and Gauthier, JJ.A.

February 5, 2014.

Summary:

The applicants applied for judicial review, seeking to have the Federal Child Support Guidelines declared ultra vires the Divorce Act. The Attorney General of Canada moved to have the application dismissed.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported 432 F.T.R. 152, granted the motion and dismissed the judicial review application. The applicants appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 4206

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Particular matters - Divorce (incl. custody) - The applicants applied for judicial review, seeking to have the Federal Child Support Guidelines declared ultra vires s. 26.1 of the Divorce Act - The Federal Court held that there was concurrent jurisdiction between it and the provincial superior courts over applications such as this one, but declined to exercise its jurisdiction - The applicants appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court made no error in declining jurisdiction in favour of the provincial court - See paragraphs 7 to 20.

Courts - Topic 5600

Provincial courts - General - Concurrent and conflicting jurisdiction - General - [See Courts - Topic 4206 and Family Law - Topic 3503 ].

Family Law - Topic 3503

Divorce - Jurisdiction - General - Courts - General - A Federal Court judge held that the provincial superior courts had jurisdiction to determine the vires of the Federal Child Support Guidelines in the context of proceedings for which they had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act and to decline to apply them if found to be ultra vires - The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with that finding - See paragraph 7.

Family Law - Topic 3504

Courts - Jurisdiction - Federal Court of Canada - [See Family Law - Topic 3503 ].

Cases Noticed:

Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524; 434 N.R. 257; 325 B.C.A.C. 1; 553 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 8].

Reza v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394; 167 N.R. 282; 72 O.A.C. 348; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 61, refd to. [para. 11].

Action des Nouvelles Conjointes du Québec v. Canada (2004), 253 F.T.R. 258; 2004 FC 797, refd to. [para. 11].

Froom v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2005] 2 F.C.R. 195; 327 N.R. 304; 2004 FCA 352, refd to. [para. 17].

Counsel:

Glenn Solomon, Q.C., for the appellants;

Jaxine Oltean, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellants;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Calgary, Alberta, on February 5, 2014, before Blais, C.J., Sharlow and Gauthier, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered orally from the bench, for the court, by Gauthier, J.A., on February 5, 2014.