T.R.A. v S.A.E., 2018 ABQB 50
| Judge | Honourable Madam Justice M.D. Slawinsky |
| Citation | 2018 ABQB 50 |
| Docket Number | 2018 ABQB 50 |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
| Date | 22 January 2018 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
4 practice notes
-
Lemay v Lemay,
...in place, or where the application effectively involved an initial parenting application coupled with a mobility application: TRA v SAE, 2018 ABQB 50 at paras 51-53; JMM v TLG, 2019 ABQB 81 at para 18. These decisions predate the 2019 amendments to the Divorce 14 In Ting v Ting, 2022 ABQB 2......
-
JMM v TLG, 2019 ABQB 81
...requires the Court, when dealing with parenting and mobility applications, to address parenting first and mobility second (TRA v SAE, 2018 ABQB 50 at para 53). [19] Finally, the child-focused analysis is well-summarized in DRT v KAD at paras 43 and 45: The Supreme Court of Canada establishe......
-
Witt v Johnson,
...normal rule is that the justice must refer the matter to trial or direct that viva voce evidence be provided”: TRA v SAE, 2018 ABQB 50 at para 27 [79] In Nieuwesteeg, a mobility case, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal where it found that ......
-
Krause v Krause, 2018 ABCA 293
...a child should not establish a status quo that is then used to determine interim parenting. As stated by Slawinsky J in TRA v SAE, 2018 ABQB 50 at para 56, 6 RFL (8th) 169 (QL), “[w]e are well past the days where unilateral changes to the child’s residence by one parent, to the detriment of......
4 cases
-
Lemay v Lemay,
...in place, or where the application effectively involved an initial parenting application coupled with a mobility application: TRA v SAE, 2018 ABQB 50 at paras 51-53; JMM v TLG, 2019 ABQB 81 at para 18. These decisions predate the 2019 amendments to the Divorce 14 In Ting v Ting, 2022 ABQB 2......
-
JMM v TLG, 2019 ABQB 81
...requires the Court, when dealing with parenting and mobility applications, to address parenting first and mobility second (TRA v SAE, 2018 ABQB 50 at para 53). [19] Finally, the child-focused analysis is well-summarized in DRT v KAD at paras 43 and 45: The Supreme Court of Canada establishe......
-
Witt v Johnson,
...normal rule is that the justice must refer the matter to trial or direct that viva voce evidence be provided”: TRA v SAE, 2018 ABQB 50 at para 27 [79] In Nieuwesteeg, a mobility case, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal where it found that ......
-
Krause v Krause, 2018 ABCA 293
...a child should not establish a status quo that is then used to determine interim parenting. As stated by Slawinsky J in TRA v SAE, 2018 ABQB 50 at para 56, 6 RFL (8th) 169 (QL), “[w]e are well past the days where unilateral changes to the child’s residence by one parent, to the detriment of......