T.S. v. T.P., (1996) 141 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 127 (NFPC)

• Judge: LeBlanc, P.C.J.
• Case Date: May 10, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1996), 141 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 127 (NFPC)

T.S. v. T.P. (1996), 141 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 127 (NFPC);

    443 A.P.R. 127

MLB headnote and full text

T.S. (applicant) v. T.P. (respondent)

(96-066)

Indexed As: T.S. v. T.P.

Newfoundland Provincial Court

Family Division

District of Corner Brook

LeBlanc, P.C.J.

May 10, 1996.

Summary:

A daughter applied under s. 37 of the Family Law Act for support from her father. A preliminary issue was whether s. 43 of the Family Law Act prevented a Provincial Court judge from hearing an application for support, or for variation of an earlier support order, after divorce proceedings have been concluded.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court, Fam­ily Division, held that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Family Law - Topic 2244

Maintenance of wives and children - Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of a provincial court following divorce proceedings in Supreme Court - A daughter applied under s. 37 of the Family Law Act (provincial legislation) for support from her father - The Newfoundland Provincial Court, Fam­ily Division, held that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter even though there was a divorce judgment - The court considered that the divorce order was silent on the issue of support and there was an existing support order in place at the time of the divorce which continued in force under s. 43(3) of the Family Law Act - Further, it was the child who was applying for sup­port, she was not a party to the divorce proceedings and she had no standing to make application for support under the Divorce Act.

Cases Noticed:

R.H.P. v. S.M.P., [1995] N.J. No. 77 (U.F.C.), disagreed with [paras. 8, 18].

Keller v. Keller (1987), 83 A.R. 313; 10 R.F.L.(3d) 268 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 11].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 1; 18 B.L.R. 138, refd to. [para. 13].

White v. White (1994), 118 Sask.R. 293; 3 R.F.L.(4th) 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Coutts v. Coutts (1995), 132 Sask.R. 288; 14 R.F.L.(4th) 234 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 15].

Badakhshan v. Moradi (1993), 127 N.S.R.(2d) 75; 355 A.P.R. 75 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Radke v. Radke (1971), 4 R.F.L. 318 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Skjonsby v. Skjonsby (1975), 18 R.F.L. 95 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hughes v. Hughes (1976), 30 R.F.L. 199 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

MacDonald v. MacDonald (1985), 60 A.R. 53; 44 R.F.L.(2d) 316 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Gomes v. Gomes (1985), 47 R.F.L.(2d) 83 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Ferraz v. Ferraz (1981), 24 R.F.L.(2d) 386 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

Haskell v. Letourneau (1979), 25 O.R.(2d) 139; 100 D.L.R.(3d) 329 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Law Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. F-2, sect. 43 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Lynn Cole, for the applicant;

Donald Rankin, for the respondent.

This application was heard by LeBlanc, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, Family Division, District of Corner Brook, who delivered the following judg­ment on May 10, 1996.