Valiquette v. Jabs, (1986) 72 A.R. 133 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Case Date: July 22, 1986
• Citations: (1986), 72 A.R. 133 (ProvCt)

Valiquette v. Jabs (1986), 72 A.R. 133 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Valiquette v. Jabs

Indexed As: Valiquette v. Jabs

Alberta Provincial Court,

Family Division

Russell, J.

July 22, 1986.

Summary:

The putative father of a one year old child applied under the Child Welfare Act for access.

The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, held that the application should have been made under s. 32 of the Provincial Court Act, but that it had jurisdiction to hear the application where the requirements of s. 32 were met. The court held that since the putative father failed to prove paternity, he lacked status to apply for access.

Family Law - Topic 2115

Custody and access to children - Jurisdiction - General - A putative father applied under the Child Welfare Act for access - The application should have been made under s. 32 of the Provincial Court Act - The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application where the requirements of s. 32 were met - See paragraphs 8-10.

Infants - Topic 2516

Illegitimate children - Filiation proceedings - Jurisdiction - The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, held that it had jurisdiction to determine paternity where paternity was a prerequisite to making other orders within the court's jurisdiction (ie. custody, access), but only where paternity was not specifically denied - See paragraphs 11-23.

Infants - Topic 2520

Illegitimate children - Filiation proceedings - Evidence - Valiquette lived with a prostitute when she conceived a child - The prostitute neither admitted nor denied Valiquette was the father - The only evidence of paternity was Valiquette's assertion that he was the father - The Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, held that, in the absence of corroborating evidence, it could not make a finding that Valiquette was the father of the child.

Infants - Topic 2703

Illegitimate children - Access to - Natural or putative father - A putative father's application for access was dismissed because he lacked status to apply where he failed to prove paternity - The court stated that had the putative father proved paternity, limited supervised access would have been granted - The court also stated that access could be awarded notwithstanding that the parent was not a guardian under the Child Welfare Act - See paragraphs 26-35.

Cases Noticed:

White v. Barrett, [1973] 3 W.W.R. 293, refd to. [para. 12].

Kuhn v. Hamilton, [1979] 5 W.W.R. 187, refd to. [para. 13].

Lachance v. Cloutier (1982), 36 A.R. 124; 18 Alta. L.R.(2d) 328, refd to. [para. 14].

J. (A.J.) v. M. (T.L.) (1982), 39 A.R. 30, refd to. [para. 16].

W.D. v. G.P. (1984), 54 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 18].

O'Neill v. Drummond (1986), 68 A.R. 394, refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Child Welfare Act, S.A. 1984, c. 8.1, generally [para. 2].

Provincial Court Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-20, sect. [para. 9].

Counsel:

[none disclosed].

This application was heard before Russell, J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, Family Division, who delivered the following judgment on July 22, 1986: