Wittal (Himmelspach) v. Himmelspach, (1983) 27 Sask.R. 143 (QB)

• Judge: Grotsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: September 07, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1983), 27 Sask.R. 143 (QB)

Wittal v. Himmelspach (1983), 27 Sask.R. 143 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Wittal (Himmelspach) v. Himmelspach

(No. 06022 A.D. 1981)

Indexed As: Wittal (Himmelspach) v. Himmelspach

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Grotsky, J.

September 7, 1983.

Summary:

A mother applied under s. 11(2) of the Divorce Act to vary the custody provisions in a decree nisi and obtain sole custody of her two children.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Family Law - Topic 1884

Custody and access to children - Considerations - Tender years doctrine - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench discussed the tender years doctrine in child custody cases - See paragraphs 31 to 34.

Family Law - Topic 1950

Custody and access to children - Variation of custody and access rights - Changed circumstances of parents - A woman left her husband and two children, aged one and two - Within three weeks she was living with another man and later bore him a child - By a separation agreement, she relinquished custody of her first children to her husband, which was affirmed in their divorce decree - The husband remarried - The mother applied to vary the decree and obtain custody - She and her boyfriend planned to marry and had bought a home - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application, because there was no change of circumstances - See paragraphs 41 to 51.

Family Law - Topic 1959

Custody and access to children - Variation of custody and access rights - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that on an application to vary a custody order the onus was on the applicant to prove that the original order was no longer in the best interests of the child - See paragraph 42.

Cases Noticed:

McKee v. McKee, [1951] 2 D.L.R. 657, appld. [para. 28].

Wallin v. Wallin (1974), 13 R.F.L. 305 (Ont. H.C.), appld. [para. 28].

Francis v. Francis (1973), 8 R.F.L. 209 (Sask. C.A.), appld. [para. 28].

Wesson v. Wesson (1973), 11 N.S.R.(2d) 652; 5 A.P.R. 652; 10 R.F.L 193, consd. [para. 29].

Sims v. Sims (1956), 4 D.L.R.(2d) 259, refd to. [para. 29].

Boser v. Boser (1979), 4 Sask.R. 297, refd to. [para. 31].

McKeen v. McKeen (1981), 12 Sask.R. 229, refd to. [para. 31].

Weeks v. Weeks (1955), 14 W.W.R.(N.S.) 529 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 31].

Re Orr, [1933] 2 D.L.R. 22 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Talsky v. Talsky (1973), 11 R.F.L. 226 (Ont. C.A.), revsd. [1976] 2 S.C.R. 292; 7 N.R. 246, consd. [para. 33].

Weiss v. Weiss (1980), 2 Sask.R. 252; 17 R.F.L.(2d) 150, consd. [para. 34].

Ward v. Ward (1980), 3 Sask.R. 388; 16 R.F.L.(2d) 282 (Sask. Q.B.), consd. [para. 34].

MacCallum v. MacCallum (1978), 30 R.F.L. 32, consd. [para. 35].

Breau v. Breau (1973), 10 R.F.L. 391 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Millett v. Millett (1974), 16 R.F.L. 180, refd to. [para. 35].

Garrett v. Garrett (1982), 36 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 479; 101 A.P.R. 479 (P.E.I.S.C.), agreed with [para. 36].

Tobin v. Tobin, 19 R.F.L. 18, refd to. [para. 36].

Fenn v. Fenn (1973), 13 R.F.L. 147, refd to. [para. 36].

Bjornson v. Bjornson and Malkin (1970), 2 R.F.L. 147, refd to. [para. 36].

Poste v. Poste, [1973] 2 O.R. 674; 35 D.L.R.(3d) 71, refd to. [para. 36].

Curtin v. Curtin (1975), 20 R.F.L. 140, refd to. [para. 36].

Blanchette v. Blanchette (1977), 1 A.R. 75, refd to. [para. 37].

Roher v. Roher (1976), 27 R.F.L. 218, refd to. [para. 39].

Korol v. Korol (1945), 18 R.F.L. 294, refd to. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8, sect. 11(2) [paras. 1, 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Powers on Divorce, vol. 1, p. 276 [para. 29].

Counsel:

R.L. Finlay, for the applicant;

R. Linka, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Grotsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina. The decision of Grotsky, J., was delivered at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on September 7, 1983.