Young v. Young, (1985) 65 A.R. 347 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 07, 1985
• Citations: (1985), 65 A.R. 347 (QB)

Young v. Young (1985), 65 A.R. 347 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Young v. Young

(No. 48708A)

Indexed As: Young v. Young

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

October 7, 1985.

Summary:

In a custody dispute between parents, a number of issues arose as to the participation of amicus curiae.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the use of hearsay and expert evidence by the amicus, and examined the role played by the amicus in a custody dispute.

Family Law - Topic 2144

Custody and access to children - Evidence - Hearsay - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that in a custody dispute amicus curiae could not call hearsay evidence on fundamental issues relating to custody - The court stated that hearsay was admissible, as a matter of convenience, on non-litigious issues - The court gave as an example the admissibility of a witness's statement that a child was doing well in school, without having to call the principal or teacher - See paragraphs 2 to 9.

Family Law - Topic 2147

Custody and access to children - Evidence - Report of family investigator - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench criticized the use of confidential investigative reports by amicus curiae - The court stated that "confidentiality of material is likely to be accepted by the court only in the most extreme cases and only in cases in which there will be harm done to the children who are the subject of the custody dispute as a result of a disclosure of the information" - See paragraph 8.

Infants - Topic 6085

Legal proceedings - Representation of infants - Amicus curiae - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench critically examined the role of amicus curiae in custody proceedings - See paragraphs 17 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court and K., Re, [1965] A.C. 201 (H.L.), dist. [para. 3].

Rossage v. Rossage, [1960] 1 W.L.R. 249, refd to. [para. 4].

J., Re [1960] 1 W.L.R. 253, refd to. [para. 4].

Singh v. Singh (1981), 34 A.R. 271, refd to. [para. 12].

Bonenfant v. Bonenfant (1981), 21 R.F.L.(2d) 173, refd to. [para. 22].

Rowe v. Rowe (1976), 26 R.F.L. 91, refd to. [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beven On Negligence (13th Ed.), p. 141 [para. 15].

Kenny, A., The Expert in Court, 99 L.Q.R. 197, p. 208 [para. 15].

Counsel:

J.E. Power, for the plaintiff;

D.A. Miller, for the defendant;

R.W. Reid, for the amicus curiae.

This case was heard before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on October 7, 1985.