Category Archives: Family

Non-Biological Father from Separated Same-Sex Couple Declared a Legal Parent

By: Melissa Luhtanen

PDF Version: Non-biological Father from Separated Same-Sex Couple Declared a Legal Parent 

Case Commented On: D.W.H. v D.J.R., 2011 ABQB 608

Background

Mr. H. and Mr. R. lived together as partners and planned to have a baby through a surrogate mother. Mr. R’s sperm was used to conceive the baby, S, with Ms. D as the surrogate mother. Ms. D lived with the two fathers and Mr. R when the baby was first born. After that, the baby lived with the two male partners and visited the surrogate mother once or twice a week. The couple separated when S was 3 years old and Mr. H. applied for access. Madame Justice Eidsvik in D.W.H. v D.J.R., 2009 ABQB 438 found that the child had a mother (who was the surrogate), but no father who could be recognized in law (see my previous post “Gay fathers not seen as a parental unit under the Family Law Act“). Mr. H was given access until November 2007 when, based on a parenting assessment, contact was discontinued. Mr. H.’s relationship with S has since almost completely ceased. Mr. H. applied for guardianship but his application was opposed.

Continue reading →

The Repeal of the Long Gun Registry: A Violation of the Federal Government’s Obligations Concerning Violence Against Women?

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: The Repeal of the Long Gun Registry: A Violation of the Federal Government’s Obligations Concerning Violence Against Women?

Legislation considered: Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (“Ending the Long-gun Registry Act”), 41st Parliament, 1st Session

December 6, 2011 was the National Day of Remembrance for Violence Against Women, which marked the 22nd anniversary of the Montreal Massacre. The Globe and Mail‘s Jane Taber indicated that “government MPs [were] purposely shut out from officially speaking at and attending an event on Parliament Hill to honour the 14 young women who were shot dead in 1989,” because the government is about to repeal the long gun registry (see Bill C-19). The Montreal Massacre was one of the pressure points for the registry, as was the use of firearms in crimes of domestic violence. When the Alberta government challenged the constitutionality of the registry, which was implemented via the Firearms Act, SC 1995, ch 39, as an amendment to the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court found that it was properly enacted under the federal government’s criminal law powers (see Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 SCR 783 at paras 43, 59). The enactment of the law creating the registry was constitutional; but is its repeal unlawful? I think an argument can be made that the federal government’s abolishment of the long gun registry is unconstitutional on Charter grounds, as well as contrary to international law.

Continue reading →

Tracing Original Property to Replacement Property: What Evidence is Required?

PDF version: Tracing Original Property to Replacement Property: What Evidence is Required? 

Case considered: Scheffelmeier v. Krassman, 2011 ABCA 64

In Scheffelmeier v. Krassman the Alberta Court of Appeal once again dealt with tracing exempt property under the Matrimonial Property Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-8 (MPA). Tracing is one of the more contentious matters in matrimonial property litigation, as is the matter of non-disclosure of financial information, also a factor in this case. Scheffelmeier is of interest because it includes a dissenting opinion on the application of the long-standing principle that “[t]racing can be inferred, implied, or presumed” (Harrower v. Harrower (1989), 97 A.R. 141; 21 R.F.L. (3d) 369 at 376 (C.A.)). The point of contention between the majority opinion of Mr. Justice Ronald L. Berger and Madam Justice Patricia Rowbotham and the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice J.D. Bruce McDonald also illustrates the problem caused by the lack of enforcement mechanisms for the disclosure requirements in the MPA.

Continue reading →

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 12.48 and Summary Judgment in Divorce Proceedings

Case commented on: Maykowski v. Maykowski, 2011 ABQB 31

This case is described by Justice D.C. Read as “high-conflict divorce proceedings” commenced by the husband in combination with a claim for matrimonial property division, and in which the wife counterclaimed for divorce and distribution of matrimonial property. The wife sought summary judgment based on an alleged settlement agreement between the parties concerning the divorce and matrimonial property. Justice Read held that summary judgment was not available, based on an interpretation of Rule 12.48 of the new Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010. According to Justice Read, “It is patently clear from R. 12.48 that summary judgment is not available in any action under the Divorce Act. Although summary judgment is available in proceedings under the Matrimonial Property Act, if the action was commenced as a combined proceeding with the Divorce Act, because of R. 12.48(b), a summary judgment application under the Matrimonial Property Act can be made only after that action has been severed from the Divorce Act proceedings.” (at para. 16). Because the alleged settlement agreement dealt with claims made under the Divorce Act related to child custody, child and spousal support in addition to matrimonial property claims, summary judgment was not available (at para. 19). Justice Read noted that this would also have been the outcome under the old Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 390/1968, Rule 159, but noted that the exclusion has been outlined in more detail in the New Rules (at para. 15). Justice Read ordered the parties to proceed immediately to alternative dispute resolution, and if unsuccessful there, to trial (at para. 31).

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s Marriage Commissioners Decision – What are the Implications for Alberta?

Case and Legislation Commented On: In the Matter of Marriage Commissioners Appointed under the Marriage Act, SS 1995, c M-4.1, 2011 SKCA 3; Marriage Act, RSA 2000, c M-5

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled last week on the constitutionality of proposed amendments to Saskatchewan’s Marriage Act, S.S. 1995, c.M-41, which would have allowed marriage commissioners to decline to perform marriage ceremonies that were contrary to their religious beliefs. The Court found that the proposed amendments violated the equality rights of gays and lesbians under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that this violation could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter because the Saskatchewan government had not minimally impaired the rights of same sex couples in the way it had set out the proposed scheme for religious exemptions.

What are the implications of the decision in Alberta? Surprisingly, the Marriage Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-5, still defines marriage as “marriage between a man and a woman” (section 1(c); see also the preamble), even though in 2004 the Supreme Court confirmed that the power to determine whether same sex couples have the capacity to marry belongs to the federal government under section 91(26) of the Constitution Act 1867 (Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC 79, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698). While the Alberta government tried to shield the law by using section 33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause, that clause could not have saved the invalidity of the Act on division of powers grounds, and the relevant section of the Marriage Act expired in 2005 in any event. Furthermore, Alberta marriage commissioners have been performing same sex marriages in this province since 2005 in spite of the heteronormative definition in the Marriage Act. An attempt to bring in a law similar to that ruled upon in the Saskatchewan case was defeated when Bill 208, the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms (Marriage) Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, was blocked by members of Alberta’s opposition parties. This Bill would have amended the Marriage Act and human rights legislation to protect marriage commissioners who refused to perform same sex marriages on religious or moral grounds. On the face of it then, marriage commissioners in Alberta do not have the sort of opting out protection that was considered in the Saskatchewan case.

Melissa Luhtanen of the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre will be providing further analysis of the Saskatchewan case and its implications in Alberta on ABlawg; readers may also be interested in this post on the case by Denise Réaume on the Women’s Court of Canada blog.