Slater v. Slater

Slater v. Slater

The trial judge's orders under ss.37 and 126 were supported by evidence of the appellant's repeated presence near the respondent and child and were within statutory authority; incidental procedural measures (supervised access via family justice counsellor and delivery of gifts) were reasonable under s.35 to preserve...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 BCSC 552
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Christopher Slater; Respondent/defendant: Helen Slater
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal From Provincial Court Orders Made Under the Family Relations Act / Appeal to Supreme Court of British Columbia From Provincial Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restraining Orders (s.37, S.126), Supervised Access and Access Conditions (s.35), Passport Issuance and Parental Consent, Jurisdiction to Impose Procedural/administrative Conditions
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Custody and Access International Travel/child Removal Administrative Law (passport Regulation) Restraining Orders (s.37, S.126) Supervised Access and Access Conditions (s.35) Passport Issuance and Parental Consent Jurisdiction to Impose Procedural/administrative Conditions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Slater

Appellant/plaintiff

Helen Slater

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal From Provincial Court Orders Made Under the Family Relations Act / Appeal to Supreme Court of British Columbia From Provincial Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orders under s.37 and s.126 of the Family Relations Act were properly made
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge improperly varied access when that issue was adjourned
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge had authority to involve the family justice counsellor to facilitate supervised access and receipt of gifts

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's orders under ss.37 and 126 were supported by evidence of the appellant's repeated presence near the respondent and child and were within statutory authority; incidental procedural measures (supervised access via family justice counsellor and delivery of gifts) were reasonable under s.35 to preserve supervised access; removal of the child to the Philippines was permitted with conditions (detailed itinerary, addresses and phone numbers, proof of medical insurance and required inoculations) because the trial judge fairly weighed the evidence; the trial judge was within jurisdiction to declare that the father could not block issuance of a passport to the custodial parent...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Provincial Court orders under s.37 and s.126 upheld
  • Maintain supervised access entitlement for father; supervised access to be arranged through the family justice counsellor and supervisor appointed if parties cannot agree