P. (D.) v. S. (C.)

P. (D.) v. S. (C.)

The appeal is dismissed: under art.30 C.C.L.C. the controlling test for custody and access is the child's best interests (which is not limited to proof of actual harm), art.30 and related Civil Code provisions are not unconstitutionally vague, the Charter ordinarily does not apply to private family disputes and,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1993] 4 SCR 141
Parties
Appellant: D.P. (appellant); Respondent: C.S. (respondent)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 1993
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Custody and Access Under Civil Code (family Law and Constitutional Issues) / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal From Quebec Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (Sopinka and McLachlin JJ. dissenting)
Legal Topics
Custody, Access Rights, Best Interests of the Child, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression, Charter Application, Vagueness, Parental Authority
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Family Law Custody Access Rights Best Interests of the Child Freedom of Religion Freedom of Expression Charter Application +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D.P. (appellant)

Appellant

C.S. (respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Concerning Custody and Access Under Civil Code (family Law and Constitutional Issues) / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal From Quebec Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What test governs access rights of a non‑custodial parent under art. 30 C.C.L.C.?
  2. 2 Whether art. 30 C.C.L.C. / related Civil Code provisions are unconstitutionally vague or discretionary under ss.1 and 7 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the Charter applies to judicial family orders in private disputes between parents

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed: under art.30 C.C.L.C. the controlling test for custody and access is the child's best interests (which is not limited to proof of actual harm), art.30 and related Civil Code provisions are not unconstitutionally vague, the Charter ordinarily does not apply to private family disputes and, even if it did, the access restrictions imposed (prohibiting continual indoctrination and attendance at Jehovah's Witness demonstrations/door‑to‑door preaching until the child can decide) did not infringe protected freedoms given the child's best‑interests justification; the trial judge's factual findings supporting the restrictions were not vitiated by error and should be affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (Sopinka and McLachlin JJ. dissenting)

Orders

  • Superior Court judgment affirmed
  • Appellant's access limited: may teach child religion but shall not continually indoctrinate the child with Jehovah's Witness precepts or religious practices