Blois v Salacki, 2016 ABQB 323

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Blois v Salacki, 2016 ABQB 323 Date: 20160614 Docket: FL04 00318 Registry: Grande Prairie Between: Jamie Zoe Blois Applicant - and - Kelsey David Salacki Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms. Blois, who is unrepresented, asks to terminate Mr.

Salacki's guardianship of their son on the grounds that the respondent has not been involved in the child's life since the fall of 2014, and has had only limited involvement with the son between September 2009 and 2014. She also phrases her application as one for sole custody of the child. She says that she does not want to have to negotiate with the father on matters such as obtaining a passport for her son. [ 2 ] The mother's application is denied, in part. [ 3 ] There is a problem with respect to the service on Mr. Salacki of the mother’s application. On May 11, 2016, this court gave to Ms.

Blois an order for substitutional service on Mr. Salacki. That order required Ms. Blois to serve the boy’s father by personally serving Betty Salacki, Mr. Salacki’s mother, and , by having a friend serve Mr. Salacki through Facebook. The order originally read

“and/or” with respect to the two modes of service, but the “or” was struck out and initialled by the judge who granted the order. At the hearing before this court, Ms. Blois asserted that her friend tried to serve Mr. Salacki on Facebook but that Mr. Salacki had closed his Facebook account; however, Ms. Blois did not have an affidavit from the friend to that effect. Since the court which granted the substitutional service order clearly intended that both methods of service should be employed, Ms.

Blois will have to obtain affidavit evidence supporting her claim that the second method of service was impossible in the circumstances. The following decision is therefore conditional on Ms.

Blois filing with the court within two weeks from today’s date, an affidavit which explains why service on Facebook was not possible. [ 4 ] While I am prepared to grant an order that the mother will have all parenting rights in relation to the parties' son, e.g. decide which school he will attend, what extra-curricular activities he will be involved in, etc. and, in particular, that she is entitled to apply for and obtain a passport for the parties' son without asking for the consent, or involvement, of the father, I am not prepared on this application to terminate the father's guardianship of his son. [ 5 ] As our Court of Appeal outlined in V.L. v D.L. 2001 ABCA 241 , there may be some legal differences between guardianship and custody.

Moreover, the analysis in that decision would presumably have to be updated in reference to children of unmarried parents and to the statutory provisions relating to guardianship as set out in the Family Law Act SA 2003, c. F-4.5. The applicant is clearly unable to assist the court in relation to any possible distinction between guardianship and custody. The FLA makes it clear that, while guardianship normally attracts all the rights and responsibilities relating to parenting, a court has the power to limit a parent’s guardianship rights. [ 6 ] It appears to me that terminating Mr.

Salacki's guardianship of his son might have some effects that would not be in the public interest, and, more particularly, not in the best interests of the child. Any such termination would presumably have the effect of removing the requirement of notice to Mr. Salacki if Ms. Blois were to choose to give up her guardianship of their son to a person other than Mr. Salacki. That is the type of decision in which a father would normally be involved. [ 7 ] I also decline to terminate Mr. Salacki's guardianship because that may have the effect of terminating Mr.

Salacki's obligations or responsibilities relative to his son: see s. 21(1)(

a) of the FLA. One of those obligations is child support. The applicant says that she has not recently claimed support from the child's father; this is puzzling since, at least in 2009, the father was earning a level of income that would allow him to contribute materially to the financial support of his son. From the size of the court file, it appears that there have been considerable proceedings between the parties.

The mother may have had difficulty in obtaining cooperation from the father in relation to child support and the father may have had difficulty in obtaining cooperation from the father in relation to parenting. The court cannot force the mother to claim child support or the father to take an active role in his son’s life, but it can decline to relieve the father of his responsibility to provide child support.

Whatever circumstances have had an effect on the mother’s decision concerning child support, those circumstances may change in the future. [ 8 ] For those reasons, although the mother is unilaterally entitled to make all parenting decisions in respect of the parties' child, including decisions relating to the child's passport, I do not terminate Mr. Salacki's guardianship. [ 9 ] Ms. Blois must serve a copy of this decision on Mr. Salacki by hand delivering a copy of the decision to Mr. Salacki’s mother, Elizabeth Salacki and file an affidavit of service relating to that service.

Heard on the 13 th day of June, 2016. Dated at the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta this 14 th day of June, 2016. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Ms. Blois, on her own behalf Mr. Salacki, did not appear although properly served