AB Case Law - PA acknowledged and action supported

I apologize for the delay but I just discovered this comment on the UofAlberta Law Blog about an Alberta Parental Alienation case - Letourneau vs Letourneau 2014 ABCA 156 - from May 2014. 

In this case Justice Sanderman was the Case Management Judge (Letourneau v Letourneau, 2014 ABQB 5) and he ordered that a 14yr old daughter who had been alienated from her Dad be allowed normal weekend access (Sat + overnight + Sun) as well as 10 days for summer holiday according to the Dad's Holiday schedule UN-INTERRUPTED by the Mom so they can attempt to recover their relationship - which was absent.

Mom appealed the Court Order and it was denied!

Among the important points were I believe:

• Justice Sanderman took over Case Management in March 2010 and signed the Divorce Judgement and Corollary Relief Order in April 2012.
• Since the beginning the only problematic area has been the lack of a relationship between the Dad and his 2 daughters (unfortunately at the start the eldest who was 15 has now aged out of the courts jurisdiction).
• When Case Management was established a Practice Note 7 Intervention Team was put in place.
• Mom was not in favour of this and convinced Dad to abandon this in favour of them working something out.  They could not come to an agreement and decided to try mediation which failed and then arbitration which failed. 
• In retrospect it seems to have been folly to believe that allowing Mom any control over anything would just frustrate the whole exercise.
• In a report by the Practice Note 7 Intervention Team they said "this was the worst case of parental alienation that any of the team members had witnessed."
• The mother by design or not has turned the girls against their Dad.
• They all act fearful of him despite spending virtually no time with him.
• Dad was a Principal with Edmonton Catholic Schools when he retired in June 30, 2013 at age 56.  He has never had any incident while a teacher or principal to merit concern over his suitability as a parent.
• Standard of Review: The Appeal judges note that a Court Order is highly factual and considerable deference is paid to them - especially where a Case Management Judge has been highly involved with a case for over 3 years. 
• The standard for Appeal of such an order allows for appellate intervention only where the judge below erred in law or made a material error in his or her appreciation of the facts: Van de Perre v Edwards, 2001 SCC 60 (CanLII) at para 13, [2001] 2 SCR 1014 [Van de Perre]. 
• Mom argued that "the Best Interests of the Child" had not been considered - especially the "wishes" of the child and her fear of her Dad - but the Appellate Judges disagreed. It seemed clear that the "child's wishes" were more accurately a vicarious expression of the controlling parent’s wishes which should not be taken into account in crafting an access order in the child’s best interests. Refer to Tonowski v Tonowski, 2002 ABQB 1018 (CanLII) at para 18 for further direction. 
• Mom also argued that it seemed to be the Judges opinion that Parental Alienation existed but Dad disagreed and a member of the intervention team (Barbara Sheptycki) orally reported at a case management meeting in December 2012 that the parental alienation had worsened. Hence the Appellate Judges agreed that all evidence supported Justice Sanderman's conclusion that no progress had been made on his finding of Parental Alienation and as such see no basis for an intervention.
• Two other objections raised by Mom were: 1) That the child should have had her own representation so her voice could have been heard and 2) Mom was surprised when the Judge ordered overnight access. Both were denied as there was ample evidence referred to in transcripts that both issues were "live" and under discussion at various points in past 2 years transcripts of Case Management and Intervention Team conferences. 
• Appeal was dismissed with Costs to the Dad to be offset against his Monthly Support obligations.