Williams v. Hillier et al.

Williams v. Hillier et al.
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1980-12-18
Report
[1980] 2 SCR 368
Judges
Laskin, Bora; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien
On appeal from
Manitoba
Subjects
Family law
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Williams v. Hillier et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 368
Date: 1980-12-18
Ernest Charles Williams Appellant;
and
Patricia Judith Jacqueline Hillier and Harry Ian Hillier Respondents;
and
The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Manitoba, the Attorney General of Ontario, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan and the Attorney General of Alberta Interveners.
1980: December 18.
Present: Laskin C.J. and Ritchie, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR MANITOBA
Adoption—Decree nisi granting custody of children to mother and access to father—Order providing for adoption by mother and second husband—Order of adoption not affected by question of paramountcy—The Child Welfare Act, C.C.S.M., c. C80—Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba[1], dismissing an appeal from an order of absolute adoption in respect of the appellant’s two children. Appeal quashed.
J.R. Nickerson, for the appellant.
A.C. Arenson, for the respondents.
T.B. Smith, Q.C., and M.L. Basta, for the Attorney General of Canada.
R.M. Carr and R. Diamond, for the Attorney General of Manitoba.
J.J. Cavarzan, Q.C., and E. Goldberg, for the Attorney General of Ontario.
H. Brun and O. Laverdière, for the Attorney General of Quebec.
A.D. Reid, for the Attorney General of New Brunswick. L.M. Brierley, for the Attorney General of Saskatchewan.
B.A. Crane, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Alberta.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We are all of the opinion that the position of counsel for the appellant, which was thoroughly canvassed before this Court, has emptied this appeal of any constitutional issue. It was on the constitutional question put by the Court that leave to appeal was granted, as is admitted by counsel for the appellant and as is asserted in the factum of the respondent.
In the circumstances, we are all of the view that this appeal should be quashed. There will be no order as to costs.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: D’Arcy & Deacon, Winnipeg.
Solicitor for the respondents: A.C. Arenson, Winnipeg.
[1] (1979), 2 Man. R. (2d) 251.