View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2007, 11:53 AM
logicalvelocity logicalvelocity is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,881
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

smadax,

After thinking about this further and researching at canlaw - what is deemed reasonable within a Judicial view, I came across a few cases.

In Abolghasemi v. Abolghasemi, 2001 SKQB 313, Paragraph 6 of the authority

http://beta.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...01skqb313.html
[6] In view of the existing access - every second weekend; two evenings per week; telephone access twice per week - there appears to be no valid reason why the children should be made available every second day to converse by telephone with their father.

-and-

In Kobussen v. Fletcher, 1998 CanLII 13633 (SK Q.B.), Significant telephone access problems. As a result see Paragraph 15f of the Judgment.

http://beta.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...nlii13633.html

-and-

In Oddan v. Schneider, 1996 CanLII 6973 (SK Q.B.), Telephone Access was deemed reasonable. See order #6 of the Judgment.

http://beta.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...anlii6973.html


In all, telephone access is a reasonable request and it should be occurring not impeded or made difficult.

Many more cases are available with this subject.


lv

Last edited by logicalvelocity; 03-12-2007 at 12:02 PM.
Reply With Quote