Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction over parenting disputes where parents and children are divided between Saskatchewan and California, in light of prior Saskatchewan orders and agreements.
• Effect of the 2015 Custody and Access Agreement (including the Saskatchewan choice-of-law and attornment clause) and the 2017 Consent Judgment on later attempts to shift jurisdiction.
• Application of res judicata/comity given Ball J.’s 2016 decision upholding Saskatchewan jurisdiction, absent any material change in law or circumstances.
• Assessment of the mother’s credibility, including inconsistent evidence, prior police reports, and use of questionable legal authorities in her submissions.
• Interaction between Saskatchewan legislation on children and jurisdiction and the mother’s unilateral resort to California proceedings and domestic violence restraining orders.
• Forum non conveniens analysis under The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, including comparative convenience, multiplicity of proceedings, and enforcement considerations.

Background and factual context

The case arises out of a long-running parenting dispute between the petitioner-father, J.V.E.C. (the father), and the respondent-mother, S.M.D. (the mother), concerning their two children, M.J.E. and E.E.E. The parents’ relationship began in California in 2008. The father, a dual citizen of Canada and Mexico, was deported from the United States to Mexico in 2010. Over subsequent years, the family moved between jurisdictions, including a period of cohabitation in Vancouver, British Columbia, and the mother’s return with the children to San Diego, California. The children are American citizens, and the mother is a U.S. citizen. The father later settled in Saskatchewan, Canada, where he has remained.
In 2015, while the mother resided in California and the father was in Saskatchewan, the parties executed two key parenting agreements. First, a short-form Parenting Agreement between Mother and Father dated July 22, 2015, signed by the mother in California and later acknowledged before a California notary. Second, a more detailed Custody and Access Agreement dated December 22, 2015. Both parents received independent legal advice in relation to the latter document, evidenced by attached certificates. The father executed his copy in Saskatchewan on December 18, 2015, and the mother executed hers before a California lawyer on December 22, 2015.
The Custody and Access Agreement was comprehensive. It provided for joint custody and set out primary residence and defined parenting time. One key feature was that the primary residence of the older child, M.J.E., would be with the father in Saskatchewan up to the start of the 2016/17 school year, at which point primary residence would shift to the mother in California, with the father having scheduled parenting time during holidays and summer breaks. Exchange points included airports in San Diego and in Saskatchewan (Regina or Saskatoon), underscoring an arrangement built around cross-border contact.

Contractual terms and choice-of-law clause

Central to the later jurisdictional dispute was clause 17.1 of the Custody and Access Agreement, which expressly designated Saskatchewan law and jurisdiction. Under the heading “Applicable Law,” the agreement provided that the proper law of the agreement would be the law of Saskatchewan and that both parties attorned to the jurisdiction of Saskatchewan to address custody and access matters in relation to the children. This attornment clause, combined with the fact that both parents had independent legal advice, played a major role in the court’s later analysis: it signalled that, notwithstanding the children’s physical residence in California, the parties had contractually chosen Saskatchewan as the forum for parenting disputes.

Commencement of Saskatchewan proceedings and the 2016 Ball fiat

On February 8, 2016, the father filed a Petition in the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench (Family Law Division) in Swift Current. He did so after the mother withheld access contrary to the terms of the Custody and Access Agreement. The mother responded with a Notice of Application objecting to Saskatchewan assuming jurisdiction.
This jurisdictional objection was addressed in a 2016 decision of Ball J. (the Ball fiat, reported at 2016 SKQB 204). After considering the statutory framework in the then-applicable The Children’s Law Act, 1997, and the parties’ circumstances, Ball J. held that the Saskatchewan court had jurisdiction over both children but, as an exercise of discretion, declined to assume jurisdiction over the younger child, E.E.E., because of his residence with the mother in California. The Ball fiat also rejected the mother’s argument that the 2015 Custody and Access Agreement was invalid due to alleged coercion, characterizing her conduct as more consistent with using the agreement as a strategy to avoid the inconvenience of Hague Convention proceedings.

The 2017 Schwann consent judgment and child support order

On March 6, 2017, Schwann J. granted a Consent Judgment and a Child Support Order. In that judgment, the parties—both represented by counsel—expressly consented to the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan court in relation to the children. The Consent Judgment confirmed joint custody and structured the children’s travel to and from the father’s home during summer and school breaks. Although the children continued to reside primarily in California with the mother, the arrangement preserved and formalized the father’s rights to parenting time in Saskatchewan under Saskatchewan law.
The monetary aspects of the 2017 Child Support Order are not reproduced in the 2025 reasons and therefore cannot be quantified from the decision text provided. The focus of the 2025 decision is jurisdiction, not recalculation of support or other monetary relief.

Subsequent complaints, police involvement, and breakdown of contact

Relations between the parents deteriorated further. The mother lodged a complaint in 2021 with the Calgary Police Service, alleging that the father had assaulted the older child during a December 2019 visit to Saskatchewan. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in Shaunavon interviewed both children and the father. The investigating officer concluded the children appeared truthful, unafraid of their father, and to have a genuine, caring relationship with him. The file was closed without charges, with an RCMP sergeant characterizing the incident as a minor, isolated event not warranting criminal prosecution, while cautioning the father about acceptable physical discipline.
In August 2022, the mother again contacted the RCMP, asserting the father would not return the children on time. Police investigation showed he intended a brief delay due to a family emergency involving his ill girlfriend. The children were returned to the mother with a short delay, and the father was cautioned, but no criminal consequences followed.
Children continued to travel between parents’ homes until late October 2022, when the mother stopped sending them to Canada. This unilateral cessation of cross-border contact marked a significant practical change, although the formal Saskatchewan orders and agreements remained in force.

California proceedings and domestic violence restraining orders

In December 2022, the mother initiated proceedings in California, obtaining an ex parte Temporary Domestic Violence Restraining Order that prohibited the father from contacting her and the children. The California court later assumed emergency jurisdiction over custody in late December 2022. As the Canadian court later observed, issues raised in these California actions could have been brought before the Saskatchewan court under the existing action. The mother’s resort to a second forum, without attempting to resolve the parenting issues through the Saskatchewan process, created a multiplicity of actions and the risk of conflicting decisions.
In August 2025, the California court granted a Permanent Domestic Violence Restraining Order, effective against direct contact by the father until January 1, 2028. During this period, the father’s contact with the children became extremely limited—largely restricted to phone calls and a small number of supervised visits in Tijuana, Mexico, arranged through the California proceedings and monitored by the mother’s family members.

Renewed attempts to transfer jurisdiction to California

Parallel to the California litigation, the mother repeatedly tried to shift jurisdiction of the underlying parenting dispute from Saskatchewan to California. In February 2023, she applied in Saskatchewan to transfer jurisdiction. In June 2023, Keene J. dismissed that application, albeit without prejudice to a future re-application. Later in 2023 the mother filed an Application for Variation of a Final Order, again seeking transfer of jurisdiction, and she also sought exemptions from Saskatchewan’s mandatory mediation requirements. The court initially refused an exemption and directed the parties to proceed to family dispute resolution, which never materialized.
By October 2025, the mother once more applied for an exemption from mediation. In November 2025, Tomka J. granted a temporary exemption solely to allow her application for transfer of jurisdiction to be heard, on condition that, if transfer was denied, mandatory mediation would still be required. The matter then came before Robertson J. in Swift Current, culminating in the 2025 SKKB 203 decision.

Credibility concerns regarding the mother

In considering the renewed application, the court scrutinized the mother’s evidence and raised concerns about her credibility. Several examples were highlighted.
First, the mother claimed she had been under duress when signing the 2015 Parenting Agreement and the Custody and Access Agreement. The court found this doubtful: the agreements were executed months apart; the mother signed while physically distant from the father (in another country); and she did so before a California notary public and a California lawyer, receiving independent legal advice. Her claim of coercion had already been rejected by Ball J. in 2016, who had also remarked on the likely strategic motive behind her position.
Second, an RCMP report stemming from the 2022 complaint showed the mother had misled police about her return flight, changing her story about whether it was actually booked. This called into question the reliability of her narrative in that incident.
Third, the mother alleged that her Saskatchewan lawyer had given very poor advice, including telling her she needed no evidence because she had a “strong case.” The judge, familiar with that lawyer and local professional standards, doubted the accuracy of the mother’s account.
Fourth, during the hearing of the 2025 application, the mother admitted that she had cited case authorities that might not exist, attributing this to internet searches and suggesting the court should disregard that part of her brief. Whatever the explanation, this conduct risked misleading the court and wasting the opposing party’s time.
Taken together, these matters led the court to place limited weight on some of the mother’s assertions and to view her account with caution.

Statutory framework for jurisdiction and transfer

The legal context for the 2025 decision included two main Saskatchewan statutes: The Children’s Law Act, 2020 and The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.
Under The Children’s Law Act, 2020, the court may, in the child’s best interests, request that an extraprovincial tribunal assume jurisdiction over an application for a parenting order, or adjourn to allow the parties to pursue an application in another jurisdiction. In deciding whether to refer an application, the court may consider factors such as the child’s nationality, property, existing separation or divorce proceedings, and substantial connections to another place.
The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act governs territorial competence and forum non conveniens. Under section 4, a court has territorial competence if certain criteria are met, including that the person has submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, that there is an agreement conferring jurisdiction, or that there is a real and substantial connection between Saskatchewan and the facts underlying the proceeding. Section 10 empowers the court to decline jurisdiction if another forum is more appropriate, having regard to factors such as comparative convenience and expense for parties and witnesses, the applicable law, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions, enforceability of judgments, and the overall fair and efficient functioning of the Canadian legal system.

Res judicata and prior jurisdictional determination

A key question before Robertson J. was whether the issue of jurisdiction had already been conclusively determined by Ball J. in 2016, and if so, whether anything had changed sufficiently to justify a different result.
The court emphasized that Ball J. had already addressed and decided the mother’s objection to Saskatchewan jurisdiction in 2016, under substantially similar statutory provisions (then in The Children’s Law Act, 1997). While the legislative instrument had since been updated, the relevant concepts remained largely the same. As a matter of res judicata and judicial comity, Robertson J. considered that the previous decision on jurisdiction should be respected unless there was a material change in the law or the parties’ circumstances.
The mother pointed to the issuance of California restraining orders and the California court’s involvement as evidence of a substantial change. The Saskatchewan court disagreed. It characterized the California proceedings and the denial of the father’s parenting time as the consequence of the mother’s unilateral actions, not as objective changes warranting a jurisdictional shift. The court drew on Saskatchewan authorities emphasizing that one parent cannot alter a child’s “habitual residence” or dictate forum simply by removing or withholding the child without the other parent’s consent. Saskatchewan jurisprudence warns against rewarding a party who, by moving a child or unilaterally resorting to another jurisdiction, tries to defeat an existing court’s jurisdiction.

Analysis under The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act

Even assuming that Ball J.’s earlier decision did not completely foreclose reconsideration, Robertson J. proceeded to analyze whether Saskatchewan should decline jurisdiction in favor of California under the statutory forum non conveniens factors.
On comparative convenience and expense, the court noted that whichever forum was chosen would inconvenience one of the parents. However, the father faced a distinct disadvantage: as a result of his prior immigration history, he is barred from entering the United States, making personal attendance in California proceedings impossible. By contrast, the mother had already demonstrated that she could participate in Saskatchewan proceedings remotely.
With respect to the law to be applied, while California and Saskatchewan law on basic parenting issues might be broadly similar, the parenting agreements and the Schwann Consent Judgment had been framed and administered under Saskatchewan law for nearly a decade. Transferring the matter to a foreign legal system would introduce complexity and potential inconsistency without clear benefit.
Regarding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions, the court underscored the problems that had already arisen from the mother’s decision to initiate competing California proceedings instead of using the existing Saskatchewan action. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has long recognized that bringing multiple actions in circumstances where a single proceeding would suffice is prima facie vexatious. The judge considered that the issues ventilated in California could and should have been directed to the Saskatchewan court, thereby avoiding overlapping proceedings.
On enforceability of judgments, Saskatchewan remained a viable and appropriate forum. Orders made in Saskatchewan can, in principle, be recognized and enforced abroad pursuant to international mechanisms and comity. Lastly, in terms of the fair and efficient functioning of the Canadian legal system as a whole, the court considered that maintaining jurisdiction in the originating Canadian forum was consistent with stability, predictability, and fairness in cross-border parenting disputes.

Outcome and implications

Ultimately, the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench concluded that there was no compelling reason to depart from the prior jurisdictional determination or from the parties’ express attornment to Saskatchewan law and forum in their 2015 Custody and Access Agreement and the 2017 Schwann Consent Judgment. The children’s habitual residence in California, while accepted as a factual reality, was not decisive in the face of those agreements, the prior fiat, and the statutory principles preventing a parent from unilaterally engineering a change of jurisdiction.
The court rejected the mother’s renewed claims that the 2015 agreements were void due to duress, rejected the suggestion that California was the more appropriate forum, and gave weight to concerns about the mother’s credibility and about the multiplicity of proceedings that her conduct had generated. The statutory criteria under The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, considered as a whole, favored keeping the dispute in Saskatchewan.
The final result was that the mother’s 2025 application to transfer jurisdiction of the parenting proceedings from Saskatchewan to California was dismissed. The successful party in this decision is the father, J.V.E.C., who preserved Saskatchewan’s jurisdiction over the ongoing parenting dispute. The reasons for judgment do not specify any monetary award, damages, or quantified costs in his favor in connection with this application, and on the face of the decision the total amount ordered, if any, in his favor for costs or other monetary relief cannot be determined from the text provided.