M.A. v. A.A.

M.A. v. A.A.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge applied the correct test — the best interests of the children — and reasonably found that, given the father's history (violent, domineering, unpredictable), the emotional harm to the mother and children, the destabilizing conduct during supervised visits and changed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
1993 NSCA 205
Parties
Appellant (mother): M.A.; Respondent (father): A.A.
Court
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 November 1993
Procedural Posture
Family Law — Access to Children / Appeal to Court of Appeal (judgment Restoring Trial Judge)
Outcome
Appeal allowed without costs; decision of judge on appeal set aside; decision of trial judge restored (termination of supervised access affirmed)
Legal Topics
Supervised Access, Best Interests of the Child, Burden of Proof, Guardian Ad Litem, Change of Circumstances
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Custody/access Domestic Violence Criminal Procedure Supervised Access Best Interests of the Child Burden of Proof Guardian Ad Litem +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.A.

Appellant (mother)

A.A.

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Family Law — Access to Children / Appeal to Court of Appeal (judgment Restoring Trial Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether supervised access should be terminated as not in best interests of the children
  2. 2 Whether a presumption exists that contact with both parents is beneficial and whether it overrides best interests analysis
  3. 3 Which party bears evidentiary burden to show access would be harmful

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge applied the correct test — the best interests of the children — and reasonably found that, given the father's history (violent, domineering, unpredictable), the emotional harm to the mother and children, the destabilizing conduct during supervised visits and changed circumstances after the consent order, supervised access would not be in the children's best interests; the appellate judge had erred by privileging a presumption of parental contact and by reweighing credibility and evidence instead of deferring to the trial judge, so the trial judge's termination of access was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed without costs; decision of judge on appeal set aside; decision of trial judge restored (termination of supervised access affirmed)

Orders

  • Appeal allowed without costs
  • Decision of judge on appeal set aside