D.L.T. v. K.K.M.
- Citation
- 2020 BCSC 312
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 5 March 2020
- Posture
- Family Law / Supplemental Reasons for Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 5 March 2020
- Posture
- Family Law / Supplemental Reasons for Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court recorded a consent order that the claimant will pay the full costs of the child's therapy going forward (whether through insurance or otherwise) and that the respondent will have no liability for any retroactive contribution despite a prior order that she contribute one third of uninsured costs; the supplemental reasons correct the omission from the original reasons.
Court disposition
Supplemental reasons issued to record the consent order allocating responsibility for therapy costs and barring retroactive contribution by respondent.
Orders
- Claimant to continue paying the full costs of the child's therapy directly, whether through his insurance or otherwise.
- Respondent shall have no claim for retroactive contribution notwithstanding the prior order that she contribute one third of uninsured costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
D.L.T.
ClaimantK.K.M.
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Respondent Prior Contribution Share (percentage): 33.333
03
Procedural history
Posture
Family Law / Supplemental Reasons for Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the claimant should pay the full cost of the child's therapy pending receipt of an updated section 211 report
- 02
Whether the respondent could be held liable for retroactive contribution for uninsured therapy costs despite a consent order
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Claimant sought orders specifying who should provide the child's therapy to ensure coverage under his extended insurance plan and to secure payment.
- Respondent
- Respondent raised concerns about the interim cost of the child's existing therapy and the financial burden, and disputed retroactive liability for uninsured costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25, s 211
Court may order a section 211 report to assist in parenting and therapy decisions
- 02
Court's inherent jurisdiction and practice
Court may make binding orders by consent and record terms that resolve future or retroactive claims between parties
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court recorded a consent order that the claimant will pay the full costs of the child's therapy going forward (whether through insurance or otherwise) and that the respondent will have no liability for any retroactive contribution despite a prior order that she contribute one third of uninsured costs; the supplemental reasons correct the omission from the original reasons.
Obiter and limits
- No further orders concerning the child's therapy would be made pending receipt of the updated section 211 report.
- The consent order regarding payment was inadvertently omitted from the original reasons and is now formally recorded.
Court disposition
Supplemental reasons issued to record the consent order allocating responsibility for therapy costs and barring retroactive contribution by respondent.
- Claimant to continue paying the full costs of the child's therapy directly, whether through his insurance or otherwise.
- Respondent shall have no claim for retroactive contribution notwithstanding the prior order that she contribute one third of uninsured costs.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 5 March 2020
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 5 March 2020
2020 BCSC 312 D.L.T. v. K.K.M.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: D.L.T. v. K.K.M., 2020 BCSC 312 Date: 20200305 Docket: E‑131162 Registry: Vancouver Between: D.L.T. Claimant And: K.K.M. Respondent Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Grauer Supplemental Reasons for Judgment Appearing on his own behalf: D.L.T. Appearing on her own behalf: K.K.M. Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. December 10, 2019 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. March 5, 2020 [1] At the end of the hearing on December 10, 2019, I had a discussion with the parties concerning ongoing therapy for their daughter, JT. I had already ordered the preparation of an updated section 211 report, and had indicated that I would make no further orders concerning JT's therapy pending receipt of the section 211 report. The claimant had sought various orders concerning who should provide the therapy, principally with a view to ensuring coverage under his extended plan. [2] The respondent than raised concerns about the cost of JT's existing therapy in the meantime. After discussion, I ordered, by consent, that, going forward, (1) the claimant would continue paying for the full therapy costs directly (whether through his insurance or otherwise), and (2) no claim for retroactive contribution from K.K.M. would arise notwithstanding my previous order that she was to contribute one third of uninsured costs. Inadvertently, that order was omitted from my reasons for judgment, and consequently I am issuing these supplemental reasons to reflect the order I actually made. "GRAUER, J."
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.