K.S. v. H.S.

K.S. v. H.S.

The application to vary the interim parenting order was dismissed because the s.211 report could not fairly be implemented prior to trial: the reporter had not been cross-examined, the report failed to address material and contested matters (notably the adverse effect of increased weekday intercity driving on the child and whether the child wanted increased time), and there was no compelling change in circumstances that would justify disturbing the status quo pending trial where the child's best interests require caution.

Citation
2023 BCSC 888
Parties
Claimant: K.S.; Respondent: H.S.; Respondent: 602491 B.C. Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Family Law Interim Parenting/variation Application / Interlocutory Application to Vary Interim Parenting Order (s.216 Fla)
Outcome
Application dismissed; interim parenting order unchanged
Legal Topics
Variation of Interim Orders, Section 211 Report, Section 216 Family Law Act, Best Interests of the Child, Preservation of Status Quo, Credibility Findings
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody and Parenting Evidence Variation of Interim Orders Section 211 Report Section 216 Family Law Act Best Interests of the Child Preservation of Status Quo +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.S.

Claimant

H.S.

Respondent

602491 B.C. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Interim Parenting/variation Application / Interlocutory Application to Vary Interim Parenting Order (s.216 Fla)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a s.211 parenting assessment report constitutes new substantial evidence warranting variation of an interim parenting order under s.216(3)(b) FLA
  2. 2 Whether the court should implement recommendations of a s.211 report prior to the reporter being cross-examined at trial
  3. 3 Whether the proposed parenting schedules would adversely affect the child due to increased travel time

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the interim parenting order was dismissed because the s.211 report could not fairly be implemented prior to trial: the reporter had not been cross-examined, the report failed to address material and contested matters (notably the adverse effect of increased weekday intercity driving on the child and whether the child wanted increased time), and there was no compelling change in circumstances that would justify disturbing the status quo pending trial where the child's best interests require caution.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; interim parenting order unchanged

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No variation to Master Robertson's July 2021 interim parenting order (status quo to be maintained pending trial)