J.K.H. v. M.S.B.

J.K.H. v. M.S.B.

The respondent's application to set aside or vary the September 21, 2018 order was dismissed because he willfully failed to respond or appear, delayed unreasonably, and failed to raise a meritorious defence; there is no basis for a general stay of FMEP enforcement; the hair follicle testing requirement was upheld as necessary to protect children's safety and to assess ongoing sobriety, and parenting time must be professionally supervised until the respondent provides eight clean hair follicle tests over one year; a s.211 report by Dr. Mary Korpach was ordered with costs split according to 2019 incomes; divorce granted; application to vary child support dismissed.

Citation
2020 BCSC 96
Parties
Claimant: J.K.H.; Respondent: M.S.B.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Law Application / Application Hearing (interlocutory and Ancillary Relief)
Outcome
Respondent's application to set aside or vary the September 21, 2018 order dismissed in large part; orders from September 21, 2018 largely upheld; FMEP enforcement not stayed; hair follicle testing and supervised parenting ordered; s.211 report ordered; divorce granted; child support variation dismissed; claimant...
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Interim/default Orders, Parenting Time Supervision, Drug Testing (hair Follicle), Family Maintenance Enforcement, Section 211 Psychological Report, Change in Child Support, Affidavit Admissibility
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody and Access Child Support Enforcement Divorce Contempt Setting Aside Interim/default Orders Parenting Time Supervision Drug Testing (hair Follicle) +4 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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.K.H.

Claimant

M.S.B.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Application / Application Hearing (interlocutory and Ancillary Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent may set aside or vary the September 21, 2018 interim order
  2. 2 Whether a general stay of FMEP enforcement should be granted
  3. 3 Whether hair follicle drug testing requirement should be set aside (religious freedom claim)

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's application to set aside or vary the September 21, 2018 order was dismissed because he willfully failed to respond or appear, delayed unreasonably, and failed to raise a meritorious defence; there is no basis for a general stay of FMEP enforcement; the hair follicle testing requirement was upheld as necessary to protect children's safety and to assess ongoing sobriety, and parenting time must be professionally supervised until the respondent provides eight clean hair follicle tests over one year; a s.211 report by Dr. Mary Korpach was ordered with costs split according to 2019 incomes; divorce granted; application to vary child support dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application to set aside or vary the September 21, 2018 order dismissed in large part; orders from September 21, 2018 largely upheld; FMEP enforcement not stayed; hair follicle testing and supervised parenting ordered; s.211 report ordered; divorce granted; child support variation dismissed; claimant...

Orders

  • Respondent's notice of application seeking to set aside the September 21, 2018 order (paras. 1-7 inclusive) dismissed.
  • Application to stay FMEP enforcement dismissed; enforcement actions remain in force and respondent may pursue statutory FMEA remedies as applicable.