G.F.D., also known as G.F.C. v. M.T.R.D.

G.F.D., also known as G.F.C. v. M.T.R.D.

The court granted limited interim sole decision‑making to the claimant only for medical, dental and health‑related treatments including arranging and scheduling ASD assessments and applying for related government funding because timely assessment is in the children's best interests and respondent's conduct had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 BCSC 600
Parties
Claimant: G.F.D., also known as G.F.C.; Respondent: M.T.R.D.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Divorce Act (interim Application) / Interim Application (pre Judicial Case Conference)
Outcome
Application granted in part and denied in part: interim decision‑making and financial orders made; protection order refused; conduct order granted; costs awarded to claimant on a one‑half day basis (not payable forthwith).
Legal Topics
Allocation of Interim Decision‑making Responsibilities, Autism Spectrum Disorder Assessment and Funding, Interim Child Support, Interim Spousal Support, Conduct Order Limiting Communications, Protection Order Threshold, Cost Allocation for Private Assessments, Special and Extraordinary Expenses
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Support Spousal Support Decision‑making for Children Protection and Conduct Orders Allocation of Interim Decision‑making Responsibilities Autism Spectrum Disorder Assessment and Funding Interim Child Support +5 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 7 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G.F.D., also known as G.F.C.

Claimant

M.T.R.D.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Divorce Act (interim Application) / Interim Application (pre Judicial Case Conference)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim sole decision‑making responsibility for medical/ASD assessments should be allocated to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether a protection order under s.183 FLA is warranted
  3. 3 Appropriate interim child support and spousal support amounts and start dates

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted limited interim sole decision‑making to the claimant only for medical, dental and health‑related treatments including arranging and scheduling ASD assessments and applying for related government funding because timely assessment is in the children's best interests and respondent's conduct had derailed a prior assessment; the court declined a protection order under s.183 FLA but granted a conduct order under s.225 FLA limiting communications to written, child‑related, respectful communications; the parties were ordered to share assessment costs 50/50 payable to Limbos Child Psychology by invoiced deadlines; interim child support was set at $1,314 per month commencing...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and denied in part: interim decision‑making and financial orders made; protection order refused; conduct order granted; costs awarded to claimant on a one‑half day basis (not payable forthwith).

Orders

  • Claimant granted sole decision‑making responsibility for giving, refusing or withdrawing consent to medical, dental and other health‑related treatments for the Children, including arranging, scheduling and facilitating Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) assessments; respondent's signature on consent forms dispensed with...
  • Claimant must provide respondent with all information regarding the ASD assessments in a timely way either directly or by instructing the service provider(s) to provide information to the respondent.