M.D.L. v. P.T.M.

M.D.L. v. P.T.M.

The application to implement the s.15 recommendations was dismissed because material contradictions between parties' affidavits remained unresolved, the report had not been tested by cross‑examination or peer review and omitted expected collateral interviews, and immediate implementation would effect a change to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCSC 75
Parties
Claimant: M.D.L.; Respondent: P.T.M.; Respondent: E.K.M.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Family Law Custody and Access / Interim Application Pre Trial
Outcome
Claimant's application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Custody, Section 15 Report, Parenting Time, Best Interests of the Child
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Custody Interim Custody Section 15 Report Parenting Time Best Interests of the Child

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.D.L.

Claimant

P.T.M.

Respondent

E.K.M.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Custody and Access / Interim Application Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to implement a s.15 custody and access report on an interim basis before trial
  2. 2 Whether the s.15 report is reliable absent cross-examination and disclosure of foundation materials
  3. 3 Whether implementation would effect a significant change to the status quo and disrupt the child

Ratio Decidendi

The application to implement the s.15 recommendations was dismissed because material contradictions between parties' affidavits remained unresolved, the report had not been tested by cross‑examination or peer review and omitted expected collateral interviews, and immediate implementation would effect a change to the agreed status quo with potential undue disruption to the child given the trial was five months away; accordingly the existing interim parenting arrangement was re‑implemented.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application dismissed

Orders

  • Re-implement parties' amended custody and access agreement
  • Child to continue to reside primarily with the respondent on an interim basis