M.T. v. R.A.

M.T. v. R.A.

A s.211 assessment of the child's needs and the parents' ability and willingness to meet those needs if relocation occurs is necessary because relocation to Victoria could profoundly affect the child's well-being and disrupt established parenting; the professional evidence is required to inform a decision under s.69, but a specific assessment of the child's views under s.211(1)(b) is not ordered due to the child's young age; the s.69 relocation application will proceed summarily after the s.211 report, with the court retaining discretion to refer to trial if the report reveals issues unsuited to summary disposition.

Citation
2014 BCSC 795
Parties
Claimant: M.T. also known as M.A.; Respondent: R.A.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Relocation (s.69 Family Law Act) / Interim Application in Chambers; S.211 Assessment Ordered; S.69 Hearing Adjourned to Be Determined Summarily After Report
Outcome
Ordered s.211 assessment of the child's needs and parents' ability/willingness to meet them; declined to order a specific assessment of the child's views; s.69 hearing to proceed summarily after receipt of report; interim non-relocation until further agreement or order; parties to agree assessor within ten days;...
Legal Topics
Relocation/mobility, S.211 Assessment, Best Interests of the Child, Summary Determination Under S.69
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody and Guardianship Procedural Law Relocation/mobility S.211 Assessment Best Interests of the Child Summary Determination Under S.69

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.T. also known as M.A.

Claimant

R.A.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Relocation (s.69 Family Law Act) / Interim Application in Chambers; S.211 Assessment Ordered; S.69 Hearing Adjourned to Be Determined Summarily After Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit relocation of the child to Victoria
  2. 2 Whether to order a s.211 assessment of the child's needs and the parents' ability and willingness to meet them
  3. 3 Whether the s.69 relocation application should be determined summarily or referred to trial

Ratio Decidendi

A s.211 assessment of the child's needs and the parents' ability and willingness to meet those needs if relocation occurs is necessary because relocation to Victoria could profoundly affect the child's well-being and disrupt established parenting; the professional evidence is required to inform a decision under s.69, but a specific assessment of the child's views under s.211(1)(b) is not ordered due to the child's young age; the s.69 relocation application will proceed summarily after the s.211 report, with the court retaining discretion to refer to trial if the report reveals issues unsuited to summary disposition.

Court Disposition

Ordered s.211 assessment of the child's needs and parents' ability/willingness to meet them; declined to order a specific assessment of the child's views; s.69 hearing to proceed summarily after receipt of report; interim non-relocation until further agreement or order; parties to agree assessor within ten days;...

Orders

  • Order for a s.211 assessment of the needs of the child and the ability and willingness of the parents to satisfy those needs if relocation to Victoria occurs (pursuant to ss.211(1)(a) and (c))
  • No order for a specific assessment of the child's views under s.211(1)(b), but assessor may explore the child's views to the extent necessary to assess needs