Shepherd v. Shepherd
- Citation
- 2000 BCSC 215
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 4 February 2000
- Posture
- Family Law Child Access / Reasons for Judgment / Access Order
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 4 February 2000
- Posture
- Family Law Child Access / Reasons for Judgment / Access Order
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court granted access to the defendant limited to the last week of each month from Thursday to Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., prohibited removal from the Kelowna area, required supervised access by the defendant's mother subject to a signed agreement filed with the court before the first visit, provided for a review initiated by the defendant no sooner than 12 months after the first visit with the last visit before review supervised by an independent expert who must file a report at the defendant's expense, and required the defendant to file an affidavit and supervisor's report regarding probation‑ordered courses; the plaintiff may apply earlier if the child's best interests are compromised or the order is breached.
Court disposition
Access granted subject to specified supervised conditions and review mechanism
Orders
- Access limited to the last week of each month from Thursday to Sunday inclusive from 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
- Bronson shall not be taken out of the Kelowna area during access visits.
- Access shall be supervised; supervision may be by the defendant's mother provided she signs an agreement to be present at all times and that agreement is filed with the court before the first visit.
- A review may be initiated by the defendant no sooner than 12 months after the first access visit.
- The last access visit before any review shall be supervised by an independent expert who, at the defendant's expense, shall prepare and file a report for the court.
- The defendant shall file an affidavit detailing courses ordered as a result of his probation, records of attendance and a supervisor's report on his progress.
- The plaintiff may apply for an earlier review if she believes Bronson's best interests are being compromised or the order has been breached.
02
Material facts
Parties
Tamara Lee Shepherd
Plaintiff Counsel: S. WilsonRodney John Shepherd
Defendant Counsel: C. Heinrichs03
Procedural history
Posture
Family Law Child Access / Reasons for Judgment / Access Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendant should have access to the parties' son Bronson and on what terms
- 02
Whether access must be supervised and who may supervise
- 03
Whether to limit travel during access
- 04
Whether to provide for periodic review and reporting to the court
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff argued that any access must be supervised, time‑limited, restricted to the Kelowna area and subject to court review to protect Bronson's best interests.
- Respondent
- The defendant sought regular access and proposed supervision by his mother; he sought to establish visitation subject to conditions and to demonstrate rehabilitation through probation‑ordered courses and reports.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law / Family law principles
The paramount consideration is the best interests of the child.
- 02
Court's inherent jurisdiction and family law jurisprudence
Court may impose conditions on access, including supervision and reporting requirements, and set periodic review.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court granted access to the defendant limited to the last week of each month from Thursday to Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., prohibited removal from the Kelowna area, required supervised access by the defendant's mother subject to a signed agreement filed with the court before the first visit, provided for a review initiated by the defendant no sooner than 12 months after the first visit with the last visit before review supervised by an independent expert who must file a report at the defendant's expense, and required the defendant to file an affidavit and supervisor's report regarding probation‑ordered courses; the plaintiff may apply earlier if the child's best interests are compromised or the order is breached.
Court disposition
Access granted subject to specified supervised conditions and review mechanism
- Access limited to the last week of each month from Thursday to Sunday inclusive from 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
- Bronson shall not be taken out of the Kelowna area during access visits.
- Access shall be supervised; supervision may be by the defendant's mother provided she signs an agreement to be present at all times and that agreement is filed with the court before the first visit.
- A review may be initiated by the defendant no sooner than 12 months after the first access visit.
- The last access visit before any review shall be supervised by an independent expert who, at the defendant's expense, shall prepare and file a report for the court.
- The defendant shall file an affidavit detailing courses ordered as a result of his probation, records of attendance and a supervisor's report on his progress.
- The plaintiff may apply for an earlier review if she believes Bronson's best interests are being compromised or the order has been breached.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 4 February 2000
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 4 February 2000
2000 BCSC 0215 Citation: Shepherd v. Shepherd 2000 BCSC 0215 Date: 20000204 Docket No.: 38342 Registry: Kelowna
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN:
TAMARA LEE SHEPHERD
PLAINTIFF AND:
RODNEY JOHN SHEPHERD
DEFENDANT
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THACKRAY Counsel for the Plaintiff: S. Wilson Counsel for the Defendant: C. Heinrichs Dates and Place of Hearing: January 24 and February 3, 2000 Kelowna, B.C. [1] The required directions are as to the logistics of access by Mr. Shepherd to Bronson, a son of the parties. [2] Access is to be, at a maximum, from Thursday to Sunday inclusive, in the last week of each month from 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Bronson shall not be taken out of the Kelowna area. [3] Access is to be supervised. I am agreeable to the supervision being by the defendant's mother. However, she must first sign an agreement that she will, at all times, be present when the defendant is with Bronson. This agreement will be filed with the Court before the first access visit. [4] A review of this access order can be set at the initiation of the defendant, but no sooner than 12 months after the first access visit. The last access visit before such a review will be supervised by an independent party with expertise in these areas. That person shall, at the defendant's expense, prepare and file a report with the Court for review at the hearing. [5] At the hearing the defendant will file an affidavit informing the Court as to what courses have been ordered as a result of his probation, some record of his attendance and a report from some supervisor as to the defendant's progress in the course. [6] The plaintiff may apply for a review if, in her opinion, the best interests of Bronson are being compromised by the visits or if the terms of this order have been breached. "Thackray, J." Thackray, J.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.