K.C.M. v. S.J.S.

K.C.M. v. S.J.S.

The court applied a best‑interests analysis under the Divorce Act, found that formal notice shortcomings were not fatal because the respondent was aware and not prejudiced, concluded both parties bore the evidentiary burden under s.16.93(3), and held that permanent relocation to D'Arcy is in the children's best interests; the interim Schultes order is terminated and a detailed parenting time schedule, a vaccination authorization for child J., a conduct order, and an order for costs to the claimant were made.

Citation
2023 BCSC 435
Parties
Claimant: K.C.M.; Respondent: S.J.S.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Relocation Under the Divorce Act / Trial — Final Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Application to permanently relocate granted; interim Schultes Order terminated; detailed parenting time schedule, vaccination authorization for child J., conduct order issued; costs awarded to claimant on ordinary scale (not payable forthwith).
Legal Topics
Relocation, Best Interests of the Child, Parenting Time, Notice Requirement, Vaccination Authorization, Conduct Order, Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody and Access Divorce Act Proceedings Relocation Best Interests of the Child Parenting Time Notice Requirement Vaccination Authorization +2 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.C.M.

Claimant

S.J.S.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Relocation Under the Divorce Act / Trial — Final Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relocating parent complied with the Divorce Act notice requirement (s.16.9)
  2. 2 Whether permanent relocation of children to D'Arcy is in their best interests (ss.16 and 16.92)
  3. 3 Allocation/burden of proof under s.16.93 given competing interim orders

Ratio Decidendi

The court applied a best‑interests analysis under the Divorce Act, found that formal notice shortcomings were not fatal because the respondent was aware and not prejudiced, concluded both parties bore the evidentiary burden under s.16.93(3), and held that permanent relocation to D'Arcy is in the children's best interests; the interim Schultes order is terminated and a detailed parenting time schedule, a vaccination authorization for child J., a conduct order, and an order for costs to the claimant were made.

Court Disposition

Application to permanently relocate granted; interim Schultes Order terminated; detailed parenting time schedule, vaccination authorization for child J., conduct order issued; costs awarded to claimant on ordinary scale (not payable forthwith).

Orders

  • Schultes interim order terminated.
  • Primary residence: children to primarily reside with Claimant K.C.M. in D'Arcy.