J.S. v. S.S.

J.S. v. S.S.

Given unresolved and conflicting affidavit evidence about alleged sexual touching and family violence, the s.211 report was insufficient to resolve credibility issues and no material change or new evidence related to the child's best interests justified terminating supervision; therefore the supervision order should...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 BCSC 865
Parties
Claimant: J.S.; Respondent: S.S.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Law Parenting/access Dispute / Interim Application to Vary Supervision Order (s.216) Pending Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed; supervision order remains in effect until 4 PM on July 31, 2017; trial date is pre-emptory.
Legal Topics
Supervised Access, Variation of Interim Order, Best Interests of the Child, Family Violence, S.211 Family Report, Police Enforcement
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Protection Civil Procedure Evidence Supervised Access Variation of Interim Order Best Interests of the Child Family Violence +2 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.S.

Claimant

S.S.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Parenting/access Dispute / Interim Application to Vary Supervision Order (s.216) Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supervision order should be vacated or varied pending trial
  2. 2 Whether the applicant satisfied s.216(3) by showing a material change in circumstances or new substantial evidence
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of sexual abuse to the child if access is unsupervised

Ratio Decidendi

Given unresolved and conflicting affidavit evidence about alleged sexual touching and family violence, the s.211 report was insufficient to resolve credibility issues and no material change or new evidence related to the child's best interests justified terminating supervision; therefore the supervision order should remain in force pending the upcoming trial to protect the child's safety and ensure issues are resolved with viva voce evidence and cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; supervision order remains in effect until 4 PM on July 31, 2017; trial date is pre-emptory.

Orders

  • Terms of supervision of the interim order of Mr. Justice Joyce of June 18, 2015 remain in effect until 4 PM on July 31, 2017
  • Access may be supervised by N., the claimant's father, or any responsible adult nominated by the claimant