J.D.D. v. S.W.

J.D.D. v. S.W.

On the evidence before the court the claimant did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent was likely to commit family violence warranting a protection order; MCFD had closed its file and the specific allegations were neither sufficiently proven nor persuasive. Because Thailand is not covered by the Hague Convention as between Canada and Thailand, a mutual non-removal order prohibiting either party from removing the child from the Lower Mainland without the other's written consent or further court order was necessary. Exclusive occupancy was adjourned because an interim parenting arrangement and adequate financial evidence are prerequisites to the balance of...

Citation
2025 BCSC 1938
Parties
Claimant: J.D.D.; Respondent: S.W.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Protection, Non Removal and Exclusive Occupancy Application / Interim Application Hearing (oral Reasons)
Outcome
Application partially granted and partially dismissed: non-removal order granted (mutual); protection order dismissed; exclusive occupancy adjourned; interim stopgap parenting orders granted; police enforcement requests dismissed; parties ordered to bear their own costs.
Legal Topics
Protection Orders, Non Removal/relocation, Exclusive Occupancy, Interim Parenting Time, MCFD Involvement, Police Enforcement, Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Protection International Child Abduction Protection Orders Non Removal/relocation Exclusive Occupancy Interim Parenting Time MCFD Involvement +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.D.D.

Claimant

S.W.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Protection, Non Removal and Exclusive Occupancy Application / Interim Application Hearing (oral Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether family violence by the respondent is likely and whether claimant and child are at-risk family members
  2. 2 Whether a protection order under the Family Law Act is warranted
  3. 3 Whether the child may be removed/relocated to Thailand and whether non-removal orders are necessary

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence before the court the claimant did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent was likely to commit family violence warranting a protection order; MCFD had closed its file and the specific allegations were neither sufficiently proven nor persuasive. Because Thailand is not covered by the Hague Convention as between Canada and Thailand, a mutual non-removal order prohibiting either party from removing the child from the Lower Mainland without the other's written consent or further court order was necessary. Exclusive occupancy was adjourned because an interim parenting arrangement and adequate financial evidence are prerequisites to the balance of...

Court Disposition

Application partially granted and partially dismissed: non-removal order granted (mutual); protection order dismissed; exclusive occupancy adjourned; interim stopgap parenting orders granted; police enforcement requests dismissed; parties ordered to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • Mutual non-removal/relocation order: neither party shall remove the child from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia or relocate the child without the prior written consent of the other party or further court order.
  • Protection order application dismissed.