Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court found a material change based on the respondent’s move to Kimberley and ordered interim week-on/week-off parenting, with child support adjourned pending disclosure.
The fresh evidence (psychologist and amicus meeting) satisfied the requirement to attempt to ascertain the adult child's views and rebut the presumption of capacity could not be met because the child's preferences were not reliably ascertainable; the trial judge did not err in ordering supervised access given the father's history and risk, but erred by failing to include a built-in review mechanism for potential future unsupervised access; appeal allowed in part and matter remitted to the trial judge to structure a review within 12 months of this decision.
Source excerpt
On appeal from a family law arbitration award, the Court confirmed most of the relocation order to Rome but set aside the school-selection term for lack of jurisdiction.
The court denied a relocation request from Dawson Creek to Salmon Arm, finding the children’s best interests were better served by remaining in Dawson Creek.
The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge applied correct legal principles, made factual findings on credibility, communication and cooperation that were supported by the record and not palpably and overridingly erroneous; shared parenting was not in the children's best interests on the evidence; the unjust enrichment remedy properly considered mutual benefits and did not require division of the respondent's pension/RRSP/TFSA; and the costs award was a lawful exercise of discretion given the parties' relative success and settlement history.
Source excerpt
The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made unimpeachable findings, correctly applied the applicable legal principles including consideration of the reasons for relocation under the amended CLRA, and that the Superior Court erred by reweighing the factual record and maximum contact considerations; the relocation order was therefore restored with a variation to winter access and costs substituted in the mother's favour.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge properly made extensive factual findings rejecting the foundation of the OCL recommendations, correctly applied the maximum contact principle without treating it as a presumption of equal time, appropriately discounted the children's views given the appellant's conduct, had jurisdiction to make the parenting and decision-making allocation despite an earlier order, reasonably awarded costs to the respondent for the appellant's conduct, and correctly refused admission of the late fresh evidence; costs on the appeal fixed at $18,000 to the responde…
Source excerpt
A BC Supreme Court family decision on jurisdiction and child relocation, finding no consent to move the child to Calgary and ordering return to British Columbia.
The application to expand access is dismissed because the applicant did not establish the requisite material or pivotal change in circumstances since the Court of Appeal order; alternatively, on the merits the evidence demonstrates that increased access would not be in the best interests of the children given their ages, maturity, expressed wishes (lack of response), and stable, supportive living arrangements; existing corollary relief orders and Court of Appeal provisions remain in force, including restriction on access to third-party records; costs awarded and a 12‑month bar on filing a not…
Source excerpt
The court applied Gordon v. Goertz, found a material change (mother’s relationship and relocation) and conducted a fresh best‑interests analysis; although both parents were highly capable and mother had been primary caregiver, the father had substantial parenting time since 2018, strong local supports and could better ensure maximum ongoing contact and minimize disruption. Weighing these factors, the child’s best interests required primary care to be awarded to the father with access to the mother per the negotiated schedule.
Source excerpt
Explore more
