The court dismissed the respondent’s application to vary a consent order, entered the claimant’s proposed order except one paragraph, and awarded special costs from June 6, 2025.
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge properly applied the best interests analysis under s.16, made supported credibility findings against the appellant, and permissibly gave no weight to Dr. Goldstein’s s.30 reports in light of CPSO findings and public undertakings; s.36(3) RHPA does not bar proof that a complaint was made, that an investigation occurred, or that undertakings were given, and those admissible facts justified discounting the assessor’s opinion; no reversible error was shown.