I am mindful that the claimant is to be awarded the primary residence of M. and thus have the final decision-making in respect of her. In these circumstances his views are to be accorded very careful consideration: see A.B. and Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27. In J. V. J., 2007 BCSC 522, the father was to have supervised access and he objected to a specific supervisor who he felt had antipathy towards him. He wished to pay for a professional supervisor, whom the mother objected to on the basis that the supervisor should be someone the daughter already knew (as the daughter didn’t know the father very well). The court decided that the mother’s choice of supervisor should be used, but that once the daughter grew more comfortable with the father, supervision should be eventually phased out.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.