Cases tagged as Best Interests of Child
Brothers v Kirwan, 2025 ABCA 372025
Counsel of Record: Yasemin Shihab Ahmed
Case Summary: Yasemin Shihab Ahmed successfully represented the appellant mother in a significant Alberta Court of Appeal case that reinforced the principle of finality in family law decisions.
The case involved a relocation application by the mother, who sought to move with her young son to Nova Scotia to be closer to her family and pursue post-secondary education. Her application was initially denied in 2023 and the hearing judge requested that the mother provide further financial and childcare information. This led to a second hearing in 2024 where the decision largely reaffirmed the original ruling.
Yasemin argued on appeal that the judge had exceeded her jurisdiction by reviewing a final decision and was functus officio. The Court of Appeal agreed that the process was improper and there was no justification for a review, especially of a final decision. The court set aside the 2024 decision; however, they declined to order a de novo hearing, affirming the 2023 decision, and denying the application.
B.D.K. v D.M.W., 2024 BCSC 23852024
Counsel of Record: Cori Molloy
Case Summary: Cori Molloy successfully represented the claimant father in this groundbreaking family law case, securing an increase in parenting time. This landmark decision—the first in BC to consider a multi-parent agreement—reflects the evolving dynamics of Canadian families and reinforces that a child’s best interests are served by fostering relationships with all of their parents.
The case presented unique challenges, with the claimant facing opposition from two aligned parents. Despite the complexities, Cori effectively advocated for the claimant’s role in the child’s life. A key aspect of the case was the court’s decision to deny the respondent’s request for a section 211 report, often considered the “eyes and ears” of the court in parenting matters. The judge ruled that the request was an “attempt to create parenting controversies where none exist,” setting a significant precedent that may deter the misuse of such reports as litigation tactics in future cases.
