Case summary: K.M.P. v A.E.J

Case summary of K.M.P. v A.E.J, 2020 BCSC 1916

The case centers around a dispute over parenting time of their 30-month-old son, with K.M.P. seeking to vary the parenting time of A.E.J. and requesting that the parties attend conflict coaching sessions. Additionally, K.M.P. seeks to revisit the parenting schedule at a mediation one year from any order issued in this application.

However, shortly before the hearing of this application, it was brought to the attention of the judge that a colleague had previously heard an adjournment application from the parties and expressed concern over the court's jurisdiction to hear the matter. This was due to the fact that the British Columbia Supreme Court had already sat as an appellate court in this matter, with one of its judges having granted an appeal of orders made following a trial in the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

The judge ultimately concludes that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this application, citing section 194 of the Family Law Act, which states that the starting of a proceeding in one court does not prevent the starting of a second proceeding in the other court, unless the relief applied for in the second proceeding has already been granted or refused in the first proceeding. The judge also cites the legal doctrine of judicial comity, which recognizes and enforces legal decisions of other courts as a matter of courtesy or reciprocity, but not necessarily as a matter of law.

Overall, the case provides insight into the complexities of family law disputes and the importance of understanding court jurisdiction when seeking legal resolution. It also highlights the narrow scope of appellate review in family matters and the high standard of review required for intervention by an appellate court.

Full text available at: https://canlii.ca/t/jc15l