Background
Carla Maria Wood and Sean Keith Wood separated in 2021 after a 15-year marriage and have two teenage children. Following a 17-day trial, the British Columbia Supreme Court ordered equal parenting time and shared parental responsibilities. In a later post-trial decision, the trial judge changed the arrangements for the older child but retained the week-on, week-off schedule for the younger child, D.J.
In May 2026, the mother filed a second post-trial application seeking an interim reduction in the father’s parenting time with D.J. A chambers judge found the evidence insufficient to vary the trial order at that stage. Rather than dismissing the application, the judge directed the parties to retain a therapist for D.J., restricted their communications with the therapist, and adjourned the balance of the application generally so that counselling could begin and further information could be obtained.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that leave to appeal was required. The challenged order was a limited appeal order because it concerned interim relief under the Family Law Act and granted an adjournment, both categories prescribed by the Court of Appeal Rules. The mother had also expressly characterized the parenting variation she sought as interim.
The Court denied leave. The chambers judge’s decision was highly discretionary and entitled to deference, and the proposed appeal had little merit. Read as a whole, the proceeding showed that the judge considered D.J.’s best interests, responded to the mother’s immediate concerns by arranging therapeutic support, and reasonably sought a fuller evidentiary record before deciding whether to vary parenting time. The trial court remained the more appropriate forum for the issue.
Key Takeaways
- An order dealing with interim family-law relief or granting an adjournment is a limited appeal order in British Columbia and cannot be appealed without leave.
- A court may adjourn a parenting-variation application and direct therapeutic intervention when the existing evidence does not justify changing a final parenting order.
- Leave is unlikely where the challenged case-management decision is discretionary, reasonable, and designed to obtain better evidence concerning the child’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the appellate deference given to trial judges managing urgent and fact-intensive parenting disputes. A refusal to vary parenting arrangements immediately does not necessarily mean that a child’s concerns were disregarded, particularly when the judge preserves the application, orders interim support, and invites the parties to return with more complete information.
It also cautions litigants to determine whether a family-law order is appealable as of right. Characterizing requested relief as interim—and appealing an order that adjourns rather than finally resolves it—will generally trigger British Columbia’s leave requirement.