What is the standard of review for appeal from a master’s order?

The standard of review with respect to a master’s Order is stated in Abermin Corporation v. Granges Exploration Ltd. et al (1990), 1990 CanLII 1352 (BC SC), 45 B.C.L.R. (2d) 188 (B.C.S.C.) to be as follows: An appeal from the master’s order in a purely interlocutory matter should not be entertained unless the order was clearly wrong. However, where the ruling of the master raises questions which are vital to the final issue in the case, or results in one of those final orders which a master is permitted to make, a rehearing is the appropriate form of appeal. Unless an order for the production of fresh evidence is made, that rehearing will proceed on the basis of the material which was before the master. In those latter situations, even where the exercise of discretion is involved, the view of the judge appealed to may quite properly be substituted for that of the master.

With respect to interim custody matters it was held in Thibeault v. Ravelo, [1999] B.C.J. No. 1457 para. 15: ...there can be no absolute rule that Master’s decisions on interim custody and access matters are purely interlocutory and should not be interfered with on appeal unless established to be clearly wrong. Interim rulings concerning custody of children or access to children must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine if the interim ruling will likely have a direct bearing on the disposition of those issues at trial, bearing in mind the specific issues and the length of time the interim ruling will be in place.