Cases subsequent to these early decisions have followed the reasoning in L.J.R.: In A.J.D. v. E.A.E., 2013 BCSC 2160; Pepin v. McCormack, 2014 BCSC 2230; and C.A.P. v. M.S.P., 2015 BCSC 183. In A.J.D., Harris J., despite having some of the same concerns as expressed in S.J.F., concluded (at para. 31) that “the principles of statutory interpretation would not generally support limiting the interpretation of orders to exclude interim orders” since the legislative scheme does not distinguish between interim and final orders or agreements.
"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.