Is a Master's decision on interim custody and access matters purely interlocutory or raise questions which are vital to the final issue in the case?

There is no absolute rule about whether masters’ decisions on interim custody and access matters are purely interlocutory or raise questions which are vital to the final issue in the case. In Thibeault v. Ravelo, [1999] B.C.J. No. 1457 (S.C.), Meiklem J. wrote (at para. 15) as follows: 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.