Finally, I agree that the fact that the September 2018 Order provided for a review is not necessarily decisive of the nature of the order. An illustration of this proposition is found in a judgment of Justice Saunders where, in Harras v. Lhotka, 2015 BCCA 329 at paras. 12–16, she concluded that the mere ability to review the amount of child support in the future did not make the order interim, because the court had given a complete answer to the only issue before it.
"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.