In Kalafchi, Harris J.A. reiterates there is no absolute rule that a master’s decision regarding interim custody and access will invariably be regarded as purely interlocutory and only reviewable if the decision is clearly wrong: Kalafchi at para. 15 citing Thibeault v. Ravelo, [1999] B.C.J. No. 1457 (S.C.). Harris J.A. states, at para. 16, that determining whether an order is interlocutory requires a case-by-case analysis based on the “factual consequences of the order in the context of the case as pleaded” and he later affirms that a rehearing may be warranted in certain circumstances:
"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.