The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for the appointment of an assessor and costs of the assessment pursuant to section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.
The parties are parents of a nine-year-old child with diagnosed ADHD and Adjustment Disorder.
The applicant argued that a section 30 assessment was necessary because the prior Office of the Children's Lawyer report did not include direct communication with the child's psychiatrist.
The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the OCL report was comprehensive and that subjecting the child to another assessment would not be in the child's best interests.
The court denied the motion, finding that the OCL report adequately addressed the child's clinical needs and that the applicant's true objective appeared to be obtaining a report favourable to her position.
