The respondent father brought a motion for a psycho-educational assessment of the child, Jesse, to inform a future summary judgment motion regarding Jesse's schooling.
The applicant mother opposed the assessment, citing concerns about its necessity, potential emotional harm, and financial burden.
The court, applying Section 30(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act and relevant case law, found the assessment to be reasonably necessary given the conflicting affidavits and the child's best interests.
The motion was granted, ordering the assessment to proceed, with the father initially responsible for the costs, subject to review by the summary judgment justice.
