- Parties: The appellant was M.P.S. The respondents were the Director under the Child, Family, Community Service Act and S.M. 

- Subject Matter: The appellant and her spouse S.M. had two children, who were 16 and 14 years old, respectively. S.M. was arrested for charges of historical sexual offences. The Director, involved in developing safety plans for the children, brought an interim supervision application. A Provincial Court judge issued an interim order for the children to remain in the appellant’s custody under certain terms and conditions and under the Director’s supervision, pending a protection hearing. The appellant appealed. 

- Ruling: The court ruled in the respondents’ favour and dismissed the appeal of the interim order. The court accepted that the reasons were brief but found no legal errors on the part of the application judge. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the reasons clearly showed that the application judge acted on a wrong principle or was otherwise clearly wrong. The court held that the application judge considered the correct legal principles and test, the limited evidence before him, and the submissions. The court found the application judge entitled to accept the Director’s proposal as appropriate. The court added that the application judge correctly summarized the applicable law and addressed the applicable evidentiary principles. 

- Date: The court released its decision on Feb. 7, 2025. 

- Venue: This was a case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. 

- Amount: The court made no costs order.