Review of a custody decision

N.E.R. v. J.D.M., 2011 NBCA 57 deals with the standard of reviewing a custody decision:

 

 

 

[9]                                       The standard of review for varying a motion judge’s decision on custody is discussed in P.R.H. v. M.E.L, 2009 NBCA 18 (CanLII), 2009 NBCA 18, 343 N.B.R. (2d) 100:

 

The appropriate standard of review to be applied in an appeal of this nature is discussed in Van de Perre v. Edwards,2001 SCC 60 (CanLII), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1014, [2001] S.C.J. No. 60 (QL), 2001 SCC 60. The Supreme Court of Canada set out a standard of considerable deference for the decisions of trial courts in cases of family law. Intervention on appeal requires that there have been a material error, a serious misapprehension of the evidence, or an error of law. A material error is further explained:

 

As indicated in both Gordon and Hickey, 1999 CanLII 691 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, the approach to appellate review requires an indication of a material error. If there is an indication that the trial judge did not consider relevant factors or evidence, this might indicate that he did not properly weigh all of the factors. In such a case, an appellate court may review the evidence proffered at trial to determine if the trial judge ignored or misdirected himself with respect to relevant evidence. This being said, I repeat that omissions in the reasons will not necessarily mean that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the evidence heard at trial. (para. 15)             

 

Speaking for the Court, Bastarache J. further clarified that "an omission is only a material error if it gives rise to the reasoned belief that the trial judge must have forgotten, ignored or misconceived the evidence in a way that affected his conclusion" (para. 15). See this Court's decisions on the application of the deferential standard: MacLean v. MacLean2004 NBCA 75 (CanLII), (2004), 274 N.B.R. (2d) 90, [2004] N.B.J. No. 363 (QL), 2004 NBCA 75 at para. 18; J.P. v. R.R. (2004), 278 N.B.R. (2d) 351, [2004] N.B.J. No. 467 (QL), 2004 NBCA 98 at para. 27; Scott v. Scott (2004), 278 N.B.R. (2d) 61, [2004] N.B.J. No. 468 (QL), 2004 NBCA 99 at para. 32 and Boudreau v. Brun2005 NBCA 106 (CanLII), (2005), 293 N.B.R. (2d) 126, [2005] N.B.J. No. 501 (QL), 2005 NBCA 106 at para. 5.  [paras. 8-9]