A separation rarely produces one neat dispute. Parenting arrangements, income, support, disclosure and property division may all move at different speeds. One parent may want a stable schedule now, while the other says nothing should be finalized until the financial issues are resolved.

Must the child wait for the entire case to finish? Not necessarily. In Stewart v Richardson, 2026 BCCA 362, released on September 1, 2026, the Court of Appeal upheld a parenting decision made while financial matters remained outstanding. The reasons explain why separating the issues was appropriate on that record—and why the result is not a universal rule that parenting must always be decided first.

The family had an order, but the expected parenting review was delayed

The parents separated in 2019 when their child was young. A final consent order made in 2021 dealt with financial and parenting matters. The child primarily lived with the mother, and a later review of parenting time was contemplated. That review did not proceed as originally expected.

The family experienced continuing conflict. A parenting coordinator was appointed and later withdrew. A report under section 211 of the Family Law Act was prepared in October 2024. It recommended shared parenting time and that the father have final decision-making authority.

In June 2025, the parenting issues were heard by summary trial. The resulting order provided for equal parenting time and gave the father final decision-making authority. Financial applications remained unresolved.

The mother appealed. Among other arguments, she said the parenting issues should not have been decided through summary trial before the financial matters were addressed. She also challenged aspects of the court's treatment of the evidence, including the parenting assessment and family-violence concerns.

What did the Court of Appeal decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The court found no basis to interfere with the decision to proceed by summary trial or with the resulting parenting order.

An important point was that the outstanding financial matters did not prevent the judge from deciding the parenting issues before the court. The child needed greater finality after a delayed review and continuing conflict. The court also noted that resolving the parenting schedule could help clarify the parties' support positions.

The decision did not say that financial circumstances can never affect parenting. Housing, work schedules, transportation and a child's needs may create genuine overlap in another case. The point was that there was no sufficient legal or evidentiary reason to insist on finishing the financial dispute first in this one.

A summary trial is still an evidence-based decision

A summary trial can allow the court to decide an issue without a conventional trial with all evidence given orally. It is not a lighter standard of proof or permission to decide a parenting dispute on impressions alone.

The court must be able to find the facts necessary to decide the issues, and proceeding in that way must not be unjust. Conflicting evidence does not automatically make summary trial inappropriate, but some conflicts, credibility questions or gaps may mean that a fuller trial is needed.

Stewart also illustrates the importance of bringing the evidence and procedural requests needed for the hearing actually scheduled. A party opposing summary determination should explain what material facts cannot fairly be decided, what evidence is missing and why that matters. A general preference to deal with the entire case together may not be enough.

What the parenting report did—and did not—decide

A section 211 assessment can address a child's needs and views and the parties' ability and willingness to meet those needs. It can be important evidence, particularly in a difficult parenting dispute.

But the report is not the court order. The judge remains responsible for the decision and must assess the report with the other relevant evidence and the governing best-interests test. In Stewart, the appeal court did not accept the argument that the trial decision improperly rested on the report or failed to address the relevant concerns.

If you disagree with an assessment, identify the specific factual or methodological issue and the evidence supporting your position. Simply saying that the assessor preferred the other parent is unlikely to explain why the recommendation should not be followed.

This is not a presumption of equal parenting

The equal-time arrangement upheld in Stewart was the result reached for this child on this record. It is not a rule that each parent is entitled to half the time or that one schedule is best for all children.

The court's focus remains the child's best interests, including safety and the impact of family violence where relevant. A parent's wish to accelerate or delay financial negotiations should not be used as a substitute for that analysis. Nor should the judgment be read as allowing safety concerns to be set aside for administrative convenience.

An appeal is also not a second opportunity to present the same parenting dispute from the beginning. The appeal court applies the relevant standards of review; it does not simply choose the arrangement it might have preferred. New circumstances may require advice about a variation application rather than an attempt to reargue the original evidence on appeal.

Questions to ask before separating the issues

  • What concrete decision does the child need now: a schedule, decision-making arrangement, travel term or another order?
  • Is the evidence sufficient to decide that issue fairly, including any safety concerns?
  • Which unresolved financial issues genuinely affect the proposed parenting arrangements?
  • Would an interim order, a focused final determination or a conventional trial be the appropriate route?
  • What disclosure, assessment, witness evidence or procedural step is still necessary?

These questions help turn a broad disagreement about timing into a workable litigation plan. The goal is not to split a case for its own sake, but to identify whether a child-focused issue can responsibly move forward.

The takeaway

Stewart v Richardson confirms that unresolved property or support matters do not automatically prevent a parenting decision. What matters is the connection between the issues, the adequacy of the evidence, procedural fairness and the child's interests.

Sinclair Centre Law LLP can help assess parenting applications, the timing of related financial issues and the evidence needed for a focused hearing in British Columbia. Contact our Vancouver office at 604-210-2009 to discuss your circumstances.

This article provides general information, not legal advice. The case summary describes the September 1, 2026 appeal decision and does not predict the appropriate parenting arrangement in another family.

References