A.P. v H.O.

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, nlca, 2026nlca25, 2026 nlca 25 (canlii), 2026, nlca, 25, (canlii), 202501h0077, 2026, family, parenting orders, interim parenting, rule f19.02(3), supreme court family rules, permission to vary interim parenting order, whether there was a compelling change of circumstances, transportation difficulties previously considered on prior leave application, deference to judge on interim parenting matters, appeal dismissed, evidence, appellate review, misapprehension of evidence, whether judge ignored key contradictory evidence, alleged mischaracterisation of new evidence regarding transportation and medical circumstances, assessment of evidence in context of record already before the court, no significant misapprehension found, appeal dismissed, constitution, canadian charter of rights and freedoms, application, whether charter applies to a private parenting dispute, charter ss. 15, 7, 2(d), 24(1) raised on appeal, reliance on p.(d.) v. s.(c.) and young v. young, charter arguments found without legal foundation, appeal dismissed, procedure, appeals, interim orders, standard of review for refusal of permission under rule f19, whether alleged “inconsistent judicial logic” disclosed an error in principle or order clearly wrong, high deference to first instance judge addressing best interests of the child, no reviewable error in reasoning, appeal dismissed