“Section 30(1) of the CLRA provides that the court “by order, may appoint a person who has technical or professional skill to assess and report to the court on the needs of the child and the ability and willingness of the parties or any of them to satisfy the needs of the child”.
Furthermore, the court will choose and appoint the assessor in the absence of agreement by the parties (s. 30(3), CLRA).
The proposed assessor must first consent to make the appointment and agree to make a report within the period of time specified by court order (s.30(4)).
The persons, including the parties and child, must attend for the assessment as provided by court order (s. 30(5), CLRA).
The resulting assessment report will then be admissible as evidence in the proceeding (s. 30(9), CLRA).
The court has considerable discretion in ordering and apportioning the assessor’s fees as between the parties and may relieve one party from paying any portion if it will cause serious undue hardship (s. 30(12) – (14), CLRA).
In the oft-cited case of Glick v Cale, 2013 ONSC 893, 48 RFL (7th) 435, at para. 48, Kiteley J. provided a non-exhaustive list of questions to inform this analysis. Both parties used these factors as a roadmap for their respective submissions. In that decision, at para. 21, Kiteley J., quoting the Divisional Court decision rendered in Linton v. Clarke, 21 OR (3d) 568, 1994 CanLII 8894 (ON SCDC), and Baillie v. Baillie, 2012 ONSC 3728, noted that s. 30 assessments are not to be made as a matter of routine for resolving parenting disputes but rather should be restricted to situations in which assessments can provide expert evidence to address “the emotional and psychological stress within the family unit in the final determination of custody”.
As most recently noted by the Court of Appeal in A.C.V.P. v A.M.P., 2022 ONCA 283 at para. 30, “there are no hard and fast rules in determining whether to order an assessment under s. 30 of the CLRA; rather, the inquiry is fact-driven and flexible”.
In L.T.C. v D.P., 2021 ONSC 7806, at para. 12, the court ordered a s. 30 assessment in view of the significant behavioural issues of the child and the fact that the parents accused each other of behaving inappropriately with the child. In that case the court required a clinical assessment to determine what parenting arrangements are in the child’s best interests “as well as the manner of implementing them in the least disruptive fashion given his diagnosis”.”