Grandparents' Rights in BC: No Leave Requirement, But No Automatic Rights Either

British Columbia grandparents have no automatic right to see a grandchild, but the Family Law Act does not make them ask the court's permission before applying for contact, unlike Alberta and the federal Divorce Act. The only gate that governs a BC contact application is whether contact is in the child's best interests.

Information last verified on 2026-08-16. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

This article covers how a grandparent applies for contact with a grandchild in British Columbia under sections 58 and 59 of the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25. It does not cover guardianship applications, adoption, or child protection proceedings under separate legislation. For the national picture, including the federal Divorce Act route and how other provinces compare, see grandparents' rights in Canada. For a jurisdiction with a materially different, leave-based structure, see grandparents' rights in Alberta.

BC Does Not Give Grandparents Automatic Contact

No provision of the Family Law Act hands a grandparent a standing right to see a grandchild. A grandparent still has to apply to the court, or reach a voluntary agreement with the child's guardian, and any order is decided against the same best-interests standard that applies to every contact matter under the Act. Where BC differs from Alberta and the federal Divorce Act is procedural, not substantive: it removes a threshold permission step, not the merits test itself.

No Leave Step: BC's Structural Contrast With Alberta and the Federal Act

"59(2) The court may grant contact to any person who is not a guardian, including, without limiting the meaning of 'person' in any other provision of this Act or a regulation made under it, to a parent or grandparent."

Section 59 lets the court grant contact to any non-guardian, naming grandparents explicitly, and it does so without a separate permission-to-apply step of the kind Alberta's Family Law Act builds into section 35 or the federal Divorce Act builds into section 16.5. Neither section 58 (private agreements) nor section 59 (court orders) contains any leave or permission language anywhere in the text.

That conclusion is a negative inference, not a quoted rule, and it is worth stating carefully: the Act does not contain a sentence that says grandparents do not need leave. The finding rests on the fact that the entire "contact with a child" division has no leave clause at all, in direct contrast to Alberta's explicit section 35(2)/(3) leave structure and the federal Act's explicit section 16.5(3) leave requirement, both of which use plain leave-of-the-court language when the drafters intended a permission step. Since the same modern drafting convention shows up elsewhere in BC's own Family Law Act when a leave requirement is intended, its absence from sections 58 and 59 is a sound basis for concluding no such step applies to contact applications, including a grandparent's. A BC grandparent applies for a contact order the same way any other applicant does: the only gate is the best-interests merits test in section 37, not a separate threshold hearing.

Two Paths to Contact: Agreement or Court Order

BC structures grandparent contact around two distinct routes, laid out side by side in the same division of the Act.

"58. A child's guardian and a person who is not a child's guardian may make an agreement respecting contact."

Section 58 lets a guardian and a grandparent simply agree to contact without involving a court at all. This is a materially lower-friction option than anything available under Alberta's Family Law Act, which structures section 35 only as a court-order mechanism.

"59(1) On application, the court may make an order respecting contact with a child."

Section 59(2), already quoted above, adds that the court may grant contact to any person who is not a guardian, naming a parent or grandparent specifically. Section 59 is the court-order path, used when a private agreement is not possible or not workable. Either way, the same best-interests standard under section 37 governs whether contact is appropriate and on what terms.

Best Interests: The Sole Test Under Section 37

"37(1) In making an agreement or order under this Part respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with a child, the parties and the court must consider the best interests of the child only. (3) An agreement or order is not in the best interests of a child unless it protects, to the greatest extent possible, the child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being."

Section 37(2) then sets out the factors that inform that test, including the child's health and emotional well-being, the child's views where appropriate to consider them, the nature and strength of the child's relationships with significant people in the child's life, the history of the child's care, the child's need for stability given age and stage of development, each person's ability to exercise the responsibilities in question, the impact of any family violence on the child's safety and well-being, and any relevant civil or criminal proceeding. The topic list and numbered structure of section 37(2) are confirmed from the primary source, but this article does not present that list as a certified, word-for-word quote of every sub-clause; treat it as a summary of confirmed content rather than a verbatim block quote. Section 37(4) limits the court to considering a person's conduct only where it substantially affects one of these factors.

Which Court Hears a BC Contact Application

The Family Law Act defines "court" to mean "(a) the Supreme Court, or (b) to the extent that it has jurisdiction to make an order, the Provincial Court." That definition contemplates both courts as potential fora for a contact matter, but it makes Provincial Court jurisdiction conditional on a boundary the definition itself does not spell out. This article does not confirm the precise jurisdictional line for Provincial Court in contact applications specifically, since that would require opening the Provincial Court Act or the relevant court rules, which were not reviewed for this article. Confirm with the court registry or a family law lawyer which court is the right venue before filing.

Is Mediation Required Before Applying?

The Family Law Act's own purpose section states that it aims "to encourage parties to a family law dispute to resolve the dispute through agreements and appropriate family dispute resolution before making an application to a court," and a family dispute resolution professional has a duty to assess for family violence and discuss dispute-resolution options with a party. Section 9 goes further and states that parties "must comply with any requirements set out in the regulations respecting mandatory family dispute resolution or prescribed procedures," which means any hard, mandatory precondition would come from regulations under the Act rather than from the Act's own text. This article did not review those regulations, so it does not state whether a mandatory dispute-resolution step in fact applies before a contact application can be filed. Treat mediation as strongly encouraged, and as something a lawyer or dispute-resolution professional must discuss with you, without treating it as a confirmed hard requirement in every case.

The Federal Divorce Act Route Is Narrower Than It Sounds

A BC grandparent whose adult child is going through a divorce may hear that the federal Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), also allows a non-spouse to apply for contact. Section 16.5(1) allows "a person other than a spouse" to apply for an order providing for contact with a child of the marriage, which covers grandparents without requiring proof they stood in the place of a parent. But section 16.5(3) requires leave of the court for every application, unlike BC's own no-leave structure, and section 16.5(4) directs the court to weigh whether the grandparent could reasonably get contact through a cooperative parent's own parenting time instead. The Divorce Act contact mechanism also only exists inside a corollary relief or variation proceeding between the child's own parents, meaning their own divorce case. A grandparent whose adult child was never married, or whose adult child's marriage is not the subject of a divorce or variation proceeding, has no Divorce Act route and must rely on the provincial Family Law Act instead.

Practical Considerations Before Applying

Removing the leave step lowers BC's procedural bar, but it does not lower the stakes of the underlying dispute. A contact application, or even a request to formalize a private agreement, is still a step taken against, or at least directed at, the child's own guardians, and it carries real relationship costs and the possibility of a costs award if a court application is unsuccessful. This article did not confirm any specific mandatory mediation or case-conference requirement for grandparent contact matters, so build in time to explore direct discussion, a family dispute resolution professional, or mediation before filing, and to consult a lawyer licensed in British Columbia about which court is appropriate and what the current process actually requires.

Disclaimer

This article is informational only and is not legal advice. Its conclusion that no leave requirement applies to grandparent contact applications in BC is drawn from the absence of leave language in sections 58 and 59, not from an explicit statutory sentence stating that no leave is required; it does not quote the full, word-for-word text of every section 37(2) factor, since the source extraction confirmed the topic list and structure but not certified verbatim wording of each sub-clause. It does not confirm the exact jurisdictional boundary between the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court for contact applications specifically, and it does not confirm whether any regulation under section 9 imposes a mandatory family dispute resolution step before a contact application can be filed. It also does not cite any specific BC court decision on grandparent contact, because no such judgment was opened from a primary or court-hosted source for this article. Confirm current requirements and how the law applies to your situation with a lawyer licensed in British Columbia before relying on anything described here.