R.K.C. v G.S.A., 2012 ABQB 614

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R.K.C. v G.S.A., 2012 ABQB 614 Date: 20121002 Docket: 4801 146642 Registry: Calgary Between: R.K.C. Plaintiff - and - G.S.A. Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice K.D. Yamauchi _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] This case was presented to this Court over a period of 11 days. The parties provided extensive written briefs and oral arguments following the hearing. [ 2 ] At issue are the primary residence of and access to a two-year old child.

The Defendant father lives in Burnaby, British Columbia and the Plaintiff mother lives in Calgary, Alberta. Although there are many questions that arise out of this case involving the parents’ work situations and various understandings that they had pre-marriage, during the marriage, and after the child was born, this Court’s role is to determine the primary issues based on the best interests of the child. How the parents resolve their other differences is not before this Court and this Court does not intend to weigh in on those issues and how it thinks the parents should resolve them.

[ 3 ] This Court received reports from the following experts: (

a) the court-appointed expert, Dr. Larry Krywaniuk (along with his follow-up report); (

b) Evelyn Wotherspoon, who provided a critique of Dr. Krywaniuk’s first report; (

c) Dr. Stephen Carter, who provided a critique of Ms. Wotherspoon’s report; and (

d) Dr. Jeff Chang, who provided a critique of Dr. Krywaniuk’s first report. II. Salient Facts [ 4 ] The parties met over the Internet in the Fall of 2005. At the time they met, the mother lived in Calgary, Alberta and the father lived in Langley, British Columbia. The mother continued to live in Calgary with her parents and the father in Langley with his parents and sister. The father and his family eventually moved to Burnaby. [ 5 ] The mother stopped her communication with the father as she was concerned about the father’s age. He is nine years older than she. They reconnected in 2006.

From that time to 2009, the parties maintained a long-distance relationship, each travelling to and from the other’s city. [ 6 ] The parties married in New Westminster, British Columbia on August 22, 2009. [ 7 ] The mother continued to live in Calgary until just before the birth of the parties’ child. The child was born in Burnaby on August 2, 2010. [ 8 ] The parties separated on October 16, 2010, according to the mother, and on January 8, 2011, according to the father. [ 9 ] Neither party intends to move to the other’s city at this time.

Thus, other than having the child travel from province to province, a shared-parenting arrangement, where the child spends equal time with each parent, might prove unworkable. This Court will address this issue more fully later in these reasons. III. The Parties ’ Relationship and the Separation [ 10 ] The parties were engaged to be married in June 2008, in Langley, British Columbia, which the mother describes as the “first engagement.” Her parents travelled to Langley to meet the father’s family and to give their formal consent to the engagement. This was in accordance with the Sikh cultural tradition.

They also exchanged money and gifts. The parties’ “second engagement” took place in January 2009, in Whistler, British Columbia. [ 11 ] The parties were married in New Westminster, as this is where the Sikh temple is located. Traditionally, a Sikh wedding takes place where the bride lives, but to “make it easier” and at the request of the father’s family, they decided to have the wedding in British Columbia. [ 12 ] After the marriage, the mother continued to live in Calgary, but went to Burnaby, where the father and his family

[ 12 ] After the marriage, the mother continued to live in Calgary, but went to Burnaby, where the father and his family were then living, in or around June of 2010, to give birth to the child. Immediately after the child was born, the mother, father and child stayed at the Burnaby house, along with the father ’ s parents and sister. [ 13 ] On October 16, 2010, the mother travelled to Calgary with the child . She never returned to Burnaby. The father came to Calgary on January 7, 2011. On January 8, 2011, he was served with documents commencing divorce proceedings. This application is a part of those proceedings.

IV. Evidence and Testimony [ 14 ] All of the experts, except Dr. Carter, and each of the parties provided this Court with viva voce evidence. [ 15 ] Much of the testimony, it seemed, was intended to paint the mother or the father in a bad light. This was not a useful exercise from this Court’s perspective. We are not dealing with a child welfare situation, or a situation where the mother or the father is violent, drug addicted or prone to some other affliction that would, or could, make them a bad parent. They both love the child, and, from what the witnesses tell this Court, the child loves each of them.

They are both financially well-heeled and live in acceptable neighbourhoods in their respective cities. From outward appearances, they do not hate each other. It appears that they have been able to communicate concerning the child’s transfer from Calgary to the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and back.

Communication, however, seems to have broken down in certain key areas, which this Court will discuss later in these reasons. [ 16 ] It is beyond this Court’s comprehension why the parties, who appear to be intelligent and reasonable people, would leave the decision concerning the most important part of their lives in the hands of a stranger, namely, this Court. Nonetheless, that is what they have done and this Court will perform the duty they have placed in its hands. Dr. Larry W. Krywaniuk [ 17 ] Sulatycky J. appointed Dr.

Krywaniuk as the court’s expert pursuant to Rule 6.40 of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 [ Rules ], to conduct a bilateral custody and parenting assessment, and to make recommendations to the court regarding the same. On December 2, 2011, Gates J. further ordered Dr. Krywaniuk to complete and file his report on or before December 9, 2011. [ 18 ] The parties presented no argument concerning Dr. Krywaniuk ’s expertise in conducting a bilateral custody and parenting assessment in this matter. Nonetheless, the mother’s counsel had Dr.

Krywaniuk provide this Court with his background, most of which was contained in his curriculum vitae attached to his initial report dated December 9, 2011 (the “Initial Report”). The Initial Report was made an exhibit in these proceedings. [ 19 ] Dr. Krywaniuk ’s employment history is interesting and varied. His doctoral dissertation involved neuropsychology, cognitive development and “special education.” The latter term describes children who are gifted or disabled. When this Court asked Dr.

Krywaniuk to explain neuropsychology, he said that it is primarily concerned with the measurement of brain functions, as they relate to specific psychological processes and behaviors . This might be done through psychological assessments. This description fits within his work history where he taught in the areas of learning disabilities, mental retardation, and vocational preparation for the handicapped. [ 20 ] Dr.

Krywaniuk also worked as a consulting psychologist, doing psychological assessments and recommendations for management of neurologically impaired individuals, and those having learning difficulties and emotional and behavioural difficulties. More recently, and extensively, his work involved assessments relating to “child protection and family relations.” Although he did not clarify the latter, it appears, when one reviews his curriculum vitae at page 3, that the two are tied together.

His curriculum vitae says, “I have also provided treatment for sexual abuse victims, sexual offenders and parents of sexual abuse victims.” The last entry in his curriculum vitae says that from 1999 to 2004, he was the “Consulting psychologist whose duties are to conduct assessments on child protection issues and parenting capacity.” It is not clear whether the issues of child protection and parenting capacity are related, but he uses the conjunctive “and” in this description. [ 21 ] These areas of study and practice are consistent with his “Clinical Interests and Practice,” although he specifically pointed out

that much of his work today involves the assessment, treatment planning, educational management and counselling of those who have suffered traumatic brain injury. As well, under this heading, he lists “Family / Custody and Access (Section 15 - Assessments).” [1] He said that he has done “hundreds” of these types of assessments. [ 22 ] His last publication was in 1981 and none of his publications relates to parenting or the family. [ 23 ] The Initial Report is very long. The Appendices take up 45 pages and describe each parent, the results of Dr.

Krywaniuk’s interviews with each parent, the history of the parties’ relationship, the objectives each parent seeks, and many other things. It also provides this Court with the results of various psychological tests, or psychological and parenting inventories, that Dr. Krywaniuk administered in relation to each parent. [ 24 ] Dr. Krywaniuk visited the mother’s current home and the father’s current home. As well, he conducted “collateral interviews.” He reported on all of these. [ 25 ] Dr.

Krywaniuk provided the following observations in the Initial Report: - both parents are capable of parenting the child in a satisfactory manner - both parents are successful, accomplished and reasonably well adjusted from a psychological perspective - the mother has been the child’s primary parent during his first year or more - the father will be able to establish an “equivalent bond” with the child over time - the parents are cooperative and flexible in their arrangements - the parents’ communication is adequate - the parents would be able to work out an equitable

schedule that generally meets the needs of all parties involved - the mother is “likely the most mobile at the present time” - the father is more embedded in his community, than is the mother - the father would have to give up more than the mother for him to move cities - the father has a stronger support system than does the mother - over the long-term, the father’s move to Calgary would be of greater disadvantage to the child than the mother’s move to Burnaby

- the mother’s move will “have the effect of exchanging easy contact with one set of grandparents for the other” - if the parents continue to live in separate cities, over the long term it would exact a financial toll on the parties because of the travel - the child could have a satisfactory upbringing in either city. [ 26 ] Dr.

Krywaniuk provided the following recommendations: - reconciliation and resumption of the parents’ marriage - failing that, the parents reside close together to facilitate an equal shared parenting arrangement, which he describes a “50 - 50 parenting arrangement” - one of the parents will have to move cities - the parents could benefit from having a parenting coordinator. [ 27 ] During his questioning, Dr. Krywaniuk said each party appeared to him to treat the other with respect. [ 28 ] In Dr. Krywaniuk’s view, the father thinks things through and mother reacts.

The father is calm, patient, rational and thoughtful, he is committed to his family and his culture, has a stronger support network than does the mother, is more embedded in his community and is more involved in music, sports and charitable causes than is the mother. [ 29 ] Dr. Krywaniuk felt that the father had a more formal parenting style, in the sense that the father arranged more formal activities for the child that pushed the child’s independence. The mother had a more spontaneous style.

He felt that the father’s parenting style was a “strength.” He suggested that the mother might be “overprotective” of the child, which manifested itself in “clinginess.” He attributed this to “first mother syndrome” and said that a parent with this is anxious, and the child might develop this same trait. He provided no authority for this statement. As well, he felt that the mother was being “obstructionist” when it came to the father’s access. He took the father’s word for how his access

schedule was being controlled by the mother, but he also said he deduced this from her personality. Again, he provided no evidence for this conclusion. [ 30 ] Dr. Krywaniuk acknowledged that his longest collateral interview was with the father’s sister. He felt she was insightful and very impressive. [ 31 ] With respect to the issue of the financial toll of one parent having to travel if they live in separate cities, the mother’s counsel asked him whether the parents have to understand that parenting involves some sacrifices on their part for the benefit of the children. Dr.

Krywaniuk did not answer this question. [ 32 ] There was an extensive discussion concerning a questionnaire that Dr. Krywaniuk provided to each parent. In the case of the father, the father provided some (although skeletal) answers. The mother did not answer some of the questions. Dr. Krywaniuk explained that he intended that this questionnaire was merely to “ break the ice ” with the parents and start them thinking. This Court agrees, because if it were to form part of his analysis and his instructions (and each parent ’ s understanding of his instructions) it was methodologically flawed.

This Court puts no weight on the results of the questionnaire.

[ 33 ] Dr. Krywaniuk testified that a “50-50 parenting arrangement” is a “catch phrase” for shared parenting. He said that, logistically, shared parenting is hard to calculate. The most important aspect is that the parents are willing to share parenting that is meaningful and that it is not forced on them. It is based on the child’s needs. It is an attitude more than a time element, in his view, and must be supported by the other parent. [ 34 ] Dr. Krywaniuk conceded that he does not consider himself to be an expert on early childhood development.

He did not, however, feel that the child was developmentally delayed. [ 35 ] When he was questioned about the difference between “attachment theory” and bonding, he could not, for this Court, identify the difference that the academic literature provides between the two concepts. [2] Unfortunately, he used those terms interchangeably in the Initial Report and during his testimony, even after he was provided with a description of the difference. Dr. Krywaniuk stated that attachment theory has had a “rocky road” and is somewhat controversial. [ 36 ] Dr.

Krywaniuk was not aware that the mother was working full-time in Calgary. Given that scenario, and the father’s work schedule, he felt that the father’s work

schedule would be more flexible than the mother’s. Dr. Jeffrey Chang [ 37 ] The mother retained Dr. Chang to provide “litigation support” and, as well, to provide this Court with a critique of the Initial Report. Dr. Chang met with the mother twice. This Court qualified Dr. Chang as an expert in marriage and family therapy and in parenting assessments. The father did not object to Dr. Chang being so qualified. [ 38 ] Rules r 6.40(4) permits a party to call their own expert. Certainly, that is what the mother did, but she did so only for the purpose of critiquing the Initial Report.

Although the mother tried to obtain further information from Dr. Chang concerning the substantive issues before this Court, Dr. Chang’s report did not go that far, and this Court would not permit him to provide that additional evidence. [ 39 ] Dr. Chang’s critique is dated April 8, 2012. To prepare his report, he reviewed, among other things, the Initial Report and Dr. Krywaniuk’s notes. Before he testified, Dr. Chang reviewed Dr. Krywaniuk’s updated report dated May 31, 2012 (the “Updated Report”). He also reviewed a report that Dr. Stephen Carter had presented to this Court. Dr.

Chang justified this by saying that he needed to “be informed of developments on this matter.” [ 40 ] Dr. Chang’s report and his testimony reviewed the Alberta interprovincial licensing registration requirements. In his view, Dr. Krywaniuk delivered professional services in Alberta. Dr. Krywaniuk is a licensed psychologist in British Columbia and does not hold an Alberta license. Under the Health Professions Act , RSA 2000, c H-7, s 46(1), Dr. Krywaniuk should have been so registered or applied for a temporary courtesy registration. He did neither. [ 41 ] Dr. Chang noted that Dr.

Krywaniuk provided no authoritative foundation or psychological reasons for his recommendation that the parents have equal, shared parenting of the child. Dr. Chang says that “ based on many authorities ” he opposes such an approach for pre-schoolers, even in a situation where the parents live in the same geographic vicinity. However, equality of parenting might be optimal depending on the circumstances. Dr. Chang did not provide this Court with the “ many authorities ” on which he based his conclusion. In any event, Dr.

Chang opined that the child ’ s caregivers must be “ reliable, responsive and warm - equal or not. ” [ 42 ] Dr. Chang also challenged Dr. Krywaniuk’s negative description of the mother as being a “first time mother.” Dr. Chang was of the view that this was condescending. Unless the mother is extreme in her approaches, this should not pose a problem. [ 43 ] Dr. Krywaniuk provided a list of factors which, in his mind, would make the father the better parent. Dr. Chang questioned

most of these factors and the weight Dr. Krywaniuk might have placed on each. For example, Dr. Krywaniuk mentioned a parent’s superior musical and athletic skills, and the necessity of a parent having to resort to formal programs and paid instructors to enrich the child’s life. Dr. Chang feels that it is more important to examine the broader parenting plan that the parent presents, keeping in mind at all times, the child’s best interests. A parent’s superior skill in music or athletics is not necessarily the driving force. [ 44 ] Dr. Chang was very critical of Dr.

Krywaniuk’s opinions on the mother’s employment opportunities in Vancouver and her mobility. Dr. Chang states that this is “outside the competence of psychologists.” Dr. Krywaniuk does not provide the basis on which he makes these assertions or ties these assertions to the mother’s mental health. As well, Dr. Chang says, citing MacPhail v. Karasek , 2006 ABCA 238 , 409 AR 170 [ MacPhail ], that any recommendations that a psychologist makes must be capable of implementation. As far as Dr. Chang is concerned, this type of recommendation is not.

This Court intends to discuss MacPhail later in these reasons. [ 45 ] Dr. Chang was critical of Dr. Krywaniuk’s comment that the father has a stronger social support system in Burnaby than does the mother in Calgary. His criticism is primarily that Dr. Krywaniuk provides no basis for this assertion, other than temporal or quantitative factors, which Dr. Chang sees as unimportant, of themselves. [ 46 ] Dr. Chang saw Dr. Krywaniuk’s Updated Report to be of limited use. Nothing had changed since the Initial Report. During cross-examination, however, Dr. Chang conceded that giving Dr.

Krywaniuk an opportunity to see the child in the father’s care might be a good reason for Dr. Krywaniuk to update the Initial Report. As well, the mother felt that the current parenting regime was not working. [ 47 ] Dr. Chang conceded that it is possible that children can have more than one significant attachment figure, and that figure might not necessarily be a parent. However, he also noted that the psychologist would have to make that determination in the context of the attachment figure and the child. [ 48 ] Dr.

Chang made an interesting remark that a parenting expert’s role is to determine how things are today and what should be done tomorrow; the history is not so important. He also said that the factor to which this Court must pay attention is “how parenting gets done,” meaning that the psychologist must examine the child’s connection to the parents and the parents’ parenting skills. [ 49 ] The father argued that Dr. Chang took out of context Dr. Krywaniuk’s comment that the mother is better able to move to Burnaby than is the father to move to Calgary. In other words, Dr.

Krywaniuk’s approach was to ask where the child should live, assuming the parents do not reconcile. Dr. Chang feels that this analysis is backwards. The proper approach is for the psychologist to provide recommendations on who should be the primary parent and then provide recommendations depending on where the parents live and how they will manage access. [ 50 ] Dr. Chang felt if one parent made false allegations against the other parent and that parent’s family, the psychologist must consider these. In particular, they must examine whether these allegations are valid.

Evelyn Margaret Wotherspoon [ 51 ] At the mother’s instance, Ms. Wotherspoon provided this Court with her letter concerning theories of attachment disorder. Following a voir dire , this Court qualified Ms. Wotherspoon as an expert in early childhood mental health and child development. [ 52 ] This Court has chosen to exercise a great deal of caution when it evaluates Ms. Wotherspoon’s written report and her viva voce evidence. The main reason for this cautionary approach is that she observed the mother and the child for only one event.

She travelled with the mother during the mother’s pick-up of the child in Vancouver and return to Calgary from Vancouver. She interviewed the mother before they left Calgary. She did not observe the child while the child was in the father’s care and did not interview the father. Ms. Wotherspoon conceded that when she is retained by only one party in a proceeding, this limits what she can do.

She can glean only a general understanding of the child’s needs; she cannot do a proper clinical assessment. [ 53 ] Children have specific mental health needs that are critical to their early childhood psychological development. One of Ms. Wotherspoon’s areas of study is how relationships support or impede the child’s psychological development. The brain develops and forms through relationships. Stress might derail such development.

[ 54 ] Ms. Wotherspoon read the Initial Report and the Updated Report. She also viewed a digital video disc (“DVD”) of the father interacting with the child, a DVD taken of her and the mother at the Vancouver International Airport, on the airplane and in the Calgary International Airport, that the father arranged to have a private investigator take, and a 90-minute DVD of the father’s family interacting with the child. [ 55 ] In her observations of the child, she noted several “red flags” that concerned her about the child’s development.

She felt that it would be useful for the child’s parents to complete an “ages and stages” questionnaire and then take these questionnaires to a pediatrician. These “red flags” included the fact that the child made little eye contact with the mother, and did not have much “joint attention,” meaning that the child would not concentrate on actions around him but keep the mother within his sight at all times and directing the mother’s attention to what was going on around him. In other words, the child would do a lot of “referencing” with the mother.

As well, the child’s “babble” was not as developed as one would expect from a child of his age. She acknowledged, however, that she screened for these concerns, but did not diagnose them. She also conceded that she was not a speech pathologist and that she was focussing on the “quality” of the child’s “babble.” [ 56 ] Ms. Wotherspoon provided this Court with her explanation of primary attachment and how it occurs. Children have a powerful emotional tie to the person who gives them daily care, the person who is physically present on a daily basis. This is the person to whom the child will turn when in distress.

Attachment is linked to the child’s development. Primary attachment helps the child regulate their stress response. If the child has no reliable relationship in the early stages of life, they cannot develop this stress response. [ 57 ] If the child is separated from their primary caregiver for a prolonged period, the child might stop showing signs of stress, even though the stress continues. The non-primary caregiver will see the signs of stress only when the child returns to the primary caregiver. [ 58 ] The child will try to keep the primary caregiver within close proximity.

The child will try to follow the primary caregiver and will cry when the primary caregiver is absent. Without this attachment, the child cannot develop properly. As the child gets older, they can tolerate more prolonged separation from their primary caregiver. This does not occur until the child is three years old to four years old. [ 59 ] Dr. Krywaniuk noted that the mother was the child’s primary caregiver. Ms. Wotherspoon speculated that this was because the mother was the child’s primary caregiver during the first 15 months of the child’s life.

She acknowledged, however, that the child can develop more than one attachment. [ 60 ] If the child is in a constant state of disruption, such as if there is a frequent exchange of the child between homes, the child’s stress response is “maximally taxed.” The child is in a continual state of adaptation. The child needs a stable environment of support. This child is not having these needs met. As a result, this child is “in trouble developmentally.” Ms. Wotherspoon’s testimony was based in part on DVDs she had seen subsequent to her preparation of her report.

This Court did not see the DVDs while she was testifying. It later saw one of the DVDs, to which she was referring. [ 61 ] Not surprisingly, conflict between the parents casts a particular pall on these situations. [ 62 ] The father’s counsel questioned Ms. Wotherspoon primarily on the wording contained in her report. She said the following: At one point [the child] was on the floor intently looking at a Tupperware container that contained a treat.

I asked the mother to walk about ten feet away but still within eyesight. [The child] immediately showed visible distress, dropped the Tupperware container and ran to his mother. He insisted on being held in her lap almost the entire time I observed them together. [Emphasis added]. [ 63 ] Ms. Wotherspoon believed that the child wanted to be held in the mother’s lap “almost the entire time.” When questioned, however, she acknowledged that he did walk around a bit, but he wanted to be in very close proximity to his mother. He wanted to be held (not on her lap), or be within a very close proximity to her.

She said that the fact that the father was challenging her because the child was literally not sitting on the mother’s lap was “quibbling with details.” It should be noted, however, that she said “almost” the entire time. This, in this Court’s view, gave her some leeway in her opinion.

[ 64 ] As well, the father’s counsel challenged Ms. Wotherspoon’s use of the term “immediately.” In fact, he says, it took the child about 23 seconds before he noticed that his mother was not in close proximity to her. She agreed with this, because the child was focused on the Tupperware and not the location of his mother; there was no “joint attention.” On his noticing that his mother was not in close proximity, he “immediately” went towards her. [ 65 ] The father’s counsel challenged Ms. Wotherspoon’s objectivity when observing the child.

She acknowledged that the mother retained her to advance the mother’s case. However, Ms. Wotherspoon testified that despite this, she was looking for as strong, and as honest, a case as the facts would permit. In the end, she was adamant that her opinions are always based on the best interests of the child. Her opinions are based on what she sees, not on the mother’s interests. [ 66 ] Ms.

Wotherspoon was provided with Joan B Kelly & Michael E Lamb, “Using Child Development Research to Make Appropriate Custody and Access Decisions for Young Children” (2000) 38:3 Fam & Conciliation Cts Rev 297, online: http://sdsharedparent.tripod.com/using_child_development_research_in_custody_and_access_decisions.htm. Apparently, this is a peer- reviewed article. Ms. Wotherspoon disagreed with many of the statements that were mentioned in the article, as many of those statements had no footnotes or references from which the authors derived their conclusory statements. This

article appeared in a special edition of the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, in which many of the authors’ conclusory statements were challenged by other authors. This Court was not provided with the special edition, so it can derive little help from this article. [ 67 ] As well, this Court was provided with a number of PowerPoint presentations, but was not provided with the articles on which the presenters made these presentations. Again, without the underlying articles, it can place little weight on these presentation notes. Dr. Stephen Carter [ 68 ] Both parties referred to Dr.

Carter’s expert report in their written arguments. Dr. Carter was not questioned on his report, nor was he called as a witness in these proceedings. However, because the parties referred to his report, it is worth mentioning some of his comments. [ 69 ] Dr. Carter does not challenge Ms. Wotherspoon’s comments on attachment theory. However, he questioned her methodology and some of her conclusory statements inasmuch as they were not made after a full assessment of either the father or the mother.

As well, her observations of the child (and the mother’s interaction with the child) took place in an airport and an airplane over a short period of time. [ 70 ] Of importance is the fact that Dr. Carter says, “inconsistencies and misunderstandings, conundrums and complexities of applying attachment knowledge to divorce and separation matters are evident throughout the field.” R.K.C. [ 71 ] R.K.C. is the Plaintiff mother in this action. She testified over a period of several days.

This Court will review her evidence only insofar as is necessary to decide the questions before it. [ 72 ] The mother is of the view that the parties separated on October 16, 2010, when she returned to Calgary with the child. The parties have not lived together since that date. At that date, the child was two and a half months old. [ 73 ] The mother is currently 34 years old. She was born and raised in Elkford, British Columbia. Once she completed Grade 12, she left to attend the University of Alberta in Edmonton. She graduated in 2000 with a degree in psychology and a minor in linguistics.

She then attended Grant MacEwan College in Edmonton and obtained a certificate in human resources.

[ 74 ] The mother’s extended family, which includes her parents as well as her brother and his family, lives in Calgary. She currently lives with her parents, but intends to obtain her own accommodation. Her older brother is a psychiatrist. His family includes his wife and children aged 12, 11 and seven years. They live a couple of blocks away from her parents’ home. [ 75 ] The mother’s parents arrived in Canada from India in the 1970s. Her brother was born in India, but she was born in Canada.

Her father is a retired electrician and her mother was a stay-at-home mother. [ 76 ] Following her graduation from Grant MacEwan College, the mother worked in Edmonton for a time, then returned to Calgary. She was employed in human resources and has worked in various capacities in that field in Calgary with specific expertise in the oil and gas industry. She continued to work in Calgary throughout the course of the parties’ relationship and marriage. She took a maternity leave when the child was born, along with a few additional months in 2011.

She currently works full-time for an executive search firm in Calgary as an executive search consultant, specializing in the energy sector. [ 77 ] In her jobs, the mother has had subordinates working under her. Her most recent job, before these proceedings started, was with a Calgary-based power generator and marketer of electricity and renewable energy (“Previous Employer”). She started with her Previous Employer in November of 2009, following her Previous Employer’s hostile takeover of her former employer. By this time she and the father were married.

Her job with her Previous Employer was a promotion, which she had discussed with the father. The father supported her in this regard. [ 78 ] She had a substantial income while working with her Previous Employer, which included stock options. She even earned a substantial income while on her maternity leave, which included bonuses and employment insurance. She was planning on being on maternity leave for one year. In June 2011, she wanted to work on a part-time basis, because of the “intensity of the litigation” between the parties.

Her Previous Employer would not permit this, so she resigned. [ 79 ] She returned to work in September 2011, with the executive search firm with which she is currently employed. She also did some consulting work for a town just outside of Calgary. From September 2011 through November 2011, she worked three days per week, then increased that to four days per week from November 2011 to February 2012. She now works full-time. Her hours are 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Her present employer allows for this flexibility. [ 80 ] Before the parties married, and during their marriage, the mother investigated jobs in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. If she saw something that looked interesting, she would send the prospective employer her resume. She got few responses and when she would speak with a prospective employer, the conversation would end when she told them of her salary expectations. Her compensation in Calgary was high. [ 81 ] The mother reviewed an affidavit sworn on January 19, 2012, by Amy Lloyd a Vancouver-based vocational consultant. The father had filed Ms.

Lloyd’s affidavit. Ms. Lloyd discusses job opportunities for the mother in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The mother notes that there are differences between jobs in Vancouver versus Calgary, such as the significant difference in total compensation and base salary. As well, in Vancouver, the positions are union positions, whereas the mother’s positions in Calgary have been non-union. Furthermore, these positions are not in the energy sector, which is the mother’s specialty. [ 82 ] After the parties married, the mother filed her initial income tax return as a “single” person.

The father would not provide her with his social insurance number or his income information. He told her to complete the income tax return as a “single” person. After they separated, she completed her income tax returns as a “separated” person. [ 83 ] The father was an independent insurance adjuster, who moved into the employ of a property and casualty insurance company in Vancouver shortly after they met. He was an “examiner.” He started to work for a different insurance company sometime in October or November 2009. By this time, the father and the mother were married.

The mother invited him to look for jobs in Calgary. He said, “he was okay for now.” [ 84 ] She also directed the father to Internet websites that advertised for jobs in Calgary. She does not recall him following up with any of these. At his then employer’s Christmas party, the father’s supervisor told them that there was a job with that employer in

Calgary. The mother told the father that he should apply for this job. The father did not respond. [ 85 ] The father’s family eventually moved from Langley to Burnaby. The mother did not stay with them before the parties married. She was not part of the decision of the father’s family when they moved from Langley to Burnaby. She did not see the Burnaby house before the father’s parents bought it. The father advised her that the Burnaby house was where “they,” meaning she and the father, would be moving. The Burnaby house underwent renovations before the father’s family moved into it.

The mother had no say in the renovations. The Burnaby house was smaller than the Langley house. In the Burnaby house, the upstairs is father’s portion. It has a bedroom, sitting area, study, bathroom and a loft-type of area. It also had a prayer room. It had no kitchen or children’s bedroom. Apparently, the prayer room has been converted to a child’s room. This was not discussed with the mother and she was surprised, as a prayer room is considered sacred in the Sikh faith. [ 86 ] The main floor is occupied primarily by the father’s parents. This is where the kitchen is located.

In the basement, there is a suite that is independent. It has a kitchen nook, living area, office space, bedroom, walk-in closet and a bathroom. The father’s sister lives in the basement. [ 87 ] The father’s mother would make the meals on the main floor. Everyone, including the sister, would eat at their own times. The parties would not cook their own meals. [ 88 ] Through these proceedings, the mother learned that there was a further home located in Maple Ridge, British Columbia.

The home has significant value; somewhere around $2,700,000 to $2,800,000 in 2010. [ 89 ] Throughout their relationship, each party maintained their own finances, separate from the other. There was no change as a result of their marriage. They kept separate bank accounts, and neither was aware of the other party’s assets, although the mother told the father about her registered retirement savings plans and savings, and he told her he had investments.

She assumed these investments were in real estate, as he had spoken about “construction.” She asked about his other investments, but she never got a “straight answer” from him. She did not know where he banked, and he did not know where she banked. After the child was born, she suggested that they talk about their finances, but he said, “things are fine the way they are right now.” [ 90 ] During her maternity leave, her Previous Employer’s benefits package continued. After the child was born, and they had chosen a name for the child, she added the child and the father to her benefits plan.

This was near the end of September 2010 or early in October 2010. She had discussed this with the father. [ 91 ] At that time the father had an extended health care plan through his employer. When the mother asked him whether he should add her to his benefits plan to coordinate their benefits, he told her “it’s fine the way it is” and that it would be too expensive to add her to his plan. After she commenced these proceedings, she removed the father from her Previous Employer’s benefits plan.

As far as she is aware, the child is still not on the father’s benefits plan, so she applied for and received Blue Cross benefits for her and the child, as her Previous Employer removed her from its plan when she resigned. In September 2011, she was placed on her current employer’s benefits plan. However, she has maintained her Blue Cross plan as a “portable plan.” [ 92 ] The mother found out she was pregnant in December 2009. The parties travelled to and from their respective cities to visit each other after she found out she was pregnant. The mother spent Christmas of 2009 in Burnaby, then returned to Calgary.

After Christmas, the father came to Calgary for a business trip. [ 93 ] The mother went to visit her parents’ family doctor, Dr. Wong, in December 2009, to discuss her pregnancy. She wanted someone to monitor her during her pregnancy. She told Dr. Wong that she wanted to deliver the baby at the Peter Lougheed Hospital in Calgary. Dr. Wong referred her to a maternity clinic in the Harvest Hills district in Calgary, as the doctors at that clinic had privileges at the Peter Lougheed Hospital. [ 94 ] The mother had an ultrasound in January 2010, at a clinic in the Beddington district of Calgary.

She wanted the father to be with her, but he said he was too busy and could not attend. While at the clinic, she sent the father a text message to tell him she was sad because all the other fathers were at the clinic and she was there alone.

[ 95 ] She had another ultrasound in March 2010. This time, the father attended. This ultrasound took place in a clinic across the street from the Peter Lougheed Hospital. She pointed to the hospital and said “this is where I am delivering.” To that, the father replied, “no, I don’t want a Calgary baby, I want a Vancouver baby.” She wanted to have the baby in Calgary; the conversation ended. [ 96 ] She ended up delivering the baby in Burnaby, as she was worried that the father would not be at their son’s birth if she delivered the baby in Calgary.

She wanted to go the woman’s hospital in Vancouver, but they refused to accept her as a patient because she did not have a British Columbia address. She called other hospitals, but they would not accept her so late in her pregnancy. Burnaby General Hospital accepted her as a patient. [ 97 ] She arrived in Burnaby on June 29, 2010, slightly over a month before she delivered the child. From then until the time she delivered the baby, she spent most of her time in the Burnaby house, but felt that she was losing her freedom. Someone had to be with her the whole time, but she wanted to go out on her own.

She did not have a car. She expressed her concerns to the father. His response was that she could take his parents’ car. She did this once, but all other times they would pick her up and drop her off. [ 98 ] The mother told the father that she wanted him at the hospital with her, as this was a private moment for them. She did not want other family members present, except perhaps her own mother. The father told her that her mother would not be welcome in the hospital, because “it was too busy.” Nonetheless, he told her that his mother (the “paternal grandmother”) and his sister would be there.

As well, the paternal grandmother and the father’s sister would mention this to her from time to time. The mother repeated that she did not want the others there. The father said nothing. [ 99 ] When the mother went into labour, the father took her to hospital. The sister and the paternal grandmother arrived shortly after. The mother was in labour for between 24 and 26 hours and finally, gave birth through a Caesarian section. The father’s sister and paternal grandmother were in her room during most of her labour. She asked the father to ask them to leave, but he did not do so.

They finally left when the nurse told them to leave, on deciding that the mother was going to have a Caesarian section. The father was there for Caesarian section. The mother held the child for a “few seconds after birth.” [ 100 ] When she returned to her room, the paternal grandmother and father’s sister were in her room. She had not yet seen her baby, as the hospital staff had taken the baby away to clean him. The paternal grandmother told her something was not right with the baby because he “had a cone head.” This was before the mother saw the child. This upset the mother.

It turned out that there was nothing wrong with the baby. The nurse told her that this was normal. [ 101 ] The paternal grandmother did not want the mother to nurse the child. The paternal grandmother told her this while the mother was still in the hospital. She told the mother that “colostrum is not good for your son.” The nurses, however, told the mother this would be best for the child’s health. The father was present for these discussions. [ 102 ] The mother started nursing the baby.

The next day, the paternal grandmother returned to the hospital and said that the child was losing weight and that her milk was “not good enough.” There was a heated discussion and the mother finally capitulated and said “fine, let’s give him formula.” The father was there throughout these discussions. She tried to convince him that she needed his help to set boundaries. He did not; he went quiet. [ 103 ] The mother remained in the hospital for four or five days following the child’s birth.

The paternal grandmother continued not to support the mother’s breastfeeding the child. [ 104 ] When she was released from the hospital and returned to the Burnaby house, a debate ensued as to where the child would be: upstairs, on the main floor or in the suite downstairs. The father’s family then created a

schedule for taking care of the child, with no input from the mother. They decided that they would take three to four-hour shifts caring for the child. This involved the paternal grandparents, the father’s sister and the father. To that point, the mother had been sleeping on the couch on the main floor, with the bassinet beside her. The father slept in the upstairs bedroom, as he needed his rest. This went on for “a few weeks.” When the child was with father’s sister, the child would be on the main floor or with the father’s sister in her suite in the basement.

The father’s sister had created a sleeping area for the child downstairs in her living area, which consisted of a small bed. The mother did not know that there was a bed downstairs until a few weeks after this all started.

[ 105 ] After this went on for three weeks, the mother told the father she wanted the child by her bedside. The father said, “do whatever you like.” The mother resumed sleeping upstairs. When the child woke up, the paternal grandparents would retrieve the child from the mother and take him to the main floor. The paternal grandparents did this even though the mother told them she wanted the child with her. [ 106 ] The mother and the father spent little time together during this time. She would be upstairs most of the time.

The child and the father would be on the main floor. [ 107 ] The child did not have a name when they left the hospital. It is part of the parties’ cultural tradition that they attend the temple to obtain the first letter of the child’s name. The parties attended, along with the paternal grandparents and the father’s sister. The father carried child into the temple in a car seat. The father’s sister took the child out of the car seat and held child and passed the child to the father for the prayer. Once the prayer was over, the father passed the child back to the father’s sister.

The mother did not get to hold the child at all during the ceremony. After the prayer, she asked if she could hold the child, but the paternal grandmother said, “don’t worry about it.” In the mother’s mind, this was not normal and she was very sad.

This was a moment she will never again have with her child. [ 108 ] When they returned to the Burnaby house, the father thanked the mother for letting the father’s sister hold the child, as the father’s sister “had been through a lot and does not have a baby of her own.” The father’s sister did not thank the mother, nor did she ask if she could hold the child during the ceremony. [ 109 ] The child’s name was to begin with the letter “B.” The father did not like any of the “B” names the mother had suggested, so the paternal grandfather returned to the temple to explore their options.

He was told that they should use the letter “D.” The mother searched for names, but the father had discussed this with the paternal grandparents and the father’s sister (in the mother’s absence) and told the mother that they had come up with a name. The mother wanted to spell the suggested name differently, but she was told that it would be spelled the way the others had agreed. She capitulated. [ 110 ] The mother had her parents ship her car to Burnaby after the child was born. However, she did not use her car to drive her and the child around the Lower Mainland. She could not drive for a time after her surgery.

Then, when she could drive, she did not have a base for the child’s car seat. She asked the father to purchase and install one. He resisted because he did not want a car seat in her car. He finally bought one, but never did install it. [ 111 ] The mother and child left Burnaby on October 16, 2010, and flew to Calgary. Her mother was having surgery in November. The father took them to the airport. She bought a one-way ticket. They had discussed her leaving, but they did not discuss when she would return.

The mother had originally planned to go to Calgary in September, but did not, as the father said that the child was too young to fly. When questioned by the father’s counsel, the mother was adamant that she had no intention of returning from Calgary to reside in Burnaby. [ 112 ] Before she left, she said goodbye to the father’s family, but there was not much conversation otherwise. There was “tension.” The paternal grandmother likes cakes, so the mother bought her a lemon cake to ease the tension. This did not help the situation. The paternal grandmother did not eat the cake.

The mother also gave the father’s sister a card, on the father’s suggestion that she “should show the sister gratitude.” The father’s sister did not thank her for the card. [ 113 ] The mother said that the relationship between her and the father was “quite tense” after October 16, 2010. They had telephone conversations in which they discussed her experiences while she was in Burnaby. The father did not think anything was wrong.

The mother conceded that she and the father spoke on the telephone frequently, five or six times per week, during the period between October 16, 2010 and January 7, 2011. [ 114 ] In December 2010, the father asked whether she would travel to Burnaby. She told the father that she was not ready because of the tensions between them during their telephone conversations. In the mother’s mind, their relationship was deteriorating. She asked the father to come and visit them so he could see the child. He did not come. The child was going to see the doctor for his 4-month shots.

The father still did not come, although he sent the mother a text message saying “I should be there.” [ 115 ] On December 13, 2010, she sent the father an email, updating him on the child’s shots. She had received a text message from him, which this Court did not see, but she expressed her “surprise” on receiving it. She also said in her email, “Based on how I’m feeling

right now ...” She advised the Court that she was expressing her concern to the father about where their relationship was going. [ 116 ] She asked the father whether he would be coming to Calgary for Christmas of 2010. She got a only vague response from him. She found out that he was off work over the Christmas break, but he had not told her. They did not spend Christmas together. Thus, between October 16, 2010 and January 7, 2011, he did not see the child. The mother sent the father pictures of the child during this time. [ 117 ] The father flew to Calgary on January 7, 2011.

The mother and the mother’s father picked up the father at the airport. On January 8, 2011, the mother had the father served with the statement of claim for divorce and an application seeking a restraining order against him. The application was returnable January 10, 2011. [ 118 ] What prompted the mother to take this drastic step? She advised this Court that their conversations from October 16, 2010, were deteriorating. Despite this, she asked her then counsel not to serve the statement of claim for divorce, even though it was filed. She was hoping they could still work things out.

She was asking the father for boundaries concerning the involvement of his family members in the upbringing of their child, and they discussed other issues concerning their marriage. It was at that point that he said he was going to put her on a

schedule of when she could visit the child. This scared her. [ 119 ] The mother also filed a notice of motion seeking a restraining order because she was feeling intimidated and fearful. After he was served with these documents, the mother sent the father a text message indicating that she did not want to keep the child away from him. [ 120 ] After the father was served with the statement of claim for divorce and notice of motion, the parties attempted mediation, with a view to reconciliation. During this time, the father was looking for a place to live in Calgary, which the mother supported.

They had talked about what would work for the three of them. Then, in March 2011, everything changed. She found out that he had no intention of moving to Calgary. He wanted the mother and the child to move to Burnaby. She returned to the way she had felt before. [ 121 ] The father’s sister bought a house in Calgary in May 2011. The parties had not discussed this purchase, but the mother was happy with it, as the father would have a place where he could visit with the child. Before this, he was renting an apartment in the Beltline district of Calgary.

The mother never went to the house that the sister bought. [ 122 ] The parenting exchanges took place in a parking lot of a shopping mall. The mother suggested that the exchanges take place at his house, or at their respective houses. The father said he was not comfortable with that suggestion. The mother does not know his reasons for this. [ 123 ] Both parties argued that the week-on/week-off regime is not in the child’s best interests and this Court could not agree more. The mother went through the child’s routine on each Saturday. It would be a gruelling

schedule for an adult, much less an infant. [ 124 ] As a result of Sulatycky J.’s order made on June 23, 2011, that the child spend one week in Burnaby and one week in Calgary, the mother flies to Vancouver each Saturday to drop off or pick up the child. Her travelling was at her request. The drop-off occurs at the Vancouver International Airport at around 3:30 p.m to 4:00 p.m. and the pick-up occurs at around 9:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. The parties share the cost of the airfare. Now that the child is 2 years old, they must pay full fare on Air Canada for him.

On WestJet, the guardian will pay full fare and the child will pay half fare. The mother advises the father the night before of the exact flight details, but they are about the same every week. The father has raised an issue concerning the fact that the mother refuses to fly into Abbotsford, British Columbia, rather than Vancouver. The distance from Abbotsford to Burnaby, according to the mother, is farther than from Vancouver to Burnaby.

As well, the flights are not as convenient and she takes the position that this would not be in the child ’ s best interests. [ 125 ] The mother expressed concerns to the father about how long it was taking to exchange the child. The father suggested that he would help her by paying for a NEXUS card. She never applied for such a card. [ 126 ] The father produced many, many pictures of items that the mother left at the Burnaby house when she left on October 16, 2010.

Many of the items related to their wedding, including clothing and jewellery. As well, there were some casual clothes, but the mother said that this was only a very small fraction of her clothing collection. As well, there was some maternity clothing. She also left her wedding rings, which the father returned to her. She did not ask the father to return them, and she has returned them to the father. [ 127 ] There are issues concerning the child’s health care appointments. The mother is aware of, and tries to respect, the father’s desire to attend all of the child’s health care appointments.

He expressed a concern about the late notice he receives for some of these. This Court is unclear why this has anything to do with the issue of primary residence and access for this child, except when it comes to the issue of which parent will best facilitate access to the child. Suffice it to say that the father, despite being about 1000 kilometres away, attends almost all of the child’s health care appointments. [ 128 ] An incident occurred recently which involved a pediatrician for the child. The child had seen a pediatrician, Dr.

Nieman, on a previous occasion, on a referral from the child’s family physician, Dr. Wong. Pediatric physician referrals expire after six months and the mother wanted another referral. Dr. Nieman is very busy, so the mother made an appointment to see Dr. Wong again for referral to a different pediatrician. The father asked the mother to delay the appointment with Dr. Wong, so he could be present. The mother felt that this was just a referral, so went ahead with the appointment. The father corresponded with Dr. Wong, saying that he wanted the referral to go to Dr. Nieman. The mother said that Dr.

Nieman would be fine, but she was concerned about when the child would get in to see Dr. Nieman. The mother has not yet heard from Dr. Nieman, and it has been four months since she received the referral. As an aside, the mother testified that she had told the father about the appointment with Dr. Wong over the telephone. [ 129 ] During a previous appointment with Dr. Nieman, of which the father said he was unaware, Dr. Nieman’s notes indicate that the mother asked him to provide her with a letter saying she was not a bad parent. She had asked Dr. Nieman for this. Her recollection was that Dr.

Nieman had asked her whether the father had accused her of being a bad parent. [ 130 ] In a letter dated February 11, 2011, from Dr. Nieman to Dr. Wong, Dr. Nieman indicated that there were issues concerning the child’s “gas” problems and head movements, none of which, from the letter, appeared to be serious. The father stated that he was unaware of these issues, although the mother said that she had advised the father about them over the telephone. [ 131 ] The father also alleges that the mother had not told Dr. Wong the identity of the father until some time after the child started seeing Dr.

Wong. [ 132 ] The mother was concerned about the child’s growth and development. She advised the father of these concerns in an email sent at 17:47 hours on March 21, 2012. The father replied at 21:20 hours on that same night, asking her for her specific concerns. She recalled getting this email, but she did not answer the father’s question. She told this Court that she did not respond because by this time, all communications were being handled through their respective lawyers. She sent an email in this regard on March 26, 2011.

In any event, the father’s counsel posed the question to the mother’s counsel in his letter of April 2, 2012, to which the mother’s counsel responded on April 4, 2012. The child’s growth and development was the reason why the mother wanted the second referral to a pediatrician. [ 133 ] The mother also testified concerning the issue of the father not volunteering to pay certain bills for the child’s health care.

She has been either reimbursed for these charges, or to this Court’s mind, the circumstances did not lend themselves to the father offering to pay them in the first place. [ 134 ] The mother had applied for and received a social insurance number for the child, using an Alberta address. The father, knowing that the child already had one, applied for another card with a British Columbia address, using a “lost or replacement” form. [ 135 ] The father has alleged that the mother does not maintain her car in a safe condition. He noted that the tires were worn while the car was still in British Columbia.

Later, he noted an “unsafe” sun shade. The car dealership told the mother that the tires would be fit for another season. Despite this, she had them replaced. As well, there was apparently a headlight that was burned out. He did not tell her about this, but put this information in one of his affidavits. [ 136 ] The father also raised issues concerning the mother’s emotional and psychological stability. She has not been diagnosed with any emotional or psychological problems.

[ 137 ] When Dr. Krywaniuk completed his updated assessment with the mother, he asked whether she had anything further to say. He said that she responded in the negative. She testified, however, that she told Dr. Krywaniuk that she “would be more than happy to answer any other questions you have.” She did tell him that she did not feel that a week-on/week-off regime was in child’s best interests. He advised her that this regime cannot go on forever and “there has to be compromise.” She tried to tell Dr. Krywaniuk of her further concerns, but she felt that he was not listening to her.

He kept repeating that compromise would be the best solution, and there must be compromise. She feels that Dr. Krywaniuk unfairly dealt with her. [ 138 ] Before the first exchange in Vancouver, the mother emailed the father begging him to reconsider the week-on/week-off regime, telling him that it was a huge change for the child and was not good for their child. The father said that he felt the child was “old enough” to deal with this. The mother wanted to go back to Dr. Larry Fong to help them mediate this. The father suggested that they go to mediation in Vancouver.

They tried this unsuccessfully. [ 139 ] During the first exchange, the child was “very clingy” and did not want the mother to leave. She eventually snuck away. Since then, the child has his ups and downs with the exchanges, but they happen fairly quickly. [ 140 ] The mother testified that the child has spent the majority of his life with her. For the first 15 months of his life, he was in her in her full-time care. She has concerns with the over-involvement of father’s sister and the paternal grandmother in the upbringing of their child.

The major concern is that she feels they will make negative comments about her that could have a negative influence on her relationship with the child. [ 141 ] The mother argues that she should be the child’s primary care giver for a number of reasons, namely, she was the child’s primary care giver for the first 15 months of his life, the child needs stability, and it will likely assist him developmentally. [ 142 ] The father’s counsel pointed out several instances within the mother’s affidavits where she exaggerated or did not believe what she was saying, even though she acknowledged that she had read the affidavits before she signed them.

Part of this, she says, was the result of not understanding the wording. On other occasions, she said that this was how she felt at the time. [ 143 ] During cross-examination, the father’s counsel suggested that the allegations that the mother has made against the father, the paternal grandmother and the father’s sister are inconsequential events that the mother has blown out of proportion for the purposes of this hearing. The mother denies this and says that this is what she observed and these were her experiences.

In fact, she was concerned that they might have wanted to exclude her from the raising of her child. She communicated this to the father. As well, the father’s counsel questioned the mother at some length as to why she did not express these concerns in writing. [ 144 ] The father’s counsel also raised the cultural aspects of the parties’ relationship and, in particular, the fact that the parties’ families occupy different castes. The mother adamantly disagreed with any suggestion that the castes that their respective families occupy had any effect on their marriage or the matter that is before this Court.

Her parents originally had concerns with the father’s age, relative to their daughter’s, and the fact that the father had been married twice before. Those concerns, however, dissipated when they married. Her parents had no influence on her seeking the divorce from the father, though they supported her decisions. [ 145 ] The father’s counsel also directed this Court to many greeting cards that the mother provided to the father that expressed terms of endearment, and the child’s baby book that did the same with respect to the father and his family.

With respect to the greeting cards, these are of limited use to this Court, as they are not dated. As well, the mother quite reasonably indicated that she would not put negative thoughts in the child’s baby book. [ 146 ] The mother acknowledges that the father was a caring father for the first two months of the child’s life. At first, he changed diapers, but by the time she left Burnaby, he did not change diapers as he said, “the novelty has worn off.” [ 147 ] The father has not missed any opportunities to see the child pursuant to the various parenting schedules that the court has ordered.

As well, as mentioned above, he attends the child’s health care appointments in Calgary. The mother acknowledged that many

times, when she would allow the father to see the child, it was during the child’s nap time. However, during that particular period, the child was taking two naps per day, so it was difficult to

schedule a time when the child was not taking a nap. [ 148 ] The mother has not yet weaned the child; he is still breastfeeding. She is “getting there” but is not there as yet. She said that at this point, the child wants to breastfeed for comfort, not for nutrition. She denies that she is using breastfeeding to prevent the father’s access to the child. [ 149 ] The mother was adamant that she was encouraging the father to see the child.

The father’s counsel questioned the mother about a statement in one of her affidavits where she said that the father had “no interest in seeing the child.” She acknowledges that now, the father is arguing that he wants to see the child. [ 150 ] The paternal grandparents had not seen the child for a while. The father and his parents wanted to meet with the mother and the child, but the mother said that she would meet only with the father and the child. To that extent, the mother was denying the paternal grandparents access to the child.

The mother explained that the last time they had met, the grandparents were putting pressure on her with respect to the issue now before this Court and other issues between her and the father. To her mind, their intention was not to visit with the child, but to continue to attempt to put pressure on her in front of the child. She asked them to refrain from doing this. She was afraid that if she met with them again, they would continue to put pressure on her. [ 151 ] The mother’s perfect scenario would be for her to have primary care of the child with regular contact with the father.

The child could go to Burnaby every other weekend from Thursday to Sunday. On the father’s non-weekend access, the father can come to Calgary during the week and visit with the child during the week for full days during that week (but not the weekend and not for overnight stays). She would share the costs with the father. This arrangement would continue until the child starts kindergarten. G.S.A. [ 152 ] The father began his testimony by providing this Court with his views of the “best interests of the child.” Most of this is not helpful for the purposes of this decision.

However, there are a few things that this Court finds important. First, he feels that the parents are the two pillars for any child. This Court agrees. As well, he feels that equality of time spent with each parent is important to the child. This Court will discuss this in greater detail later in these reasons, but it is important to point this out at this stage. [ 153 ] When the child is with him, he cannot stop looking at the child. He can relate to how the mother feels. He feels they can still raise the child themselves. At the very least, they should go to counselling together.

They have attended no counselling. If they could sit down with a counsellor, they could hear each other’s concerns. He feels they can reconcile and that the best approach is not to try to fix blame on anyone. The child deserves to have his parents in his life, concentrating on his needs and his growing up. The litigation must stop. [ 154 ] The father feels that the child is “getting better as each week goes by.” By that he means that the child is developing, learning, exploring, socializing, and is generally happy.

In fact, the father said that he “can’t point to anything that [the child] is not doing well in.” The father has no concerns about the child’s development and feels that one must look at each child individually. The child may be delayed in some things, but every child grows at their own rate. The child, in his view, is not missing any milestones. When the mother raised concerns about the child ’ s growth and development, the father asked her for specifics. She did not respond. As well, he heard for the first time during these proceedings that Ms. Wotherspoon had concerns about the child ’ s development.

Her concerns are not expressed in her report. [ 155 ] When the child is with him, he provides all the parenting, “100% of the time.” His extended family is there for support, but they do not take care of the child. [ 156 ] The father was born in India, but immigrated to Canada when he was somewhere between 8 years and 11 years of age. He is currently 45 years old. He completed his grade 12 in New Westminster, British Columbia, then attended Simon Fraser University and obtained a degree in psychology. He intended to continue with his education, but while doing some

interpretation work for an insurance company, they liked him and kept him on, not as an interpreter, but as an adjuster.

[ 157 ] The father is involved in many types of sports, as well as music. From his testimony, it appears that he is an elite musician. [ 158 ] The father was employed with an insurance company in Vancouver as an insurance claims supervisor at the date of separation. That insurance company was taken over by a different insurance company approximately in May 2011. The father was let go from his employment and received a severance package in November 2011.

He commenced casual employment as a claims adjuster with an insurance claims adjustment company in Vancouver during December 2011. [ 159 ] He still works in the insurance industry. As well, he manages and works on his family’s real estate projects. Over the years, his family has bought houses, renovated and “flipped” them for a profit. They have made a lot of money doing this. They currently have two projects, one in Langley and one in Mapleridge, British Columbia. These are in development areas, such that they can be subdivided into single family lots and sold.

In addition to managing these projects he does much of the “hands-on” work, such as plumbing, electrical, roofing and the like. As well, he hires tradespeople to do many of the tasks. One of the properties is in his parents’ name, although he has co-signed the mortgage. The other is in his name. He feels that he must remain in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia to manage these projects properly. [ 160 ] He is not earning much income at this time. He is working in a casual position in the insurance industry.

The Langley and Mapleridge properties are earning little income, at this time, and each of them is operating at a loss. [ 161 ] The mother did not know of the Mapleridge property or the Langley property until she commenced these proceedings. Neither of the parties knew much about the other’s finances. Furthermore, they were too busy planning the wedding, changing jobs and going to Maui to worry about this. Thereafter, they started getting ready for the baby.

When questioned later, he testified that he told her about the two projects before they were married. [ 162 ] When the child was born, the mother suggested that they open a joint bank account. There was another joint bank account that he shared with his family members, known as the “central bank account.” He did not comply with an undertaking from his questioning to provide information about that bank account.

Although the parties did not discuss their finances, the father testified that he was an “open book.” [ 163 ] The father referred to the Burnaby house as the “matrimonial home.” The house is in his parent’s name, but he said that it is “their” (meaning the parties’) home as well. [ 164 ] The father has been married twice, through arranged marriages. The marriages did not work out. The father was in his 20s at the time. [ 165 ] The website on which the parties met is a worldwide website. In other words, a person could meet another person from anywhere in the world.

Although the father said that he wanted to meet a person from anywhere in the world, it was never his intention to move outside of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. In fact, had he known he would have to maintain a long distance relationship with a wife and child, he “would not have signed up for that.” [ 166 ] From what he recalls, the mother’s father was very happy to meet him when he arrived at their home for the first time. Despite this, the father’s impression was that the mother’s parents never seemed very happy with him. They have done nothing to help keep his family together.

On the other hand, he states that his parents were “over the moon” with the mother. [ 167 ] If this Court were to order that the child reside in Burnaby, the father stated that the mother would be received by his family and his social circle, in the same way that he would accept her. Their reactions would “flow from him.” [ 168 ] After the parties married, they had discussions about where they were going to live. The mother had a well-paying job in Calgary, so she was hesitant to move immediately. However, if she found a job that she liked in British Columbia, or if she got pregnant, she would move.

The father made renovations to the Burnaby house, thinking that this was going to be the parties’ matrimonial home. He made further renovations when he learned that the mother was pregnant.

[ 169 ] The father’s family moved from Langley to Burnaby. He had grown up in the Burnaby/New Westminster area of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Burnaby was closer to downtown, where he expected that both of them would be working. As well, he wanted to raise his family in that area, and an elementary and high school were close to the Burnaby house. [ 170 ] When the mother had the second ultrasound (the one where the father was present), the father denies that the mother pointed to the Peter Lougheed Hospital and said that she was going to have the baby there.

In fact, he says, they returned to the car and he said he was very proud at that moment and that they were blessed. His reason for wanting her to give birth to the child in Burnaby was that in Calgary, he would not have any support, and the mother’s support was limited. He did not clarify to her what he meant by that. [ 171 ] When the child was born, the mother did not want her parents there; it would be just the two of them. The mother went into labour at about 6:00 p.m.

Had there been no problems, it would have been just the two of them, but the father explained that there were difficulties concerning the child’s umbilical cord being around the child’s neck. The mother said nothing about this. The father’s sister arrived at around midnight. He does not recall the incidents involving the mother and the paternal grandmother and his sister. [ 172 ] He said that everything was good between them until she went into labour. He acknowledges that it was a difficult labour.

He and his family only tried to help her. [ 173 ] The father stated that it was he who raised the concern about the child’s cone-shaped head. He discussed it with the nurses immediately, who said it would be fine. [ 174 ] No one in his family discussed the adequacy of the mother’s breast milk with the mother. In particular, that paternal grandmother did not interfere with how the child would be fed.

It was he and the mother who made the decision concerning how the child would be fed. [ 175 ] The father denies almost all of the mother’s testimony as to what happened when she returned to the Burnaby house after she was released from the hospital. No one ever told her not to come downstairs. No one ever took the baby from her. She did not raise any issues with him concerning the paternal grandmother and the rest of his family. [ 176 ] After the mother returned to Calgary, the father’s family did not see the child for about eight months.

This was the first, and only, child for his extended family. [ 177 ] The father had no sense that there were any problems between the parties when the mother travelled to Calgary on October 16, 2010. He thought she was going to Alberta so she could recover from the birth. As well, her mother was going to undergo surgery in November 2010 and the mother wanted to be there. [ 178 ] The father expected the mother to be in Calgary for about three or four weeks. While she was in Calgary, they spoke almost every day. There was nothing in those conversations that suggested problems with their marriage.

At one point, she asked him why he did not come to Calgary. He told her that he needed to complete the renovations on the Burnaby house. Besides, he thought the mother and the child were returning to Burnaby. He purchased three return tickets sometime in December 2010. [ 179 ] The father did not come to visit the mother and the child from the time she left Burnaby on October 16, 2010, to the time he arrived in Calgary on January 7, 2011.

When questioned why, he responded by saying that he had “a lot of other things on his shoulders and that he had to take care of a number of other things.” He also felt that they would be back [to Burnaby] “in three to four weeks.” The father did not tell the mother that he had a few days off between the Christmas and New Year’s. Again, he said he did not come to visit the mother and the child, because the plan was that she would be returning to Burnaby shortly after New Year’s. [ 180 ] He arrived in Calgary at about 7:00 p.m. on January 7, 2011. The mother, child and the mother’s father were at the airport to

pick him up. They were waiting for him outside. The child was in the car seat and he “looked right at” the father, a moment the father said he will never forget. They dropped him off at a hotel, which the father thought odd because after they were married, he would always stay at the mother’s parents’ house. They visited in the hotel for 30 to 40 minutes. She told him nothing about what was coming. [ 181 ] On January 8, 2011, he was in his hotel room waiting for a telephone call from the mother, thinking that they were just going to “hang-out” at her parents’ place.

He was served with the statement of claim for divorce and notice of an application for a restraining order sometime between 11:00 a.m. and noon. The application required him to be in court at 10:00 a.m. on January 10, 2011. He telephoned the mother and said that they needed to talk, as there must be a mistake

[…]