M.L.R. v. A.B.R., 2018 BCPC 385

Citation: M.L.R. v. A.B.R. 2018 BCPC 385 Date: 20181214 File No: F-39929 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Family Division IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: M.L.R. APPLICANT AND: A.B.R. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE R. HAMILTON Counsel for the Applicant: D. Halkett Counsel for the Respondent: P. Evans Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: November 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2018 Date of Judgment: December 14, 2018

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] M.L.R. (“Ms. R.”) and A.B.R. (“Mr. R.”) are the parents of 8-year-old N.R. (“N.”) and 5-year-old O.R. (“O.”). These parties married in September 2015 and separated on January 11, 2017 following an incident of alleged domestic violence. [ 2 ] By September 2017, these parents had worked out an agreement for parenting time with N. and O. whereby both boys were with Ms. R. from Monday to Friday each week, and they were with Mr.

R. from Friday to Monday each week. [ 3 ] This parenting arrangement formed the basis of a without prejudice interim consent order reached at a Family Case Conference in January 2018. The children continue to spend time with each parent according to this parenting arrangement. [ 4 ] In this hearing, Ms. R. seeks a number of orders, but principally she seeks orders that:

a) Both parents are guardians of the children;

b) Her residence be declared the primary residence of the children;

c) The current parenting arrangements continue; and

d) Mr. R. pay child support based upon an imputed income higher than that reported to Revenue Canada on his tax returns. [ 5 ] For his part, Mr. R. seeks orders that:

a) Both parents are guardians of the children;

b) Mr. R.’s home be declared the children’s primary residence;

c) Reverse the parenting arrangements such that Mr. R. cares for the children from Sunday to Friday each week and Ms. R. cares for the children from Friday to Sunday each week; and

d) Ms. R. pays to Mr. R. child support based upon her reported annual income. [ 6 ] Both parties seek a number of ancillary orders which I will resolve in these reasons, but those ancillary orders are not, in the main, in dispute. BACKGROUND [ 7 ] Ms. R. is 37 years old and Mr. R. is 39 years old. They met in 2007. [ 8 ] Ms. R.’s parents have passed away and she has no extended family. She lives in North Delta with N. and O. [ 9 ] Mr. R. was born and raised in Richmond. His parents came to Canada from Portugal in 1975. His parents continue to reside in the home in which Mr. R. was raised. Presently, Mr.

R. lives with his parents. The elementary school that Mr. R. attended is located immediately behind the R.’s property in Richmond. [ 10 ] Mr. R. has a brother and a sister who live locally. [ 11 ] As I have indicated, Mr. and Ms. R. met in 2007. On [omitted for publication] N. was born. On [omitted for publication] the parties married. On [omitted for publication] O. was born. [ 12 ] While these parties were together they did not have stable living arrangements. They moved frequently. They spent a period of time living with Mr. R.’s parents but moved out in advance of O.’s birth as the living quarters in Mr.

R.’s parents’ home were too constrained. [ 13 ] In August 2016, the parties leased a nice townhouse for one year in South Surrey. They were both driving nice new vehicles. By January 2017, their marriage was in trouble. [ 14 ] Both parties acknowledged in their evidence that by January 2017 they were yelling and screaming at each other, calling each other names, and slamming doors in the family home. Their judgment was so grossly impaired that they carried on in this way in front of their children. [ 15 ] On January 7, 2017 an incident occurred in the R. home that led to a criminal charge against Mr.

R. for assaulting Ms. R. I will return to the parties’ divergent accounts as to what happened in their home on January 7, 2017. [ 16 ] On January 11, 2017 Mr. R. was arrested and charged with assaulting Ms. R. He was detained overnight and released on bail with protective conditions preventing him from having contact directly or indirectly with Ms. R. or N. and O. At that point, Mr. R.’s parenting time with N. and O. stopped. [ 17 ] Mr. R. moved in with his sister, C.R. He had to live with his sister because Ms. R. continued to rely on the assistance of Mr.

R.’s parents to care for N. and O. [ 18 ] In April 2017, Ms. R. applied to have Mr. R.’s bail conditions varied so that he could have contact with N. and O. Mr. R.’s parenting time with his sons resumed shortly thereafter. [ 19 ] In August 2017, Mr. R. moved back to live with his parents in Richmond. [ 20 ] In September 2017, the parties reached their informal parenting agreement mentioned earlier whereby N. and O. spent Monday to Friday each week with Ms. R. and spent Friday to Monday each week with Mr. R. That parenting arrangement continues in effect to this day. THE JANUARY 7, 2017 INCIDENT [ 21 ] Ms.

R. alleges that on January 7, 2017 Mr. R. was angry because O., then 3½ years old, was misbehaving by saying things like “fuck you daddy” and “I hate you daddy”. Mr. R. was trying to stop O. from saying these things and in an effort to distract O. he threw his shoes to the ground making a loud noise. This had only a fleeting effect on O. and he resumed his foul-mouthed rants towards his father. [ 22 ] Ms. R. says that then, in a fit of anger, Mr. R. grabbed a broom and was about to swing the broom at O. Ms. R. testified that in anticipation of the assault on O., she jumped in front of her son and Mr.

R. swung the broom striking Ms. R. in the face near her eye. [ 23 ] Ms. R. testified that she did not immediately report this alleged assault by Mr. R. to the police. On January 11, 2017 Ms. R. reported the alleged assault to the authorities. When Mr. R. arrived home from work that day he saw the police cars at his home. He was arrested, charged, and held in jail overnight. [ 24 ] Mr. R.’s account of this incident on January 7, 2017 differs in many material ways from the account given by Ms. R. [ 25 ] Mr. R agrees that O., on that day, was telling his father to “fuck off” and that he “hated” him. Mr.

R. agrees that in an effort to startle O. he threw his shoes to the floor to make a loud noise. [ 26 ] When the shoe throwing tactic failed, Mr. R. testified that he grabbed a broom and started sweeping the floor to distract himself from the rather out-of-control behaviour of young O. [ 27 ] I pause here in the narrative to make this observation.

It is astonishing to me that two parents who testified that they had nothing but the best interests of their children in mind while advocating their respective positions in court, had let their parental responsibilities evaporate to such an extent that neither could control a 3½ year old child from telling his father to “fuck off”. How a child of that young age knows such an expletive is mind boggling. O. would only know that language if he had heard it, and I infer that such expletives were a part of the toxic environment in which O. was being raised. [ 28 ] Mr.

R. continued in his testimony to tell me that while sweeping the floor, O.’s rant against his father continued unabated. Ms. R. was doing nothing to stop O. from saying such hurtful things towards Mr. R. [ 29 ] So, Mr. R. made the decision to slam the broom in his hands to the ground to make another startling sound in the hope that such a shocking distraction would stop O. After slamming the broom to the ground, Ms. R. screamed out in pain. Mr. R. says that at the time he slammed the broom to the ground Ms. R. was several feet away from him and O. was about 15 feet away. [ 30 ] Mr.

R. says that at no time did he swing the broom towards anyone in his family. The result of Mr. R. slamming the broom to the ground was that the tip of the broom handle sheared off and struck Ms. R. in her face near her eye. At the time, Mr. R. testified that he did not know what had happened and did not realize that the end of the broom handle had broken off. [ 31 ] As I have indicated, on January 11, 2017, Mr. R. was arrested and charged with assaulting Ms. R. [ 32 ] That charge came to trial before my sister Judge Chettiar in December 2017 and March 2018. She rendered her decision on May 18, 2018.

Judge Chettiar’s reasons for judgment acquitting Mr. R. of the assault charge were tendered into evidence as Exhibit 3 in this hearing. [ 33 ] In her reasons for judgment, Judge Chettiar points out a number of inconsistencies in Ms. R.’s evidence at the criminal trial. It was due to those inconsistencies that Judge Chettiar found that the Crown had not proven the criminal allegation beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted Mr. R. [ 34 ] In her evidence before me, Ms. R. maintained her account of the incident on January 7, 2017, that being that Mr. R. swung the broom towards O. and Ms.

R. stepped in to protect O. and was struck in the face by Mr. R. She testified that she did not tell Mr. R.’s sister, C.R., following this incident, that the incident was an accident. Her evidence in this regard is in direct conflict with a factual finding made by Judge Chettiar in her reasons for judgment. [ 35 ] I will return later in this judgment to concerns I have as to the reliability of Ms. R.’s evidence. And while I understand the different standards of proof between a criminal proceeding and a civil proceeding, I reject Ms. R.’s account of what happened on January 7, 2017 that led to her eye injury.

I am satisfied that, while not binding on me, Judge Chettiar’s findings at the criminal trial are persuasive. [ 36 ] I find Mr. R.’s account much more plausible and consistent with the surrounding circumstances including the fact that the tip of the broom handle actually broke off. There is no dispute about that fact. I find that on January 7, 2017, in a fit of anger, Mr. R. slammed the broom to the ground breaking off the tip of the handle, and that piece of the broom flew and struck Ms. R. in the face near her eye. I find that Mr. R. did not intentionally strike or assault Ms. R. on January 7, 2017.

What happened was an accident, but the

accident was fuelled by anger and an emotional outburst by Mr. R. [ 37 ] As I have indicated, following this incident Mr. R. was arrested, charged, and there followed a period of time when he had no contact with N. and O. That changed in April or May 2017, when the no contact condition was varied on his bail order although Mr. R. was still prohibited from having contact with Ms. R. SPECIFIC EVIDENTIARY ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED [ 38 ] In their evidence, the parties covered a vast array of evidentiary issues.

I will review only a few of the more pertinent issues before turning to my analysis and resolution of the substantive legal issues in this hearing. A. N.’s School Attendance [ 39 ] N.’s punctuality and attendance at school is a disgrace. I am told that, but for normal childhood ailments, he is not a sickly child. He is overweight, but that was not proffered to me as an excuse for N. to miss school. [ 40 ] Between September 2015 and June 2016 – N.’s kindergarten year - he missed 50 full days of school, four half days of school, and he was late getting to school 43 days.

In other words, in kindergarten, N. missed some school on a total of 97 days. In Grade 1, N. missed 47 full days of school, one half day of school, and he was late to school on 30 days, for a total of 78 days when he missed some school. In Grade 2, N. missed 27 full days, 4 half days, and was late to school on 36 days, for a total of 67 days when he missed some school. N. is now in Grade 3. I only have his attendance records for the month of September, 2018.

In that one month, N. missed 7 full days of school and was late one day. [ 41 ] I have taken the time to add up all of these missed days of school and days when N. has been late getting to school. Over the three years from September 2015 to September 2018, N. missed 131 full days of school, 9 half days of school, and he was late getting to school on 110 days.

That is 250 school days over three years where N. has missed all or some of a school day. [ 42 ] These parents should be ashamed of themselves for abdicating their important parental responsibility of ensuring that N. regularly attends school for the education he is entitled to receive. [ 43 ] N.’s school attendance record was at its worst in Kindergarten when Mr. and Ms. R. were still together. Mr. R. argues that his home should become the principal residence of both N. and O. because of the proximity of the local elementary school to his parents’ home. That proximity, Mr.

R. argues, would ensure the boys’ regular attendance at school. I am not sure that N.’s school attendance record while these parties were together would support that finding. [ 44 ] In his evidence, Mr. R. described for me anxiety issues N. has from time to time when Mr. R. drops N. off at school. Apparently, N. tells his father that he does not want to be left alone at school. Mr. R. told me that he takes the time to reassure N. that everything will be fine and that Mr. R. will take N. into the school and remain there for a short period of time before leaving to go to work. [ 45 ] Ms.

R. did not tell me about this issue as a feature of the days when she drops N. off at school. Neither did N.’s day-care provider, S.K., who testified that she takes N. and O. to school on the days she cares for the boys before school. [ 46 ] It is not clear if N. is recorded as attending late to school on these days when he is, in fact, at school but claiming to feel anxious which delays Mr. R. from getting his son into the school. I suspect that this issue explains some of the days when N. is recorded as attending school late.

If this is the case, and I believe it is, then simply changing the school would not improve N.’s school attendance. In fact, moving N. to a new school would likely have the effect of increasing his anxiety as he tries to adapt to a strange environment. [ 47 ] Regardless, N.’s abysmal attendance at school on time, or at all, must improve if this young boy is going to receive the education he deserves. His parents are going to have to change what they are doing to ensure N.’s timely attendance at school. However, I do not view N.’s school attendance record as a sufficient reason to change where N. lives. B.

Counselling for N. and O. [ 48 ] During her cross-examination, Ms. R. testified that Mr. R. interfered in counselling sessions that Ms. R. had arranged for N. and O. In fact, she testified that Mr. R. deliberately withheld his consent to the counselling which had the effect of both boys missing some of their important counselling sessions. Indeed, Ms. R. testified that N. is suicidal. In saying that, I believe that Ms. R. was attempting to paint Mr. R. in a significantly negative light by alleging he prevented counselling for N. and O. [ 49 ] The difficulty I have with Ms.

R.’s evidence on this topic is that her evidence is contradicted by the counselling notes obtained from the counsellor. [ 50 ] In her evidence, Ms. R. testified that she was mad at Mr. R. because he interfered with the boys counselling and his interference led to O. missing two of his counselling sessions. [ 51 ] As Ms. R.’s evidence developed, I learned that she enrolled N. and O. in counselling without any consultation with Mr. R. Apparently, in April 2018, Mr. R. suggested to Ms. R. that the boys start counselling with the LEAP Clinic in Vancouver. At that point, Ms. R. told Mr.

R. that the boys were already registered for counselling with Deltassist and that she had arranged for their counselling without any input from Mr. R. Mr. R. complained that he should have been consulted before any decisions were made about arranging counselling for N. and O., and he is correct. [ 52 ] Records from N. and O.’s counselling with Ms. Bains at Deltassist were tendered into evidence. What is clear from those records is that Mr. R. co-operated fully with attending at Deltassist and signing his consent form to allow N. and O. to pursue their counselling. In fact, the Deltassist records indicate that Mr.

R. did nothing to interfere with scheduled counselling appointments for N.

and O. [ 53 ] Despite documentary evidence to the contrary, Ms. R. maintained that as a result of Mr. R.’s interference, O. missed two of his counselling sessions. [ 54 ] I have concerns about Ms. R.’s evidence on this topic and on other topics. She testified about things in a manner designed to paint Mr. R. in a very negative light. She maintained that theme throughout her evidence even when other evidence proved her assertions were wrong. The Deltassist records establish that Mr. R. signed the intake forms for N.’s counselling before Ms.

R. signed the intake forms. [ 55 ] In fact, missed counselling sessions recorded in the Deltassist records were due primarily to Ms. R. failing to take the boys to their scheduled counselling appointment - recorded in the records as “no show” - or the sessions were cancelled either by Ms. R. or the counsellor. There is nothing in those records that would attribute a missed or cancelled counselling session to Mr. R. [ 56 ] In addition, nothing in the counselling records confirms Ms. R.’s assertion that N. is suicidal. The counsellor records Ms. R.’s statement on October 16, 2018 that N. had made statements to Ms.

R. that “it would be easier if I died”. Nowhere in the counselling notes does Ms. Bains record N. saying anything to her to suggest he is suicidal. N. began group counselling on October 3, 2018 in a group called “Safe Group for Kids” but those sessions began prior to Ms. R.’s report to Ms. Bains of N.’s alleged suicidal thoughts. If N.’s registration in the “Safe Group for Kids” was the result of a concern of Ms. Bains that N. was suicidal, then I would expect a note of that concern to appear in Ms. Bain’s counselling records. [ 57 ] Regardless, given the level of conflict between Mr. and Ms.

R., there can be no doubt that N. and O. would benefit from counselling so that they can try and come to grips with why their mother and father hate each other. But I reject Ms. R.’s evidence that Mr. R. interfered in this counselling, withheld his consent to counselling that led to cancelled counselling sessions for N. and O., or that he opposed counselling for the boys at any time. Her evidence in this regard is not corroborated by the counselling records from Deltassist. C. Use of the Police in this Dispute [ 58 ] Ms.

R. had demonstrated an unsettling tendency to either engage the police in her dispute with Mr. R. or threaten to engage the police in this dispute. To the extent that the police have responded to Ms. R.’s calls, and that N. and O. have had to cope with the presence of the police in this dispute between their parents, that police engagement is clearly contrary to the boys’ best interests. [ 59 ] In January 2017, Ms. R. reported to the police that she had been assaulted by Mr. R. with a broom swung at her face.

That allegation has never been established and, in fact, the persuasive evidence is that the injury to Ms. R. was the result of an accident, not a criminal or intentional act. I have made that finding earlier in these Reasons. Nonetheless, the arrest of Mr. R. led to several months when he was prevented from having any contact with N. and O. [ 60 ] In August 2017 when Ms. R. was moving out of the leased town home that had been the family residence, C.R. called Ms. R. to ask if she could come and collect some of her brother’s belongings. Ms. R. responded that if C.R. attended at the town home, Ms.

R. would call the police. This assertion was not put to Ms. R. during her cross-examination, so I do not know what her evidence would be on this topic, but C.R. came across as an earnest and truthful witness and given Ms. R.’s call to the police a year later in August 2018, I believe that it is likely that Ms. R. made this threat to involve the police in an otherwise benign event. [ 61 ] During the summer of 2018, Mr. R. wanted to have N. and O. for two weeks to enjoy some summer holiday time with his sons. Both parents testified at some length about a proposed trip to Boston for N. and O. with Mr. R.

I will not review that evidence here, but ultimately these parents agreed that N. and O. would spend two weeks with Mr. R. from August 18 to September 2, 2018. The conditions imposed by Ms. R. on this holiday time for the boys to be with their father were clearly unreasonable. Those conditions included that Ms. R. would be able to speak with N. and O. each and every day they were with their father, and more importantly that if at any time the boys expressed a desire to return to Ms. R. they were entitled to do so. [ 62 ] On August 20, 2018, Ms.

R. was speaking with N. over the phone to check in and see how things were going for the boys with their father. Ms. R. testified that she could hear O. crying in the background. She testified that O. said that he wanted Ms. R. to come and pick him up. Mr. R. then hung up the phone on Ms. R., so she did what I gather she thought was perfectly reasonable and called the police. [ 63 ] Ms. R. met the police at Mr. R.’s home. Constable Jenkins interacted with Ms. R. while another officer entered Mr. R.’s home to check on the welfare of N. and O.

There was no evidence led that either boy was in any distress when the police arrived on the scene. [ 64 ] According to Constable Jenkins, Ms. R. demanded that the police go into the home and retrieve both boys and return them to her care. When Constable Jenkins told Ms. R. that the incident was a civil matter and not a criminal matter, Ms. R. threatened to call the news media to complain that the police were not doing their job. [ 65 ] Ultimately, O. came out of Mr. R.’s home in what Constable Jenkins described as “good spirits”. O. left with Ms.

R. for the night but was returned the next morning to a bike camp organized by Mr. R. for the boys while they were with him over the two weeks in August. There was no other disruption in Mr. R.’s time with N. and O. over those two weeks. [ 66 ] Ms. R.’s decision to involve the police in this incident was unacceptable and contrary to the best interests of N. and O. Her decision to involve the police demonstrates that she struggles with how to manage her conflict with Mr. R. in a manner that protects the interests of her sons. I believe that Ms.

R.’s judgment is affected by her perception, based upon little or no evidence, that Mr. R. poses some kind of threat to the safety and well-being of N. and O. I will return to this topic shortly. My point for present purposes is this: Any parent who is genuinely looking out for the best interests of their children would only involve the police in their dispute over those children in circumstances where there was a credible threat to the safety of the children.

Involving the police in a parental dispute over children in any circumstance short of that is an indication that the parent wants to employ the police to assist the parent in the dispute, not

to ensure that the children are safe. My view is that using the police for that purpose is reprehensible and should not be condoned. [ 67 ] Ms. R. is going to have to come to grips with the fact that Mr. R. plays a vital and important role in the lives of N. and O. She must accept that Mr. R. poses no threat to the safety of their children. She must understand that calling the police to help her in her dispute with Mr. R. rather than calling the police for a legitimate safety concern over N. and O. is contrary to the best interests of N. and O. D. Mr. R. as a Violent Parent [ 68 ] Ms.

R. testified on a few occasions during her evidence that Mr. R. was a violent partner and a violent parent to N. and O. She testified that both boys have returned home from their time spent with Mr. R. with bruises on their bodies that resembled marks caused by the boys being grabbed violently by Mr. R. [ 69 ] When challenged on this evidence, Ms. R. conceded that she has never taken N. or O. to see a doctor about the bruising. While she testified that she has taken photographs of these bruises, she did not tender those photographs into evidence at this trial. [ 70 ] Ms.

R. testified that while still living together, Mr. R. was, at times, violent towards her, N., and O. If that assertion is true, there is no evidence that Ms. R. called the police to respond to a legitimate instance of domestic violence directed at her or the children. There is no evidence that Ms. R. sought medical treatment for herself or the boys as a result of alleged domestic violence or child abuse. [ 71 ] Again, I view Ms. R.’s evidence of Mr. R. as a violent parent as simply another thinly veiled attempt to portray Mr. R. as an unhealthy influence in the lives of N. and O.

I view this evidence as a tactic in this dispute with Mr. R. rather than a genuine concern for the safety of N. and O. I reach that conclusion because, as I will address shortly, Ms. R. has repeatedly chosen to rely on Mr. R. and his family to provide care for the boys and that is inconsistent with her claims that N. and O. are unsafe with their father and his family. E. Mr. R. as an Uninvolved Parent [ 72 ] Ms. R. portrayed Mr. R. as an uninvolved parent in the lives of N. and O. Mr.

R.’s response to this portrayal of him is that following their separation, he was bound by his bail conditions that prevented him from having any contact directly or indirectly with Ms. R. until the conclusion of his criminal trial. [ 73 ] Mr. R. testified that he was vigilant not to attend at any parent/teacher conferences while he was bound by his bail conditions out of concern that Ms. R. would be present and Mr. R. would be in violation of his bail terms. [ 74 ] However, Mr.

R. testified that he regularly checked with N. and O.’s teachers to enquire how the boys were doing in school when he dropped off the boys to school on Monday mornings. [ 75 ] Ms. R. was critical of Mr. R. not attending any doctor appointments or dental appointments, but for the same reason Mr. R. avoided those kinds of appointments in order that he not risk breaching his bail because Ms. R. would be present for those appointments. [ 76 ] It is not lost on me that Mr. R.’s bail conditions arose out of what I have found to have been an accident but which Ms. R. asserted was a criminal offence.

To then criticize Mr. R. for not involving himself in things in N. and O’s lives where there was some risk that Ms. R. would be present is, at best, disingenuous. [ 77 ] On this point I conclude that Mr. R. is, and has been, as involved in the activities in N. and O’s lives as he could be while his criminal charge remained before the court. F. Mr. R.’s Payment of Child Support and Daycare Expenses [ 78 ] Another of Ms. R.’s complaints is that Mr. R. has been irresponsible and neglectful in his financial support of N. and O. since the parties separated.

And while I find that there is a fine thread of truth to this allegation, I have concluded that Mr. R. has, by and large, fulfilled his financial obligations to N. and O. since the separation. [ 79 ] Following the parties separation in January 2017, Mr. R. made the monthly lease payments on the family town home where Ms. R. remained with N. and O. until August 2017. Those payments were in excess of $2,000 per month. Yet Ms. R. complained that Mr. R. failed to financially support N. and O. because he was not paying child support. In addition, Mr.

R. was paying the bulk of the utilities payments until August 2017. [ 80 ] Starting in September 2017 after the town home lease had expired, Mr. R. began paying child support to Ms. R. of $423.00 per month and he has consistently paid that amount ever since. [ 81 ] Ms. R. initially testified that Mr. R. contributed no money to the day-care expenses of N. and O. following the separation, but she later contradicted herself by acknowledging that Mr. R. paid for the full amount of the children’s day-care up to June 28, 2017. Mr.

R.’s objection to paying for day-care expenses after that point rests with his view that his parents are available to watch N. and O. at no cost to the parties and thus the day-care expense is unwarranted. The difficulty with Mr. R.’s perspective on this issue is that N. and O. live in North Delta, go to school in North Delta, and his parents live in Richmond. There is an obvious geographical barrier to Mr. R.’s parents providing before and after school care for N. and O. if they continue to attend school in North Delta. Added to this difficulty is that, at the present time, neither of Mr.

R.’s parents is able to drive. That poses an insurmountable barrier to Mr. R.’s parents providing before and after school care for N. and O. should they continue to attend school in North Delta. [ 82 ] Ms. R.’s evidence that Mr. R. has failed to pay child support, has failed to pay day-care expenses, and has failed to financially support their sons is not borne out by the evidence. She gave inconsistent evidence on this issue and Mr. R. gave evidence that was not challenged in cross-examination.

[ 83 ] In short, I find that Mr. R. has, by and large, financially supported N. and O. since the parties separated at a level commensurate with his income. G. The Calendar [ 84 ] During his evidence, Mr. R. produced a calendar that he testified accurately showed the time that N. and O. have been in each parent’s care since May 2017. If I accept that the Calendar is an accurate reflection of the parenting time each of Mr. and Ms.

R. has had with N. and O. since May 2017, then the only conclusion open to me to reach is that both parents have played a significant parenting role in the lives of N. and O. since May 2017. [ 85 ] Ms. R. disputed the accuracy of the Calendar prepared by Mr. R., but with nothing more than her general disagreement with the information recorded on the Calendar, Ms. R. could not substantiate her dispute with the accuracy of the Calendar with any evidence of her own. When pressed on this point, Ms.

R. simply stated that she was too busy parenting N. and O. to find the time to record the time the boys spent in each parent’s home. [ 86 ] Mr. R. testified that he recorded the information into his Calendar within a day or two of the events and parenting time that occurred in the lives of N. and O. since the parties’ separation. [ 87 ] Without any substantive challenge to Mr.

R.’s evidence on this issue, I accept that the Calendar accurately reflects the time that N. and O. have spent in each parent’s care since May 2017. [ 88 ] The result of that finding is that based upon the information contained in the Calendar, I conclude that Mr. and Ms. R. had exclusive care of N. and O. roughly equally each month since May 2017, excluding the days when N. and O. spent a portion of their days with both parents. Of course there have been months when one of Mr. or Ms.

R. had the boys in their exclusive care more than the other parent, but taking a broad view of the parenting arrangements for N. and O. I have reached the conclusion that the boys have spent roughly equal time under the care of each of Mr. and Ms. R. since May 2017. H. The General Theme of Ms. R.’s Evidence about Mr. R. and his Family [ 89 ] The last evidentiary issue I will refer to is this rather disheartening theme that infected nearly all of Ms. R.’s evidence in this case. Ms. R. went out of her way to paint Mr. R. and his family in a negative light.

She raised issues of N. and O. returning to her care from time spent with Mr. R. only to have to be taken to the emergency ward of the hospital due to Mr. R.’s neglect of the children’s health. She raised an issue with the children contracting an illness after eating undercooked chicken while in Mr. R.’s care. The chicken was cooked by Mr. R.’s father and the rest of the family ate the chicken with no ill effects. She alleged that Mr. R.’s father was an alcoholic and that Mr. R.’s family would routinely engage in yelling at each other creating a very negative environment for N. and O. [ 90 ] I believe that Ms.

R. wants me to conclude that she is correct in her depiction of Mr. R. and his family and then rely on that finding to influence my decision in this case. Ms. R.’s tactic in this case is not uncommon in our courts and it is unfortunate because bold allegations of misbehaviour without any corroborative evidence, coupled with behaviour patterns that directly contradict those bold allegations, do nothing but raise suspicion about the motive of the alleging parent. [ 91 ] In this case, despite Ms. R.’s attempt to paint Mr.

R. and his family as exceptionally bad people in the lives of N. and O., it is clear from the Calendar that she has relied upon Mr. R. and his family to provide significant care to N. and O. In fact, despite all of her negativity directed towards Mr. R. and his family, Ms. R. is content to continue with the current parenting arrangements and to allow N. and O. to spend half of their school vacations with Mr. R. and his family. Those two positions are irreconcilable. [ 92 ] I want to be clear. I reject Ms. R.’s not so subtle characterization of Mr. R. and his family as bad people. I reject Ms.

R.’s not so subtle assertion that exposing N. and O. to Mr. R. and his family is not in the children’s best interests, and I do so because Ms. R.’s choice to have Mr. R. and his family play such a pivotal role in the lives of N. and O. contradicts her assertion. My conclusion is based upon Mr. R.’s evidence and the Calendar that shows the degree to which Ms. R. has relied upon Mr. R. and his family to provide care for N. and O. So, either Ms. R. is choosing to expose N. and O. to this allegedly unhealthy and negative environment in Mr. R.’s home with his family, or Ms. R.’s characterization of Mr.

R. and his family is disingenuous. I find it is the latter. DISCUSSION OF, AND FINDINGS ON, THE ISSUES IN THIS TRIAL 1. Guardianship [ 93 ] Neither party contests the other party’s claim that they are guardians of N. and O. and I make the finding that each of Mr. and Ms. R. are guardians of N. and O. 2. N. and O’s Principal Residence [ 94 ] This is, by far, the most contentious issue between the parties in this trial. [ 95 ] Ms. R. wants me to conclude that N. and O.’s principal residence remain with her. Mr.

R. wants me to change N. and O.’s principal residence to his home which he currently shares with his parents. [ 96 ] The concern I have with leaving N. and O.’s principal residence with Ms. R. is that she has demonstrated, at times in this dispute, that she is unable to put the best interests of N. and O. in the forefront of her decision making. I believe I have demonstrated that earlier in this decision. There have been a number of occasions when Ms. R. has let her conflict with Mr.

R. get the better of her judgment and she has made very bad choices. [ 97 ] On the other hand, changing N. and O.’s principal residence to Mr. R.’s home and the change in the parenting

schedule that would accompany such a change in residence would impose a fairly significant change in the lives of N. and O. It would mean a change

in the school they attend. It would mean a change in what they consider to be their home community. It would mean a change in their childhood friendships that have developed to this point in time. [ 98 ] If I leave the principal residence of N. and O. with Ms. R., and if the parenting arrangements continue the way they have since May 2017, then what is clear to me is that N. and O. will spend nearly half their time in the care of Mr. R. or his parents. [ 99 ] I cannot look past what I believe to be Ms. R.’s unreasonable and unhealthy view that she controls what happens in the lives of N. and O.

But that issue can be addressed in orders dealing with the allocation of parental responsibilities between these two parents to reign in Ms. R.’s view that she alone is in control of the lives of their children. [ 100 ] I also cannot look past Mr. R.’s evidence that he plans to move from his parent’s home into his own home. So a change in N. and O.’s principal residence from Ms. R. to Mr. R. would also involve a future change into a different home with their father. I have not forgotten that one of the most unstable features of N. and O.’s life to this point is the home in which they live.

They have changed their home at least five times in their short lives. Changing their principal residence to Mr. R.’s home, which brings with it an inevitable further move, is not in the best interests of N. and O. [ 101 ] Ms. R.’s housing has also been significantly unstable. However, she is now in a home in North Delta that is close to the elementary school that both N. and O. attend. She has arranged for day-care at no cost in the home of S.K., who lives nearby. Ms. R. has no plans to move her residence in the foreseeable future. [ 102 ] So I confirm that N. and O.’s principal residence will remain with Ms.

R. [ 103 ] However, I would add this. Given that Mr. R. plans to move out of his parents’ home, should that move involve Mr. R. moving into North Delta closer to Ms. R.’s home, I would consider ordering a 50/50 split of the parenting time for N. and O. between their parents’ homes. Both of these parents have been a significant presence in the lives of N. and O. The Calendar reflects a nearly 50/50 split of the boys’ time between the two parent’s homes. Since the parties’ separation they have fallen on some difficult times and that is largely to be laid at the feet of Ms. R. I have rejected Ms.

R.’s characterization of Mr. R. as the negative influence she portrayed him as in her evidence. [ 104 ] If Mr. R. plans to move out of his parents’ home then I would encourage him to move into North Delta to be closer to where N. and O. live so that he could fulfil an even greater presence in the lives of his two sons. Should that happen, I would invite Mr. R. to apply back before me for an order that the parenting time for the boys be shared equally between these two parents. 3. Parenting Arrangements [ 105 ] The current parenting arrangements appear to be working well. Mr.

R. proposes that the parenting arrangements be reversed so that he cares for N. and O. from Sunday to Friday each week and Ms. R. cares for the boys from Friday to Sunday each week. Such a change would result in Mr. R.’s home becoming the principal residence for N. and O. and I have rejected that proposal. [ 106 ] As well, such a change would require both parties to change their work schedules and while Mr. R. testified that he could change his work

schedule with little to no difficulty, Ms. R. did not indicate if a change in her work

schedule was possible. [ 107 ] The other concern I have with Mr. R.’s proposal to change the parenting arrangements is that he has not taken any steps to determine if the local elementary school, [omitted for publication], has space and could accommodate the addition of N. and O. to the school. [ 108 ] Mr. R. testified confidently that the school would be obliged to take the boys if they were living in the schools’ catchment area. It is not clear to me where Mr. R. gets this confidence.

He tendered nothing from the school or the school district to confirm that the school is obliged to enrol every single child that lives within the school catchment, regardless of when that child moves into the school catchment. Mr.

R.’s proposal to reverse the parenting arrangements would have N. and O. move into his home starting with the resumption of school in January after the upcoming Christmas school break. [ 109 ] I would have thought that a carefully planned proposed move would have at least involved confirming that N. and O. would be able to attend [omitted for publication] because attendance at that school, just behind Mr. R.’s parents’ home, was a prominent feature of Mr. R.’s parenting proposal. Mr. R. chose to present this change in the living arrangements and parenting

schedule for N. and O. without confirming that some of the necessary changes were possible. I am not prepared to take a chance in the lives of N. and O. that the proposed schooling changes would happen. [ 110 ] In any event, I have confirmed that N. and O.’s principal residence will remain with Ms. R. and I now confirm that the parenting arrangements will remain the same as they currently are with Ms. R. caring for N. and O. from Monday after school until she drops them off at [omitted for publication] school Friday mornings and Mr.

R. will care for N. and O. from Friday after school until he drops them off at [omitted for publication] for school Monday morning. Mr. R. will have such alternate and/or additional parenting time as agreed upon by the parties. [ 111 ] I will below set out additional parenting arrangements for N. and O. to address special occasions and school holidays. 4. Parenting Responsibilities [ 112 ] This feature of Ms. R.’s testimony was most troubling. She has conducted herself with respect to making decisions for N. and O. as if she had no obligation to inform or discuss those decisions with Mr. R. In fairness, Mr.

R. was bound by the terms of his bail to have no contact with Ms. R. so he was in no position to discuss anything with Ms. R. until his acquittal in May 2018. [ 113 ] However, following his acquittal, Ms. R. arranged for counselling for N. and O. with no discussion at all with Mr. R. Ms. R. took a wholly unreasonable approach to approving N. and O. spending two weeks with Mr. R. in August, 2018. She insisted that if the

boys wanted to come back to Ms. R. during those two weeks, Mr. R. had to comply. On the one occasion when Mr. R. quite properly did not comply with this condition, Ms. R. called the police and exposed N. and O. to a conflict involving the police they never should have witnessed. [ 114 ] I was left with the impression that Ms. R. thinks she occupies the moral and parental high ground over N. and O. at the expense of Mr. R. She makes the decisions for N. and O. and Mr. R. has no option but to comply. This may come as a surprise to Ms.

R., but that is not how parenting children in a separated family works. [ 115 ] N. and O. are entitled to have the input of their father in important decisions in their lives. Where Mr. and Ms. R. disagree, it will not always be the case that Ms. R. is correct. [ 116 ] Accordingly, I assign the parental responsibilities set out in

section 41 of the Family Law Act (the FLA ) as follows: 1) S. 41(a): The parent with whom the children are residing at the time will have the authority to make decisions with respect to day-to-day decisions affecting the children and having day-to-day care, control and supervision of the children; 2) S. 41(b)-(l): Mr. and Ms. R. will share equally the authority to make decisions with respect to the balance of the parental responsibilities set out in

section 41 of the FLA . [ 117 ] The parties are required to discuss with each other and use their best efforts to reach an agreement with respect to any decision that needs to be made with respect to the parental responsibilities set out at S. 41(b)-(l). Except for emergency medical or dental health decisions that must be made without delay, if the parties are unable to reach an agreement they must utilize the services of a Family Justice Counsellor to mediate their dispute. If following mediation the parties are still unable to reach an agreement, then Ms. R. will have the authority to make the decision and Mr.

R. may, pursuant to S. 49 of the FLA , apply to a court for directions respecting the decision affecting the children. [ 118 ] With respect to any emergency medical or dental health decision that must be made without delay, the parent caring for the child at the time the decision must be made will have the authority to make that decision. The parent making the decision must forthwith inform the other parent of the medical or dental health emergency and the decision that has been made. [ 119 ] I appreciate that my decision with respect to the allocation of parental responsibilities will considerably reduce Ms.

R.’s control over decisions affecting N. and O. and considerably increase Mr. R.’s control over those decisions. That is the way that the authority of the guardians of N. and O. should exercise their decision making responsibilities. 5. Child Support [ 120 ] The issue of child support is very straight forward with the exception of the amount of income Mr. R. earns each year from tips at the restaurant where he works. Mr. R. is otherwise a paid employee at a restaurant at the Vancouver International Airport.

He worked at the restaurant between 1999 and 2007 and then he took jobs with different companies working in their warehouses. In 2014 or 2015, Mr. R. went through a bankruptcy. He returned to work at the restaurant at the Airport in 2014 and he continues to work there as a bartender to this day. [ 121 ] Mr. R. started paying monthly child support in September 2017, the month after he made the last lease payment on the family town home where Ms. R. was living with N. and O. following the separation in January 2017. Ms. R. was critical of Mr.

R. around the timing of the start of his child support payments. [ 122 ] I confess, I did not follow Ms. R.’s argument on this point at all. Between January and August 2017, Mr. R. paid the monthly lease payments for the town home which were in excess of $2,000 each month. Mr. R. paid the full day-care costs for N. and O. until June 28, 2017. Mr. R. also covered a considerable amount of the utilities at the family town home. The monthly payments by Mr. R. between January and August 2017 to ensure that Ms. R. and the boys had housing, day-care, and utilities were substantial. To suggest that Mr.

R. was not discharging his financial obligations to Ms. R., N., and O. prior to September 2017, is simply not borne out by the facts. [ 123 ] With respect to Mr. R.’s annual income, as I have indicated, he is a paid employee who receives tips each shift he works. On his tax returns he declares income from his tips of between $3,000 and $3,500 each year. Ms. R. argues that Mr. R. is underreporting his income from tips and that I should impute a greater amount of his income from tips in arriving at a more accurate gross annual income for Mr. R. [ 124 ] Ms. R. points out that Mr.

R.’s annual income from tips of between $3,000 and $3,500 works out to around $60 per week. She argues that Mr. R. must earn more tip income than a mere $60 per week and proposes that I impute annual tip income of $15,000 per year which would amount to $300 in tips each week. Mr. R. points out that the tips collected throughout the restaurant each shift are pooled and divided among the employees working during that shift. [ 125 ] I find that Mr. R. was deliberately non-committal around the tip income he earns each year at the restaurant.

He said that he claims between $3,000 and $3,500 each year in tips based upon what other senior employees of the restaurant recommended he claim. And while that may be sufficient for income tax purposes it is not sufficient when trying to accurately determine Mr. R.’s income for the purpose of discharging his financial responsibility to N. and O. [ 126 ] Mr. R. persistently stated that he had no idea how much income he earns from tips each shift at the restaurant. He claimed that his tip income varied significantly based upon the shift he worked and how busy the restaurant was each shift. Mr.

R. knew for months that this trial was approaching. He knew for months that one significant issue was child support and that the court would have to carefully determine his annual income for the purpose of accurately determining the correct child support award. If Mr. R. genuinely wanted to discharge his financial obligations to N. and O., I would have thought that he would have spent several months leading into this trial tracking his tip earnings month by month so that he could present to the court accurate financial information as to his gross

annual income. Mr. R. chose not to do so. I suspect that the reason he chose not to do so was because if he accurately disclosed his tip income, he knew that his child support obligation would be higher. [ 127 ] For the court to impose a greater tip income to Mr. R. in the range suggested by Ms. R. would be in the realm of speculation, but that is because Mr. R. has chosen not to give the court clear information as to the tips he actually earns each month. [ 128 ] An average of $60 per week in tips at a restaurant at the Vancouver International Airport seems low to me.

However I am not prepared to impute a drastically larger amount in annual tip income to Mr. R. at this time. I am of the view that a fair assessment of weekly tip income for Mr. R. is $100 per week or $5,000 per year. Accordingly, I find that for 2017 Mr. R.’s combined employment income of $26,152 and tip income of $5,000 produces a gross annual guideline income of $31,152 for a monthly child support payment of $501.40 per month. On that basis, I order that commencing September 1, 2017, Mr. R. is to pay $501.40 to Ms. R. in child support for N. and O. The difference between what Mr.

R. has been paying - $423 per month - and what he should have been paying - $501.40 - is $78.40 per month. That difference over the 16 months between September 2017 and December 2018 is $1,254.40 and I find that Mr. R. owes Ms. R. that amount in child support arrears. I further order that commencing January 1, 2019, Mr. R. will pay Ms.

R. an additional $200 per month towards reducing the arrears until the arrears are paid in full. [ 129 ] I further order that starting in June 2019, the parties will exchange their tax returns and Notices of Assessment in June of each year for the purpose of adjusting the monthly child support payment commencing July 1 each year. I also order that commencing January 2019, Mr. R. will keep an accurate record of the tips he earns each month by recording in a journal his daily tip income after each shift. Mr. R. will provide to Ms.

R. a copy of the tip income recorded in his journal in June 2019 for the purpose of assisting Ms. R., and if necessary the Court, to accurately determine Mr. R.’s annual income. The average monthly tip income over the first six months of 2019 should be sufficient to extrapolate Mr. R.’s tip income for the year. [ 130 ] Mr. R. will maintain the tip income journal throughout 2019 in order that Ms. R., and if necessary the Court, has an accurate record of Mr. R.’s tip income throughout 2019. On the basis of that record of tip income, the parties will be able to determine Mr.

R.’s average monthly tip income throughout an entire calendar year for the purpose of future calculations of Mr. R.’s annual income for the purpose of calculating child support in future years. [ 131 ] Mr. R. will not be required to maintain his tip income journal after December 2019 unless ordered to do so by the Court. [ 132 ] With respect to

Section 7 Expenses, I have found that Mr. R. has an annual guideline income of $31,152 and I find that Ms. R. has an annual guideline income of $28,440 based upon her filed Financial Statement. I therefore fix their respective proportionate share of the

Section 7 expenses for N. and O. at 52% for Mr. R. and 48% for Ms. R. ANCILLIARY ORDERS [ 133 ] The orders I have made as set out above capture all the relief sought by Ms. R. in her written argument filed on the last day of this trial. Mr. R. also filed a written argument along with a

summary of ancillary orders that I find would benefit N. and O. as well as the parties in reducing their conflict, so I make the following additional orders: 1) Both parties will permit the children to speak with the other parent by telephone during their respective parenting times. The frequency of those telephone calls will be agreed upon by the parties, and failing an agreement, the calls will occur once each day; 2) Notwithstanding the parenting

schedule I have set out above I make the following orders with respect to parenting time during N. and O.’s school holidays:

a) The parties will share equally the boys’ school Christmas holiday but N. and O. will be with Mr. R. from 7:00 p.m. December 23 until 10:00 p.m. on December 24 and with Ms. R. from 10:00 p.m. on December 24 until 7:00 p.m. December 25 each year. If the parties cannot agree on how to equally divide this holiday then in even numbered years Mr. R. will get first choice of the time N. and O. will be in his care and in odd numbered years Ms. R. will have the first choice;

b) The parties will share equally the boys’ school Spring Break holiday. If the parties cannot agree on how to divide this holiday then in even numbered years Mr. R. will have first choice of the time N. and O. will be in his care and in odd numbered years Ms. R. will have the first choice;

c) During the school summer holiday each party will have N. and O. in their uninterrupted care for two weeks either consecutively or separately. If the parties are unable to agree on which weeks N. and O. will be in each of their care, then in even numbered years Mr. R. will have first choice and in odd numbered years Ms. R. will have the first choice;

d) The parties will have N. and O. in their care for the party’s own birthday;

e) Mr. R. will have N. and O. in his care on Father’s Day and Ms. R. will have the boys in her care on Mother’s Day;

f) Mr. R. will have N. and O. in his care on the boys’ birthdays in even numbered years and Ms. R. will have the boys in her care for their birthdays in odd numbered years. 3) All parenting times ordered herein may be varied by the written agreement of both parties; 4) Neither party will remove N. and O. from the Province of British Columbia without a court order or the written permission of the other party, such permission is not to be unreasonably withheld; 5) Mr. R. will hold N.s passport and Ms. R. will hold O.’s passport. Both parties will provide the other party with the children’s passport as needed for any agreed upon travel outside of Canada;

6) I will remain seized of all applications in this case for the next two years save and except for emergency applications. CONCLUSION [ 134 ] In

summary, I make the following orders in this case: 1) Both parties are guardians of N. and O.; 2) N. and O.’s principal residence is with Ms. R.; 3) The parenting arrangements for N. and O. will remain the same as they currently are, subject to my orders below regarding holidays and special occasions. Ms. R. will have N. and O. in her care each week from Monday after school until she drops the boys off at school on Friday mornings, and Mr. R. will have the boys in his care each week from Friday after school until he drops them off at school on Monday mornings; 4) Mr.

R. shall have such alternate and/or additional parenting time with N. and O. as agreed upon by the parties; 5) Both parties will permit the children to speak with the other parent by telephone during their respective parenting times. The frequency of those telephone calls will be agreed upon by the parties, and failing an agreement the calls will occur once each day; 6) For the school Christmas holiday each year, the parties will share equally N. and O.’s holiday time, but the boys will be with Mr. R. from 7:00 pm on December 23 until 10:00 pm on December 24 and they will be with Ms.

R. from 10:00 pm on December 24 until 7:00 pm on December 25 each year. If the parties cannot agree on how to divide the balance of the school Christmas holiday then in even numbered years Mr. R. will have the first choice of the time N. and O. are in his care and in odd numbered years Ms. R. will have the first choice; 7) The parties will share equally N. and O.’s school Spring Break holiday. If the parties cannot agree on how to divide this holiday, then in even numbered years Mr. R. will have the first choice of the time N. and O. will be in his care and in odd numbered years Ms.

R. will have the first choice; 8) During the school summer holiday, each party will have N. and O. in their uninterrupted care for two weeks either consecutively or separately. If the parties are unable to agree on which weeks N. and O. will be in the care of each party, then in even numbered years Mr. R. will have the first choice and in odd numbered years Ms. R. will have the first choice.

The first choice selection of summer holiday weeks will be given to the other parent no later than May 15 each year and second choice selection of summer holiday weeks will be given to the other parent no later than May 30 each year; 9) The parties will have N. and O. in their care each year for party’s own birthday; 10) N. and O. will be with Mr. R. on Father’s Day each year and they will be with Ms. R. on Mother’s Day each year; 11) Mr. R. will have N. and O. in his care on the boys’ birthday in even numbered years and Ms.

R. will have the boys on their birthdays in odd numbered years; 12) All parenting times set out in this order may be varied by the written agreement of both parties; 13) The parenting responsibilities set out at S. 41(

a) of the FLA will be exercised by the parent with whom the children are residing at the time a decision needs to be made pursuant to this subsection; 14) The balance of the parenting responsibilities set out at S. 41(b)-(

l) will be shared equally by the parties; 15) The parties are required to discuss with each other and use their best efforts to reach an agreement with respect to any decision that needs to be made with respect the parental responsibilities set out at S. 41(b)-(l). Except for emergency medical or dental health decisions that must be made without delay, if the parties are unable to reach an agreement they must utilize the services of a Family Justice Counsellor to mediate their dispute; 16) If following mediation the parties remain unable to reach an agreement on a decision with respect to the parental responsibilities set out at S. 41(b)-(

l) of the FLA then Ms. R. will have the authority to make the decision and Mr. R. may apply to the court for directions pursuant to S. 49 of the FLA ; 17) The parent caring for N. or O. will have the authority to make a decision regarding any medical or dental health emergency. The parent making that decision must forthwith inform the other parent of the decision; 18) I find that Mr. R. is a resident of British Columbia and has an Annual Guideline Income of $31,152 made up of $26,152 of employment income and $5,000 in tip income; 19) Commencing September 1, 2017 Mr. R. is to pay to Ms.

R. $501.40 in child support for N. and O. and those payments will continue on the first of each month until further order of the court or until N. and O. are no longer children as defined in the Child Support Guidelines ; 20) I find that as of December 1, 2018 Mr. R. owes Ms. R. $1,254.40 in arrears of child support accumulated between September 1, 2017 and December 1, 2018. Mr. R. will pay to Ms.

R. an additional $200 each month commencing January 1, 2019 to pay back those arrears until such time as the arrears are paid in full; 21) Commencing June1, 2019 the parties will exchange their tax returns and Notices of Assessment each year for the purpose of adjusting the monthly child support payment commencing July 1 each year;

22) Commencing January 2019 Mr. R. will keep an accurate record of the tips he earns each month by recording in a journal his daily tip income after each shift. Mr. R. will provide to Ms. R. a copy of the tip income recorded in his journal in June 2019 for the purpose of assisting Ms. R., or the Court if necessary, in accurately determining Mr. R.’s annual income; 23) Mr. R. will maintain the tip income journal throughout 2019 and will provide Ms. R. with a copy of the entire 2019 tip income journal in January 2020 for the purpose of determining Mr. R.’s annual tip income; 24) Mr.

R. will not be required to maintain his tip income journal after December 2019 unless ordered to do so by the Court; 25) I find that Mr. R. has an Annual Guideline Income of $31,152 and Ms. R. has an Annual Guideline Income of $28,440. Accordingly I fix their respective proportionate share of the

Section 7 expenses for N. and O. at 52% for Mr. R. and 48% for Ms. R.; 26) Neither party will remove N. and O. from the Province of British Columbia without a court order or the written permission of the other party and such permission is not to be unreasonably withheld; 27) Mr. R. will hold N.’s passport and Ms. R. will hold O.’s passport.

Both parties will provide the other party with the children’s passport as needed for any agreed upon travel outside of Canada; and 28) I will remain seized of all applications in this case for the next two years save and except for emergency applications that must be decided without delay. ________________________________ The Honourable Regional Administrative Judge R. Hamilton Provincial Court of British Columbia