G.S.M.G. v. K.A.G., 2021 BCPC 274

Citation: G.S.M.G. v. K.A.G. 2021 BCPC 274 Date: 20211117 File No: F4292 Registry: Western Communities IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: G.S.M.G. APPLICANT AND: K.A.G. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE GOUGE

Counsel for the Applicant: J. Stewart Counsel for the Respondent: A. UhlmanPlace of Hearing: Colwood, B.C.Date of Hearing: November 5, 2021Date of Judgment: November 17, 2021 The Nature of the Application [1] Mr. Uhlman, counsel for Ms. G, asks that I reconsider an order which I made on October 7, 2021, and that I make changes tothe parenting time

schedule which I ordered on that day. Mr. Stewart, counsel for Mr. G, opposes the application. Background [2] Mr. and Ms. G are the parents of a 2 year-old daughter, K. Mr. and Ms. G separated on September 7, 2020. It is approximatelyan hour’s drive from one parent’s home to the other’s. Neither parent expressed any criticism of the parenting skills of the other. [3] Mr. G works 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Ms. G’s work

schedule is: Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to Friday at 8:00 a.m. Friday from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. [4] The parenting

schedule in effect before the order which I made on October 7, 2021 was on a 2-week rotation. In week #1, Ms.G had parenting time from 5:00 p.m. on Sunday to 5:00 p.m. Thursday. In week #2, Ms. G had parenting time from 6:30 a.m. on Mondayto 5:30 p.m. on Thursday. [5] The parties and counsel appeared before me on October 7, 2021. Mr. G sought an order for equal parenting time, on a weekon/week off schedule. Ms. G sought to maintain the existing parenting schedule, with one amendment – she wanted to have parentingtime during the day on Fridays, when Mr.

G was at work. [6] After a relatively brief hearing, I amended the parenting schedule, and ordered that Ms. G have parenting time each week from5:00 p.m. on Sunday to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, with Mr. G to have parenting time during the rest of the week. I gave oral reasons formy decision, in the course of which I said: I am not attracted by the proposal for week on/week off parenting time. It seems to me that it does not take into account the parents’schedules, and, if it is week on/week off, K will spend a significant part of her time in the care of people other than her parents, in thecase of Mr.

G because he works 9:00 to 5:00 and in the case of Ms. G because she has very long work hours on Thursdays, Fridays andSaturdays. * * * I agree that Fridays are a problem. I am a little worried about Ms. G’s proposal that she should have parenting time on Fridays becausethat is in the middle of her very busy work week, and I am sure she will be very tired, and [it] would increase the frequency of exchangesbetween houses, and I am conscious of the Monday morning problem also …. [7] Mr. Uhlman informs me that, if I do not allow his application for a reconsideration of my decision, Ms.

G will prosecute anappeal, as, of course, she is entitled to do. Jurisdiction [8] Counsel agree that, because my order has not been entered, I have jurisdiction to re-open the hearing and to impose a differentparenting time regime if so persuaded. The governing principles were stated in Grewal v Grewal 2016 BCCA 237; [2016] BCJ No. 1132@ paragraphs 70 -71: The legal principles that govern re-opening a trial are not in dispute, and were succinctly set out by the majority in Clayton v. BritishAmerican Securities Ltd. (1934), (BC CA), 49 B.C.R. 28 (C.A.).

Before judgment is entered, the trial judge enjoys anunfettered discretion to re-open the case. This discretion should, however, be exercised sparingly. The overriding objective is preventionof a miscarriage of justice. Subsequent decisions have added further guidance. A judge should address two primary considerations in deciding whether to re-open:first, is it probable that a miscarriage of justice would occur without reopening and, second, would a rehearing probably change theresult? In general, a party should not be permitted to re-open if the sole purpose is to re-argue or re-cast its case.

Nevertheless, newevidence is not an essential prerequisite to granting an application to re-open. It will always depend on the individual circumstances andthe overarching concern of the interests of justice: B.C. Gas Utility Ltd. v. Alpha Manufacturing Inc., [1999] B.C.J. No. 187 (S.C.) atparas. 16-17; Sykes v. Sykes (1995), (BC CA), 6 B.C.L.R. (3d) 296 (C.A.) at para. 10; Moradkhan v.

Mofidi, 2013BCCA 132at paras. 28-31. [9] The admonition that the jurisdiction should be exercised “sparingly” is particularly applicable to proceedings in this courtbecause so many litigants in this court are people of modest means, for whom the cost of litigation is a significant barrier. The just,

speedy and inexpensive resolution of disputes are compelling objectives in family court. Discussion [ 10 ] I am not persuaded that a miscarriage of justice would result if I decline to order a reconsideration of my decision. When I made the order, I thought that the parenting time regime which I imposed was the best which could be devised, having regard to K’s interests and the parents’ work schedules. I still think that. An appellate court, of course, may take a different view. Disposition [ 11 ] The application is dismissed. October 17, 2021 _________________________ T. Gouge, PCJ