R.F. v. T.M., 2022 BCPC 215

Citation: R.F. v. T.M. 2022 BCPC 215 Date: 20220624 File No: F-22275 Registry: [omitted for publication] IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: R.F. APPLICANT AND: T.M. RESPONDENT ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE T.A. GOLINSKY Counsel for the Applicant: A. Sadovska Appearing for the Respondent: No one Place of Hearing: Dawson Creek , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 19, 2022 Date of Judgment: June 24, 2022

[ 1 ] THE COURT: R.F. and T.M. are the parents to J.K.F. born [omitted for publication]. J.K.F. is a healthy active [omitted for publication]-year-old child. R.F. has made an application to the court to terminate T.M.'s guardianship rights, for an allocation of all parental responsibility and rights to him, and for child support to be paid by T.M. [ 2 ] R.F. does not know where T.M. is. He has had no contact with her since May of 2018. In July of 2021, R.F. obtained an order allowing him to substitutionally serve T.M. with his application and other materials.

This permitted him to serve her via email at an email address she has had since they were a couple, [omitted for publication]@hotmail.com. An affidavit of service was filed on September 2021 confirming T.M. was served on July 21st of 2021. T.M. has not filed a reply with the court nor contacted R.F. or his lawyer in response to the application. [ 3 ] R.F.'s application proceeded to hearing in T.M.'s absence on May 19th of 2022. R.F. attended and gave evidence.

He did refer to some specific documents and an affidavit filed with the court in what is called a pleadings binder. [ 4 ] R.F. and T.M. started their relationship in October 2015. While in the relationship, they lived together at R.F.'s home at the top of the [omitted for publication] Hill outside of [omitted for publication]. They lived together for approximately a year. They separated in October 2016 while T.M. was pregnant with J.K.F. R.F. continues to reside at the same home with J.K.F.

In the months following their separation, T.M. continued to live in the [omitted for publication] area living at her uncle's home. She did not have her own bedroom there, but a mattress on the floor in the living room. [ 5 ] J.K.F. was born on [omitted for publication]. For about a year after J.K.F. was born, the parents shared the care of J.K.F. R.F. was employed and T.M. was not. T.M. would care for J.K.F. during the days when R.F. was working. When R.F. was finished work or on the weekends or days that he was not working, R.F. would care for J.K.F.

He has said that he would usually drop J.K.F. off and pick him up from T.M.'s uncle's home. R.F. testified that he provided T.M. with some money at this time. When testifying, he called it "informal child support." It was unusual for J.K.F. to spend the nights with T.M. R.F. testified that he was the one to take J.K.F. to his medical and dental appointments and the like. [ 6 ] The routine of T.M. caring for J.K.F. during the days changed around December of 2017 when J.K.F. was about [omitted for publication] old.

R.F. testified that he noticed that J.K.F. sometimes was not being well cared for by T.M. in ways such as having a dirty smelly bottle, not being dressed for cold weather, and the house being dirty and unsafe for a baby. In December 2017, R.F. also received a call from T.M.'s uncle and the uncle told R.F. that he had concerns about T.M.'s ability to care for J.K.F. [ 7 ] It was at this time that R.F. stopped dropping J.K.F. off at T.M.'s home when he was working. After that, T.M. would still see J.K.F. where she did things with him such as taking him swimming.

However, she did not have him with her on a regular basis or an extended basis. [ 8 ] In January of 2018, there were two incidents between R.F. and T.M. which involved the RCMP. One was when she would not get out of his vehicle and an argument started and the RCMP were called. The second was when T.M. came to R.F.'s house. Things escalated to a point where R.F. called the police to help remove T.M. T.M. was removed by the RCMP from the property.

I am told that J.K.F. was present in the house during this incident, but he was sleeping in his bed and did not witness the violence. [ 9 ] R.F. describes another incident in April of 2018 where T.M. used his debit card without his authorization to drain his account. He was left without the ability to pay his debts and mortgage and had to ask his family for financial help.

She was charged with fraud and R.F. believes that she was convicted. [ 10 ] During this time period, the Ministry for Children and Families was involved and a safety plan was put into place that required: (1) that T.M. have secure housing before J.K.F. could move back in with her; and (2) both parents were to ensure that J.K.F. was not subject to or witness any further family violence. [ 11 ] I pause to note that it is unclear to me if T.M. was either charged or convicted of any offences involving violence or if the police attendance ended each matter. [ 12 ] T.M. saw J.K.F. some in the spring of 2018.

R.F. remembers four visits in March of 2018 where she took him swimming and for short visits. In April of 2018, there were two visits. The last of these two visits was an overnight visit. R.F. brought the child's bed, bedding, clothes, and supplies to T.M.'s home for the visit. T.M. called R.F. early the next morning and asked him to pick up J.K.F., which he did. T.M. has not seen or spoken with J.K.F. since this overnight visit in April of 2018. [ 13 ] T.M. did reach out to R.F. by email in April or May of 2018 asking to see J.K.F. on Mother's Day. R.F. responded by an email, "You can see him anytime.

Just not Mother's Day. Got plans." I believe that was the last time the parents have had any contact with one another. R.F. and his family continue to live in the same places and have the same phone numbers and contact information that they had before the breakdown of the relationship. To the best of R.F.'s knowledge, T.M. has not reached out to anyone since May of 2018 to ask to see J.K.F. or ask about his wellbeing. [ 14 ] R.F. has a loving and strong relationship with J.K.F. J.K.F. has a strong and loving relationship with R.F.'s partner, K., and R.F.'s extended family.

For the past several years, J.K.F. has only known K. as his mom. [ 15 ] As the relationship was breaking down, R.F. and T.M.'s relationship was fraught with tension, a breakdown in communication, and some intimate partner violence. This is demonstrated at least in part by the need for the RCMP to attend on at least two occasions and the police involvement in T.M.’s use of R.F.’s credit card.

[ 16 ] R.F. advises the court that he has no confidence that he and T.M. will be able to communicate in any way that would be in the best interests of J.K.F. To this day, R.F. has doubts about T.M.'s ability to care for J.K.F. This is based on what R.F. last observed when T.M. and J.K.F. were together. He also stated he would have concerns that T.M. would try to plant ideas in J.K.F.'s mind and try to turn J.K.F. against him.

I was not, however, provided with evidence to understand why this is of particular concern to him rather than a general worry. [ 17 ] R.F. has been the primary caregiver for J.K.F. since December of 2017.

T.M. had had no contact with J.K.F. since April of 2018 and she has not reached out to R.F. to have contact with J.K.F. since she was rebuffed when she asked for Mother's Day in May of 2018. [ 18 ] These are the issues before the court: 1. is T.M. a presumptive guardian; 2. if yes, should the court terminate T.M.'s guardianship; 3. how should the court allocate parenting responsibilities; and 4. should a child support order be made against T.M. and, if so, for what amount per month? [ 19 ] I will review the legislative framework here now.

The overarching consideration in determining issues of guardianship, parenting responsibilities, and parenting time, and child support is the best interests of the child. The relevant statutory provisions are set out in s. 37 of the Family Law Act which states: Best interests of child 37

(1) In making an agreement or order under this Part respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with a child, the parties and the court must consider the best interests of the child only.

(2) To determine what is in the best interests of a child, all of the child's needs and circumstances must be considered, including the following: (

a) the child's health and emotional well-being; (

b) the child's views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them; (

c) the nature and strength of the relationships between the child and significant persons in the child's life; (

d) the history of the child's care; (

e) the child's need for stability, given the child's age and stage of development; (

f) the ability of each person who is a guardian or seeks guardianship of the child, or who has or seeks parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact with the child, to exercise his or her responsibilities; (

g) the impact of any family violence on the child's safety, security or well-being, whether the family violence is directed toward the child or another family member; (

h) whether the actions of a person responsible for family violence indicate that the person may be impaired in his or her ability to care for the child and meet the child's needs; (

i) the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child's guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child, including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or well-being of the child or other family members; (

j) any civil or criminal proceeding relevant to the child's safety, security or well-being.

(3) An agreement or order is not in the best interests of a child unless it protects, to the greatest extent possible, the child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being.

(4) In making an order under this Part, a court may consider a person's conduct only if it substantially affects a factor set out in subsection (2), and only to the extent that it affects that factor. [ 20 ] In analyzing the child's best interests, the court should consider all of the factors under s. 37 of the Family Law Act , but such factors are not exhaustive. Issue #1: Is T.M. a presumptive guardian? [ 21 ] Sections 51 and 39 of the Family Law Act are the relevant statutory provisions governing guardianship, and I will reproduce these sections below for ease of reference: Parents are generally guardians 39

(1) While a child's parents are living together and after the child's parents separate, each parent of the child is the child's guardian.

(2) Despite subsection (1), an agreement or order made after separation or when the parents are about to separate may provide that a parent is not the child's guardian.

(3) A parent who has never resided with his or her child is not the child's guardian unless one of the following applies: . . . (

c) the parent regularly cares for the child. [ 22 ] The circumstances here are that the parties did not live together after J.K.F.'s birth. It is unclear if J.K.F. "resided with" both T.M. and R.F., T.M. during the day and R.F. on evenings and weekends, or if it could be better described that J.K.F. resided with R.F. and T.M. cared for him regularly during the days. In any event, based on the evidence that I have heard, I do find that T.M. is J.K.F.'s parent and that she did regularly care for J.K.F. during the first year of his life. I find that T.M. is a presumptive guardian.

With that question answered in the affirmative, I move the second question. Issue #2: Should T.M.'s guardianship be terminated? [ 23 ]

Section 51 applies: 51

(1) On application, a court may (

a) appoint a person as a child's guardian, or (

b) except in the case of a director who is a child's guardian under the Adoption Act or the Child, Family and Community Service Act , terminate a person's guardianship of a child. [ 24 ] Authorities binding on this court have ruled that terminating guardianship of a parent should only occur in the most serious circumstances and only where there are no other means of protecting the best interests of the children. I am going to refer to the caselaw here. Cases such as J.W.K. v. E.K. , 2014 BCSC 1635 , G.B. v. L.R. , 2017 BCSC 1342 , and Driscoll v. Frederickson , 2019 BCSC 1312 , are relevant to this discussion.

These courts, among others, have referred to termination of a parents’ guardianship rights as a "draconian" measure. [ 25 ] J.W.K. v. E.K. is an appellate decision of Justice Punnett. The father, J.W.K., appealed a Provincial Court order which terminated his guardianship of his two children. The trial judge based his decision on J.W.K.'s ongoing addictions to drugs and alcohol. Despite his addictions, J.W.K. had a close relationship with his children who wanted him in their lives.

In terminating J.W.K.'s guardianship, the trial judge commented a guardian of the child must be able to demonstrate that they can make decisions that will promote only the safety, security, and best interests of the child and that J.W.K. could not make such decisions safely for himself thereby undermining the court's confidence that he could do so for his children.

However, on appeal Justice Punnett allowed the appeal and did not terminate the guardianship, holding the imposition of terms for J.W.K.'s parenting time could address any concerns of recidivism when exercising parenting time. [ 26 ] Justice Punnett cited with approval Judge Merrick's decision in D. v. D. , 2013 BCPC 135 , but held that it will rarely be in the child's best interests to terminate guardianship and therefore turn a parent from a guardianship into a person with contact. In paragraph 30 of J.W.K. v.

E.K. , Justice Punnett stressed the importance of a guardianship status in a child's life, referring to A.J.H. v. L.C.H. , 2013 BCSC 900 , at paragraph 8 that: . . . the court stated that the loss of guardian status “effectively render[s] [the parent] no longer one of [the child’s] parents.” Symbolically speaking, a guardian is a person with the right to play a parental role in a child’s upbringing.

This is reflected in the FLA : absent guardian status, a parent is simply a person with contact -- a person who may apply to the court for “contact” with a child, which may not even be in person, but in writing, or by telephone.

On the other hand, a guardian has “parenting time” with a child (s. 42), even when they are not permitted to exercise parental responsibilities during that time. [ 27 ] Many of the cases decided emphasize that guardianship status permits the maintenance or creation of a meaningful relationship between the parents and the child. [ 28 ] I note that there are cases where the courts have found that it is in the best interests of the child or children to terminate one parent's guardianship and I refer to the following. In S.L.M.D. v.

A.V.D. , 2017 BCSC 394 , the court heard overwhelming evidence that the parties could not communicate sufficiently to permit them to co-parent the children and, in such cases, "an order for sole custody/sole guardianship is warranted." [ 29 ] In the case before me, although there is some evidence that R.F. and T.M. have had serious problems and, if it arises in the future, it may be very difficult for them to communicate sufficiently to permit them to co-parent, I do not find that there is overwhelming evidence that they would not be able to co-parent. [ 30 ] In Lessard v.

Mahoney , 2019 BCSC 551 , the court found that Mr. Mahoney had not participated in the child's life in any meaningful way for the nine years before trial, since the child was four. Ms. Lessard had been the child's primary caregiver having assumed all parenting responsibilities since the child's birth. The court found that Mr.

Mahoney was a non-entity in the child's life and there was no indication that "he intends to make efforts to reverse that situation." The court also had evidence that the child, almost 14 years old at the time of trial, had clearly developed views about her lack of relationship with her father and had taken steps to distance herself from having a relationship with him such as requesting on more than one occasion that her surname be changed. The court held that, "Mr.

Mahoney has completely relinquished his parental responsibilities," and under the circumstances, terminated his guardianship. [ 31 ] In the case of C.S. v. W.M.M., 2017 BCPC 19 , Judge Frame considered evidence of a father's lack of participation in raising the children, minimal contact with the children for over two years, a history of drug use, stated sexual impropriety, and a complete relinquishment of his parental responsibilities. The court found that, when he did have contact with the children, it was negative and it caused them stress.

Within this context, Judge Frame took the exceptional step of terminating the father's guardianship.

[ 32 ] Judge Frame also heard the case of J.L.M. v. G.A.T. , 2013 BCPC 96 , in which the court considered both an application to terminate the father's guardianship of the child and an application for a protection order. The decision is brief, but what it refers to is the following, that the child was a witness to violence in the relationship and that the father had not filed a reply.

The court concluded that because the father did not file a reply in the proceedings, he "makes it clear that he has no interest in the outcome of these proceedings or the guardianship of [the child]." Judge Frame terminated the father's guardianship and granted the protection order. [ 33 ] The case before me is distinct from the four cases referred above where courts terminated guardianship.

In this case, there is insufficient evidence to show that the parents would be incapable of co-parenting if that was required, there is no evidence that there is ongoing family violence or sexual impropriety that would have a negative impact on the best interests of J.K.F., nor is this a situation similar to an adolescent child clearly expressing a desire to have nothing to do with the largely absent parent. [ 34 ] Additionally, I will not go as far as to say that because T.M. did not file a reply in these legal proceedings that she has clearly demonstrated she has no interest in the outcome.

There are a myriad of reasons why a person does not participate in litigation and I will not speculate why that is the case here. [ 35 ] In conclusion, I will not grant the application to terminate T.M.'s guardianship of J.K.F., but that does not end the question for J.K.F. Issue #3: How should the court allocate parental responsibilities? [ 36 ] The Family Law Act empowers the court to make orders allocating parental responsibilities and I have set out the relevant sections below for ease of reference: 45

(1) On application by a guardian, a court may make an order respecting one or more of the following: (

a) the allocation of parental responsibilities; (

b) parenting time; (

c) the implementation of an order. . . under this Division; (

d) the means for resolving disputes . . . [ 37 ] Parenting arrangements are defined under s. 40: 40

(1) Only a guardian may have parental responsibilities and parenting time with respect to a child.

(2) Unless an agreement or order allocates parental responsibilities differently, each child's guardian may exercise all parental responsibilities with respect to the child in consultation with the child's other guardians, unless consultation would be unreasonable or inappropriate in the circumstances.

(3) Parental responsibilities may be allocated under an agreement or order such that they may be exercised by (

a) one or more guardians only, or (

b) each guardian acting separately or all guardians acting together.

(4) In the making of parenting arrangements, no particular arrangement is presumed to be in the best interests of the child and without limiting that, the following must not be presumed: (

a) that parental responsibilities should be allocated equally among guardians; (

b) that parenting time should be shared equally among guardians; (

c) that decisions among guardians should be made separately or together. [ 38 ] Parental responsibilities are defined in s. 41 of the Family Law Act . They are responsibilities with respect to a child such as: (

a) making day-to-day decisions affecting the child and having day-to-day care, control and supervision of the child; (

b) making decisions respecting where the child will reside; (

c) making decisions respecting with whom the child will live and associate; (

d) making decisions respecting the child's education and participation in extracurricular activities, including the nature, extent and location; (

e) making decisions respecting the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including, if the child is an Indigenous child, the child's Indigenous identity; (

f) subject to

section 17 of the Infants Act , giving, refusing or withdrawing consent to medical, dental and other health-related treatments for the child; (

g) applying for a passport, licence, permit, benefit, privilege or other thing for the child;

(

h) giving, refusing or withdrawing consent for the child, if consent is required; (

i) receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive; (

j) requesting and receiving from third parties health, education or other information respecting the child; (

k) subject to any applicable provincial legislation, (

i) starting, defending, compromising or settling any proceeding relating to the child, and (ii) identifying, advancing and protecting the child's legal and financial interests; (

l) exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development. [ 39 ] As Justice Armstrong notes in Driscoll v. Frederickson , ss. 41 and 42 of the Family Law Act permit the court to allocate parental responsibilities. Those responsibilities may be allocated to only one guardian even though the parties are joint guardians. Section 40(4) makes it clear there is no presumption for an equal allocation of parental responsibilities as between the guardians. Again, going back to Justice Punnett's case in J.W.K. v.

E.K. , he stated at paragraph 25 : [25] The British Columbia Supreme Court has commented favourably on the approach set out in D. v. D. In M.A.G. v. P.L.M ., 2014 BCSC 126 , Madam Justice Fleming cited the case with approval, referring to it as “persuasive authority” and summing up the decision as follows: [44] . . .

The thrust of the decision is that by allocating or reallocating parental responsibilities to a more capable parent as opposed to terminating guardianship, a child may safely retain the benefit of having a parent remain a significant part of his or her life. [ 40 ] The separation in the Family Law Act between guardianship and parenting rights permits a parent to remain a guardian even when the circumstances indicate that it would not be in the best interests of the child for that parent to exercise parenting responsibilities.

In considering what order to make regarding parental responsibilities, the court can manage the day-to-day relationship a parent has with their child without taking the draconian step of terminating guardianship. [ 41 ] I have found that the circumstances are not so extreme as to warrant the termination of T.M.'s rights of guardianship. However, I do find that the circumstances warrant an order placing all of the parenting responsibilities for J.K.F. with his father, R.F. R.F. has been the sole caregiver to J.K.F. for the past four years.

The court recognizes he has actually been exercising all parental responsibilities for some time. As the child gets older and closer to school age and if they want to travel or participate in other activities, it is important to ensure that R.F. has a recognized legal capacity to make all decisions for J.K.F. I note that the court did make an interim order on October 6 of 2021 granting him sole parental responsibilities. [ 42 ] I also wonder what would happen if, after so many years, T.M. were to come back into J.K.F.'s life. How would that affect J.K.F.? What would that relationship be like?

What would T.M.'s capacity to care for J.K.F. be on a day-to-day basis and what would her expectations be? [ 43 ] It is reasonable to assume that R.F. ought to be able to continue to care for J.K.F. on a day-to-day basis and have all the rights and responsibilities that flow from that.

If T.M. does come back into J.K.F.'s life, it is important that she be required to present to R.F., and possibly to the court, what that re-entry would look like and how it would be crafted to be in the best interests of J.K.F. [ 44 ] With this mind, I will be making an order pursuant to s. 45 of the Family Law Act allocating all parental responsibilities for J.K.F. as set out in s. 41 as set out above. I also want to address R.F.'s particular concern of whether he will be able to apply for a passport for J.K.F. so that they can travel for family holidays etc.

He does not know where T.M. is to contact her to sign any necessary papers and, even if he were able to find her, he does not have confidence that she would cooperate with him. I also do not have confidence in that. I note that this is a parental responsibility listed in s. 41 of the Family Law Act and he will have that sole responsibility. I will ensure that my order specifically references this concern and specifically order that he has the ability to apply for a passport and other types of documents without T.M.'s consent.

Issue #4: Should a child support order be made against T.M. and, if so, for what amount per month? [ 45 ] The objectives of the Federal Child Support Guidelines are to establish a fair standard of support for children, to reduce conflict between spouses, to improve court efficiency, and to ensure consistent treatment for parents. The Guidelines incorporate tables which set out the presumptive amount of child support to be paid according to the income of the payor, the province where the payor lives, and the parenting arrangements for the child. [ 46 ]

Section 19 of the Guidelines allows the court to impute income to a payor where they have failed to provide income information if they were legally obliged to do so. The substitutional service on T.M. of the application which indicated that R.F. seeking child support triggered this legal obligation. Not only did she not file a reply, she did not file any financial materials with the court. [ 47 ] R.F. testified that T.M. was largely unemployed while he knew her. He knew her to have one brief time of employment working at Tim Hortons for approximately a week.

He does not know of any reason why she was not employed, describing it as her choice. He believes that she had a medical diagnosis of narcolepsy as a child, but did not know if that affected her ability to work. He believes she lives in either British Columbia or Alberta. He does not know if she is presently working. [ 48 ] R.F. submitted an affidavit sworn by his lawyer's paralegal which estimates a person's income if they are employed at a minimum wage job and providing part-time and full-time estimates.

They state that a part-time employment at minimum wage would provide a person with an income of $16,276 per year and full-time employment at minimum wage would provide a person with an income of $28,483 per year.

[ 49 ] R.F. incurs extraordinary expenses in registering and keeping J.K.F. in various community sports such as swimming and soccer. He plans to continue to keep J.K.F. enrolled in athletics and/or music as J.K.F.'s interests develop. He estimates that he spends between $100 and $200 per month of these types of activities for J.K.F. R.F. works as a superintendent with a company called [omitted for publication].

His income, which is relevant for the purposes of considering each person's proportional responsibilities for extraordinary costs, is approximately $149,000 per year. [ 50 ] I find that T.M. does have a legal obligation to pay child support. I must impute an income to her and there is no evidence before me to suggest that T.M. could not be working at least a part-time job making minimum wage. I will impute an income of $16,276 to her. Without knowing which province she resides in, I will make an assumption that she still resides in British Columbia.

This would require T.M. to pay monthly child support in the amount of $98 per month. I will make that order commencing July 1, 2022. [ 51 ] In respect of extraordinary expenses, I am prepared to find that R.F. pays $150 per month in extracurricular activities for J.K.F. To break this down to each person's proportional ability to contribute, R.F. is responsible for approximately 90 percent of those costs and T.M. is responsible for approximately 10 percent of those costs.

Thus, T.M. is responsible to pay an additional $15 per month towards J.K.F.'s extracurricular expenses. [ 52 ] I will also make an order that T.M. is to provide R.F. with her financial information on an annual basis commencing this year so that he can consider if this is an appropriate amount of child support now and on an ongoing basis. [ 53 ] It will be important that T.M. know that she now has an ongoing child support obligation, but I will also be making an order that R.F. serve her with a copy of this entered order via her email account that was used for initial service. [ 54 ] So this is my order.

It is a final order. [ 55 ] The first is Precedent A1, upon the court being advised that the name and birthdate of the child is as follows: J.K.F. born [omitted for publication]. [ 56 ] The court is satisfied that R.F. and T.M. are the guardians of the child under s. 39(3) of the Family Law Act . [ 57 ] The next is B7, pursuant to s. 40(3)(

a) of the Family Law Act , R.F. will solely have all of the parental responsibilities for the child as set out in s. 41 of the Family Law Act , and I am going to spell them out in the order. I am repeating essentially what I read earlier in my decision: (

a) making day-to-day decisions affecting the child and having day-to-day care, control and supervision of the child; (

b) making decisions respecting where the child will reside; (

c) making decisions respecting with whom the child will live and associate; (

d) making decisions respecting the child's education and participation in extracurricular activities, including the nature, extent and location; (

e) making decisions respecting the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including, if the child is an Indigenous child, the child's Indigenous identity; (

f) subject to

section 17 of the Infants Act , giving, refusing or withdrawing consent to medical, dental and other health-related treatments for the child; (

g) applying for a passport, licence, permit, benefit, privilege or other thing for the child; (

h) giving, refusing or withdrawing consent for the child, if consent is required; (

i) receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive; (

j) requesting and receiving from third parties health, education or other information respecting the child; (

k) subject to any applicable provincial legislation, (

i) starting, defending, compromising or settling any proceeding relating to the child, and (ii) identifying, advancing and protecting the child's legal and financial interests; (

l) exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development. [ 58 ] The next is C5, R.F. may travel with the child outside of Canada without restrictions and without the written consent of T.M. [ 59 ] The next is C7 -- and that last one may have been different than the precedent wording.

I prepared this decision a couple of weeks ago. [ 60 ] C7, R.F. may apply for a passport, NEXUS pass, visa, and any other renewals of a passport, NEXUS pass, or visa for the child without the consent of T.M. [ 61 ] Now I will move on to the child support orders. [ 62 ] B56, T.M. is found to be a resident of British Columbia and is imputed to have a Guideline annual income of $16,276.

[ 63 ] B61, T.M. shall pay to R.F. the sum of $98 per month for the support of the child commencing on July 1, 2022, and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter, for as long as the child is eligible for support under the Family Law Act or until further court order. [ 64 ] The next does not have a precedent, Madam Clerk. [ 65 ] T.M. shall pay to R.F. the sum of $15 per month towards the child's special or extraordinary expenses commencing on July 1, 2022, and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter, for so long as the child is eligible under the Family Law Act or until further court order. [ 66 ] The next is a Precedent D54.

Commencing August 1 of 2022 and continuing for so long as the child is eligible to receive support, T.M. shall provide to R.F.: (

a) copies of her income tax return for the previous year, including all attachments, not later than August 1st of each year; and (

b) copies of any notice of assessment or reassessment provided by the Canada Revenue Agency immediately upon receipt. [ 67 ] Then the last does not have a precedent. Within 15 days of receipt of this filed order, R.F. shall deliver a copy of this filed order to T.M. by attaching it to an email sent to [omitted for publication]@hotmail.com. [ 68 ] All right. Ms. Sadovska, are there any terms of the order that appear to not make sense or are unworkable or things you would like to add that would help make this best for the child? [ 69 ] CNSL A.

SADOVSKA: Your Honour, I was just wondering if we can explicitly dispense with T.M.'s signature? [ 70 ] THE COURT: Oh, yes, that is not necessary. I can make that order under the circumstances, but she did not file a reply, she is not represented by counsel, and the Rules do not require that she sign the order, but Madam Clerk, I can make that order that the signature of T.M. is not required in this order. [ 71 ] Anything else, Ms. Sadovska? [ 72 ] CNSL A. SADOVSKA: No, nothing else, Your Honour, thank you. [ 73 ] THE COURT: All right.

Because we ran this trial ex parte , I am going to request a transcript of my decision and have it placed in the file so that if somewhere down the road there is a question about why I made this order and, if it needs to be reviewed for some reason or another, the decision will be available here for the court and, if requested, for the parties. [ 74 ] So, R.F., what is going to happen now is Ms. Sadovska is going to prepare the order and she will send it to me. I will take a look at it and make sure that it says exactly what I have ordered here. I am sure it will.

I will sign it and then Madam Clerk will stamp it and then we will get a copy of it back to Ms. Sadovska and then she will no doubt send a copy of it to you and I will leave it between yourselves to decide who actually sends the email to T.M. [ 75 ] Okay. Thank you very much.