J.W.C. v. A.B., 2022 BCPC 235

Citation: J.W.C. v. A.B. 2022 BCPC 235 Date: 20221005 File No: 45776 Registry: Penticton IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: J.W.C. APPLICANT AND: A.B. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.K. KEYES Counsel for the Applicant: D. Maio Counsel for the Respondent: M. Welsh Place of Hearing: Penticton, B.C. Dates of Hearing: August 30, 31, November 29, 30, December 7, 2021, and February 11, 2022 Date of Judgment: October 5, 2022

[1] J.W.C. and A.B. are the parents of H.B.B., born [omitted for publication]. J.W.C. has never met H.B.B., who was born severalmonths after the parties separated. He seeks an order that he be appointed as a guardian of H.B.B., as well as orders regarding parentingtime and responsibility.

A.B. opposes his application and seeks instead a protection order prohibiting J.W.C. from any contact withherself or H.B.B., on the basis that J.W.C. perpetrating family violence on her and on H.B.B. when she was pregnant, possibly as a resultof unresolved mental health issues. [2] A.B. argued that it is only necessary to address the parenting issues under the Family Law Act (“FLA”) if a protection order isnot warranted.

J.W.C. argued that there is no evidentiary foundation upon which the court can properly make a protection order, andeven if there were, that the application for, or granting of, a protection order cannot be used to circumvent a determination of parentalrights and responsibilities under the FLA. [3] I will deal first with the argument advanced by A.B. that the imposition of a protection order makes the determination of otherFLA issues moot. I agree with J.W.C. that it does not: B.H.C. v. F.G.L.P., 2017 BCPC 378 , 2017 B.C.P.C. 378. In that decision,Judge Malfair wrote: 10 Protection orders are governed by

Part 9 of the FLA which seeks to address the problem of family violence that can manifest whenparties separate or engage in family law disputes. This limited and pressing objective must always be borne in mind when consideringapplications for a protection order. Protection orders should not be imposed for purposes unrelated to mitigating the real risk of familyviolence. For example: (a)Protection orders should not be used to circumvent the guardianship and parenting arrangement provisions of

Part 4 of the FLA.

Part 4of the FLA articulates different considerations for determining what contact, if any, a parent should have with their child than those setout in

Part 9. For example,

Part 9 does not contemplate that a protection order can be made on the basis that it is "in the best interests ofthe child." By contrast, the presence of family violence is expressly contemplated as a relevant factor to the child's best interests whendetermining parenting time or arrangements under s. 37(2).

In other words, just because it may be in a child's best interests to havelimited contact with a parent due to family violence, it does not automatically follow that a protection order should issue to achieve thatend; (b)Part 9 of the FLA does not vest the Provincial Court with jurisdiction over the division of family property. The power to remove aspouse from the family residence and restrain that spouse from returning can only be exercised for the sole and limited purpose ofprotecting other family members from family violence.

S. 183 of the FLA should not be used for the dominant purpose of awarding soleoccupancy or sole possession of matrimonial property to the "protected" spouse; and (c)Protection orders are not probation orders or CFCSA supervision orders.

They should not be imposed for the dominant purpose ofcompelling a spouse to engage in counselling, abstain from drugs or alcohol, or otherwise engage in rehabilitative undertakings. 11 In conclusion, while "family violence" should be defined broadly in light of the social context and problems the legislation wasintended to address, the purpose of the protection order scheme remains narrow, namely, to protect individuals from harm where familyviolence is likely to occur. [4] Thus, the issuance of a protection order, on the basis that family violence is likely to occur, cannot preclude a determination ofother parental claims, even where family violence has been found to have occurred, or is likely to occur in future. [5] A.B. submits that J.W.C. abused her sexually, physically and emotionally during their relationship, and attempted to cause amiscarriage of their unborn son, in addition to exercising psychological control over her, which enabled him to take advantage of herfinancially.

J.W.C. denies that any such behaviour ever occurred. He says that A.B. has said these things about him because she is the“woman scorned.” He suggested that he was the person who was subjected to control by A.B., who was considerably older than him. [6] If J.W.C. did in fact treat A.B. as she described, then J.W.C. would have perpetrated family violence as defined by the FLA ofthe most serious kind. As is often the case with family violence, there are no witnesses to most of the events described by A.B. other thanA.B. and J.W.C.

However, in addition to the parties, the Court heard from A.B.’s parents, brother and neighbours as to theirobservations, and J.W.C.’s grandmother also testified. The Court also heard from M.R., a completely unrelated person. [7] Needless to say, the credibility of the parties is very much at issue. Although the broad outlines of their history is generally clear,they disagree on almost every detail. A.B.’s Version [8] A.B. testified that she met J.W.C. on a bus on her way from Kamloops back to Penticton, where she lived at the time. Theystruck up a conversation.

J.W.C. introduced himself as J.S., which is his mother’s surname. Until this litigation was commenced, A.B.knew him as J.S. A.B. had been studying early childhood education and was working at a special needs daycare in Penticton. J.W.C. toldher he was on his way to attend an addiction rehabilitation centre. [9] A.B. testified that although she hadn’t given J.W.C. her phone number when they met on the bus, she had mentioned to himwhere she worked.

He called her at her place of employment shortly thereafter, informing her that he had put down her name as the maincontact at the rehab centre, explaining he couldn’t put his family members names down because they were all addicts. She said she wroteto him at the treatment centre but did not provide a return address, and informed him she was going away to South America on a trip.

Hecalled her workplace again, seeking a return address for her, and they began a correspondence. [10] A.B. testified that when she met him on the bus, she believed J.W.C. was a university student of similar age to herself, 23, butthat while he was residing in the rehab centre he revealed to her that he was 16. A.B. did not know how long he remained in rehab, butshe received letters and calls from him in which he cried and complained about how awful his life was. He told her he had been abused

growing up and had started using drugs at the age of 11. She testified that she felt sorry for him. [ 11 ] At some point after he got out of rehab, A.B. testified she received a call from J.W.C. stating that he had nowhere to stay. A.B. was out of town at the time he called, but she told him he could stay in her place, as she had two bedrooms. He was waiting for her there when she got back to Penticton. Her intention was that they should be roommates. She testified that he paid rent to her. [ 12 ] She testified that he told her his mother was a methamphetamine addict, prostituting herself from a local motel.

She believed him because she read about a warrant outstanding for his mother in the local newspaper, and a friend of hers told A.B. that she had seen Ms. S. being arrested at the casino for soliciting. A.B. also testified that J.W.C. had openly discussed with her and her co-workers his complaints about his mother’s parenting ability, and that a social worker at her workplace who was familiar with J.W.C. and his mother expressed concerns for A.B. on that account. A.B. testified that J.W.C.’s mother came to her work place and also came to her apartment one night and passed out in the hallway outside her door.

She testified that J.W.C. told her not to open the door because his mother was on drugs, and then hid her phone so that she could not call the police. [ 13 ] According to A.B., there was an attraction between them, but their relationship wasn’t sexual until he “forced himself” on her without using a condom, one night shortly before she was about to leave on a trip to Europe. She was angry with him, and told him he had to move out of her home before she returned from her trip.

While she was on her trip to Europe, he telephoned her collect several times per day, racking up a telephone bill (which was in her mother’s name) of approximately $1,000. (L.B. confirmed that the bill was over $1,000.) He greeted A.B. at the airport upon her return with flowers. She forgave him, blaming herself for his behaviour, believing she may have been seductive, because she had worn shorts.

She explained that because of what he had told her about his life, she believed that he had been hurt in the past, and that she knew that “hurt people hurt other people.” She thought maybe she could save him. [ 14 ] According to A.B., after she returned from Europe, J.W.C. admitted he had read her diary while she was away and expressed anger and jealousy regarding boyfriends she had prior to meeting him. He demanded that she destroy her diary.

A few weeks after returning from Europe, she discovered she was pregnant, and she also became very ill, with an H-Pilori infection that was undiagnosed until several years later. The effect of the infection was such that she could not maintain the pregnancy. She testified that the decision to terminate the pregnancy was terrible for her because she loves children. [ 15 ] A.B.’s illness remained undiagnosed for a long time, during which time she gradually became more and more ill, and eventually unable to work.

In an effort to assist her, A.B.’s parents provided the down payment for A.B. to buy a home in her hometown, [omitted for publication], where her parents live. She testified that J.W.C. tagged along on the house hunting trips because he had nowhere else to go. [ 16 ] A.B. testified she moved to [omitted for publication], without J.W.C. She furnished the home with antique furniture including items her parents had given her over the years, which she loved. She testified she paid for everything in the home, aside from the things that were gifts from her parents.

She testified that J.W.C. remained in Penticton for a time, planning to reconnect with his family, but that didn’t work out. J.W.C. later moved into A.B.’s home in [omitted for publication], in order to take care of her because she was so ill. A.B.’s parents paid the mortgage and their living expenses for approximately 18 months. [ 17 ] A.B.’s father, B.B. taught J.W.C. to drive. With the assistance of A.B.’s father, J.W.C. eventually obtained work in Princeton. J.W.C.’s grandfather gave him a vehicle to drive to work, but J.W.C. wanted a truck.

So A.B. asked her father to assist and he co-signed the loan for J.W.C. to get a truck. A.B. does not drive. [ 18 ] B.B. confirmed he had co-signed the loan for J.W.C. to get a truck, because J.W.C. didn’t want the little car he had. At some point thereafter, he said J.W.C. got into a frenzy because he had a cell phone bill that he couldn’t pay. J.W.C. decided that he would sell the truck to pay for the cell phone bill.

B.B. went over to his daughter’s home to reason with J.W.C., explaining to him that the truck was much more valuable than the cell phone bill, and if he sold the truck, he would have no means to get to work and then wouldn’t be able to pay for anything. However, according to B.B., J.W.C. only kept the truck for a year, explaining to B.B. that he wanted a new red Hyundai car. B.B. said that J.W.C. told him it was the “sports” model. [ 19 ] A.B. testified that after J.W.C. moved in with her in [omitted for publication], she was at his mercy because she was so ill.

He took over her office and her computer, playing video games constantly. He would not allow her to use her own computer. She said his anger issues got worse. If he lost at video games he smashed her belongings and two of her cell phones. She said she asked her father to speak to J.W.C. about smashing the phones. B.B. testified that he replaced his daughter’s phone twice, after J.W.C. broke them, and that he told J.W.C. not to touch his daughter’s phones after he broke the second one. [ 20 ] A.B. testified that he tore her desk chair to pieces and put his feet up on the office wall, smearing dirt all over it.

A.B. said J.W.C. became so angry if he lost at video games that he would slam the chair and her computer desk. B.B. and L.B. said the computer desk and chair were gifts they gave their daughter for her birthday. B.B. testified J.W.C. broke the sliding tray on the desk and picked at the leather and foam on the chair so that within a month there was no seat left.

L.B. testified that the desk was so damaged it fell apart (whereas the identical desk she has at home is still in good condition). [ 21 ] A.B. testified that she had a protective floor mat under the chair to protect the hardwood floor from damage by the desk chair but J.W.C. told her she was paranoid and threw it out. As a result, the floor was badly gouged. A.B. provided photos of the damaged hardwood floor and dirt smeared walls in her office. [ 22 ] A.B. testified J.W.C. was verbally abusive to other game players and was banned by the game moderators for swearing at and threatening other players.

He wouldn’t allow her to come into her own office if he was playing video games. She said he became enraged when she brought him a cup of tea while he was playing and swatted the cup from her hand. [ 23 ] L.B. testified that she was on the telephone with her daughter at the time of this incident and overheard J.W.C. say “what?” and heard him knock the tea cup from A.B.’s hand. L.B. testified she often heard him aggressively swearing while playing video games while she was on the phone with her daughter.

[ 24 ] J.B., A.B.’s brother, testified that he used to play online video games with J.W.C. and other players, but that J.W.C. was banned from the game after several players complained to the game administrators about J.W.C.’s toxic behaviour. When he played with J.W.C. they shared a voice chat, but typically the communication between players is by text. J.W.C. would become upset when he made an error and could not take criticism from his own teammates.

According to J.B., J.W.C. texted his teammates with “toxic, vitriolic vulgarities” like “faggots” and “retards” and other hateful things; after enough complaints were made, he was banned from the game. [ 25 ] After the first ban, J.W.C. made a new account and J.B. gave him another chance and resumed playing with him. However, J.W.C. treated the new teammates the same way, and was banned again. J.B. did not play with him after that.

He also noted that J.W.C. admitted buying other accounts after that, something that is against the rules. [ 26 ] J.B. also testified that when he was playing games with J.W.C. using voice chat, he had heard raised voices between A.B. and J.W.C. He testified that J.W.C. yelled at A.B. if she disturbed his game, as if the game mattered more to him than she did. Treatment of Animals [ 27 ] A.B. says J.W.C. began acting bizarrely. He began to bite her cat. She testified that the first time she saw him bite the cat she laughed, but eventually he was biting the cat daily, hurting it.

A.B. testified that J.W.C. told her he had no control over his behaviour. L.B. commented that J.W.C. seemed obsessed with the younger of her two family cats, and upon entering her home, would immediately pick up the cat and begin nibbling on its ears. [ 28 ] A.B. testified that after biting one of the cats severely enough that she had to contact a veterinarian, she confronted him about his behaviour, telling him he had to get help. She testified that he pinned her on their bed and tried to force sex on her.

She testified that she fought back, and as she was trying to get away, he bit her on the underside of her forearm, which caused a massive bruise. [ 29 ] J.W.C. had brought his mother’s elderly, incontinent dog to live with them which urinated and defecated all over the house. A.B. suggested to him that the dog should be euthanized, but he refused (although, she noted, shortly after he moved out of her home, he euthanized the dog).

A.B. says she had to clean up after the dog, even when she was very ill, and later when her health improved, after she returned home from working all day while J.W.C. had been home playing video games, because J.W.C. refused to do so. If she asked him to clean up after the dog he became extremely angry at her. [ 30 ] Her parents, B.B. and L.B., were also well acquainted with this elderly dog. B.B. testified that J.W.C. brought it over to his home but refused to take it outside or walk it, so B.B. took it outside. Nevertheless, the dog soiled on his rug.

B.B. testified that J.W.C. didn’t care, simply saying “oh well, haha” but did not clean up the mess. B.B. had to clean it up. He said J.W.C. never cleaned up after the dog. He noted that he and his wife had given their daughter a fine Persian carpet as a gift, and the aged dog kept soiling on the carpet. L.B. commented that the carpet was stained as a result and that the stain went right through the carpet and stained the hardwood floors underneath.

L.B. said that she saw J.W.C. clean up after the dog only once when it was incontinent at her home, but on all other occasions they had to clean up after his dog. [ 31 ] In 2018, J.W.C. decided he wanted to buy a puppy for his birthday. While A.B. was having a bath he came into the bathroom to show her the “Craig’s list” advertisement seeking $700 for the puppy he wanted, which she described as a husky/german shepherd cross. She was opposed, because she knew she would have to clean up after the puppy too. J.W.C. was enraged and grabbed her arm and dragged her out of the bathtub, injuring her shoulder.

A.B. relented. They drove through a blizzard to Merritt to buy the puppy. The Vaccination Incident [ 32 ] After they returned, they went over to her parents to show them the puppy. According to A.B., B.B. advised J.W.C. to have the pup vaccinated, but J.W.C. went into a rage and insisted that vaccinations don’t work. J.W.C. insisted that he knew more about dogs than any of them, while also professing the belief that cats and dogs could interbreed. [ 33 ] B.B. testified that he recalled the occasion when J.W.C. brought his new puppy over to their house.

He said it was actually quite a large dog and he could see it was in very poor condition. B.B. said it turned out to have a very severe case of worms, which ended up infecting B.B.’s cats. [ 34 ] B.B. testified that he suggested J.W.C. get the puppy vaccinated before taking it out anywhere, as he had seen dogs die of disease because they had not been inoculated in time. He testified that J.W.C. became irate, insisting that “vaccinations are a scam” and he didn’t need to do that. B.B. testified that, when A.B. tried to convince him, J.W.C. mocked her, bowing his head and saying “oh yes, you’re so wise”.

B.B. said he found it hard to keep his temper when J.W.C. behaved that way to his daughter. B.B. pointed out to him that he had just paid $600 for a mongrel dog and surely he wouldn’t want to see it die. He found it difficult to understand how J.W.C. would refuse to do the right thing. Eventually B.B. said that he and L.B. would pay for the vaccination, which seemed to improve things.

He said J.W.C. was still in a frenzy, but he took the money. [ 35 ] L.B., A.B.’s mother, testified that during the vaccination incident, J.W.C. was very condescending and smug, insisting that he knew all about dogs, more than they did. He stood up and raised his voice and was very irrational; for example, he said that cats and dogs can interbreed. After she and B.B. gave him $200 for the vaccination, she said everything was fine. Unfortunately, the puppy became very ill. The pup had a horrendous case of worms. She and her husband paid the veterinary bills to treat the puppy.

Abuse of the Puppy [ 36 ] A.B. says J.W.C. treated the puppy horribly. He hit the pup if it whined in the night to go outside to do its business, with the result that it peed inside. He made A.B. clean up after it when it made a mess in the house. [ 37 ] B.B. and L.B. described an incident in which the puppy ran away. B.B. testified that J.W.C. wasn’t minding the pup and it disappeared. B.B. went to help find the pup.

Eventually the puppy was found, but B.B. was puzzled by J.W.C.’s bizarre explanation for the disappearance – J.W.C. blamed B.B. for the pup running off, claiming the pup had seen someone who looked like B.B. and followed

that person. [ 38 ] On that same occasion, L.B. had come over to her daughter’s house and sat down inside on the couch while the others were out looking for the pup. She testified that when J.W.C. returned to the house with the puppy he did not observe her sitting on the couch. She testified that J.W.C. walked into the hallway, dragging the puppy and then hunched over and began punching the dog’s sides. She saw him punch the dog “a lot”, which she described as at least four to six swift punches while the pup yelped loudly, until L.B. made a sound that interrupted him.

J.W.C. stiffened, stood up and looked at her, apparently not realizing until then that L.B. was there. She said he looked scared. L.B. said she was shocked that he would be that cruel to a puppy. She said she had never seen that side of him before. Control of Employment [ 39 ] Eventually, A.B.’s illness was diagnosed and her health improved. She applied for work in the [omitted for publication] in [omitted for publication]. She was required to attend a training session in Kelowna.

A.B. testified that although J.W.C. was at first excited by her prospective employment, he became angry when he discovered that her work would not be exclusively in [omitted for publication] but that she would be expected to work outside of [omitted for publication] also. He demanded that she inform the [omitted for publication] that she would work only in [omitted for publication] and she refused. [ 40 ] L.B. testified that she was aware J.W.C. did not want her daughter to work outside of [omitted for publication].

She testified that J.W.C. told her she should stay in [omitted for publication] where he could keep an eye on her, “where he was close”. The Job Training Incident [ 41 ] The night before she was to attend the training session in Kelowna, A.B. fell asleep in front of the television. She awakened to find herself being pulled off the couch by J.W.C., with her face wet and hurting. She said J.W.C. hit her all over. She hid under the coffee table and he hit her arms where she put them in front of her face to protect herself. Then he kicked her and stepped on her – and then went off to the office to play video games.

She went to bed. She awakened when she felt him grab her lower body. He threw her to the side of the bed and she hit the wall and recalled nothing after that. She testified that she suffered severe bruises on her arms. [ 42 ] However, J.W.C. drove her to the training session in Kelowna, because, she explained, he was excited about the prospect of staying at a hotel. However, when she was to attend the training session the following morning, J.W.C. took the vehicle and left so she had to take a taxi to the training session.

When the training session was over, J.W.C. did not return and A.B. was obliged to call her parents in [omitted for publication] and ask them to pick her up. [ 43 ] At the training session, A.B. testified that other people noticed the bruises on her arms and some people asked about the bruises. She said J.W.C. had instructed her to tell people that the puppy had caused the bruises, so she told that story.

She said she knew they didn’t believe her, but didn’t pry. [ 44 ] One of the people who was at that training course was M.R., who testified that he worked for the [omitted for publication] and was a trainer at the session attended by A.B. on August 13 and 14, 2018. He said he observed numerous circular bruises on both of her arms ranging in size from a “toonie” to “several toonies together”. He said she told him they were bite marks from a shepherd they were taking care of. He testified that they did not look like bite marks.

He said he accepted her explanation at first, but later that day thought maybe that the bruises were not caused that way. [ 45 ] L.B. testified that during the summer her daughter normally wore tank tops and sleeveless sundresses, but that summer she took to wearing long sleeves instead. B.B. testified he saw bruising around both of her wrists where the sleeves didn’t cover. L.B. described the bruises as two very large dark bruises as if someone had grabbed her by both wrists. Her parents asked A.B. how it happened and she told them the puppy did it.

B.B. did not believe that explanation – because it looked to him that a person did it. He testified it was obvious what the marks were. [ 46 ] L.B. recalls on another occasion, when A.B.’s grandmother was visiting at the time A.B. went to Kelowna for [omitted for publication] training, she noticed bruises again. That time she said the bruises were higher up her arms, up to and above her elbows. When L.B. asked how it happened, A.B. again said it was the puppy, and quickly changed the subject. [ 47 ] B.B. recalled talking to his wife about how to deal with it.

He said he did not delve in to it further, nor confront his daughter or J.W.C., because he felt it was a “moot point.” [ 48 ] A.B. said she did very well working in the [omitted for publication] system. She testified that J.W.C. telephoned her constantly while she was at work, to the point that her co-workers noticed it. She testified that she was asked to run the children’s programming for the [omitted for publication], a prospect she found very exciting.

However, she testified that J.W.C. told her “no” - that she was not to take that position, and told her to give the explanation that she couldn’t afford the gas money. She said her boss looked at her very oddly when she said that. She turned down the position. Mental Health, Violence and Sexual Violence [ 49 ] A.B. testified that J.W.C. became more aggressive and violent towards her as their relationship progressed, particularly after they moved to [omitted for publication]. A.B. said that J.W.C. began to behave in a sexually bizarre manner.

He often reached in to his pants and touched his genitals, then pulled out his hands and sniffed them. She testified that she awakened at night to find him standing over top of her, masturbating while barking like a dog, tearing at his face and making weird noises while contorting his face. A.B. testified that J.W.C. told her he had “Tourette’s.” She testified that, against her will, he demanded sexual acts like anal and oral sex from her that hurt her. [ 50 ] On one occasion when she confronted him about his mistreatment of her cat, he attempted to force sexual intercourse on her.

When she resisted, he bit her arm, leaving a massive bruise. A.B. testified that during her pregnancy, after she had received medical instruction not to engage in sexual activity because it might cause a miscarriage, J.W.C. forced himself on her sexually, including forcing

masturbation on her that was very painful. He testified that she would bleed afterward and she would put her hands on her belly and hope for a kick. She was about 11 weeks pregnant at the time. [ 51 ] She said she did not realize that such acts constituted sexual assault, because they were in a relationship and she loved him. She said was too ashamed and embarrassed to tell anyone. [ 52 ] She did urge him to seek help for his behaviour, however. Text messages between the two of them were introduced into evidence. A.B. says they were exchanged in 2018, prior to the pregnancy.

In one exchange, J.W.C. is complaining about only being good for “general labour” and that he is “stuck with a mind that works against me”. A.B. responds that his depression isn’t new and she has begged and begged him to follow up with a doctor for his depression. She commented that it all started when C. (his relative) had a stroke, and continues “I know you are struggling, but I can’t keep letting you tear me down and making me feel awful and holding me back. I’m almost 30 and I deserve a better life. So follow up with your doctor.

I’m tired of crying quietly to myself EVERY SINGLE DAY for the past two years.” [ 53 ] A later message refers to how important it is for him to be a good role model for their future children. J.W.C. is apologizing for how he has been behaving, “acting all ADHD /turretsy”, saying “I think there’s something wrong with me.” A.B. says “compulsive sniffing of fingers and balls is a sign of Tourette’s”, to which he replies, “I know, Im just sorry is all”.

She says “and I know how important it is to be a good role model if you are a parent, and it worries me that if you act that way in front of our future kids they’re going to go around using the N word, calling people puta, making strange sounds when people ask them something and be compulsive genital sniffers lol”. J.W.C. responds “No, its 100% my fault, I need more self-control or I need to see a doctor about it”. [ 54 ] Just after the new vehicle was purchased, in the spring of 2019, J.W.C. decided he wanted to spend $1,000 on a new tattoo for himself.

A.B. objected, suggesting that they buy a crib for the baby instead. J.W.C. became angry and smashed her antique nursing chair. Then he broke things in the kitchen and smashed her collection of mugs and broke her DVD player. When he finished smashing things, he went and laid down on the couch. She took a video of him with her phone. She said she took the video so that she could show it to him later to convince him that the needed mental health help. That video was played in court. [ 55 ] In the video A.B. can be heard imploring J.W.C. to get help, to go to see a doctor.

J.W.C. is lying on the couch, scantily clad. He largely ignores her, saying he will call a doctor later. I observed him reaching into his pants, appearing to touch his genitals and then pull out his fingers and sniff them. [ 56 ] After those episodes, J.W.C. did in fact attend upon a physician. A.B. testified that she was present for part of the visit to the doctor, during which, she testified, J.W.C. said he was afraid he was going to hurt A.B. and the baby. The doctor told A.B. that she should leave, as it was not safe for her and the baby to remain with J.W.C.

A.B. testified that J.W.C. left for Williams Lake shortly thereafter, with the stated intention of seeking mental health help. The Pregnancy [ 57 ] A.B. testified that in January 2019 J.W.C. told her that he wanted to start a family and have a baby. She objected, because she wanted to work for a couple of years longer and become more independent. She said J.W.C. didn’t like that. She said every day he wore her down. He told her he wouldn’t be angry any more if he had a baby. She said one day she relented and let him have intercourse.

After that she couldn’t find her birth control anymore and she believed he took it. Another night he forced himself on her without a condom. She became pregnant. [ 58 ] At first, J.W.C. was happy about the pregnancy but his attitude changed. Then he would not allow her to purchase prenatal vitamins and things that were healthy for the child. He left [omitted for publication] to go to Williams Lake for his birthday, and to tell his mother about the pregnancy.

He told her he was scared of how his mother would react and didn’t want to bring A.B. along. [ 59 ] While he was away, on March 3, 2019 A.B. began bleeding vaginally. Her parents took her to the hospital. A.B. wanted J.W.C. to come back from Williams Lake to be with her, afraid that she was going to lose the baby. J.W.C. refused to return. A.B. was told by hospital staff she had a high risk pregnancy and she had to have bed rest. She was told not to lift anything more than five pounds and not to have sex.

She suffered from morning sickness. [ 60 ] L.B. testified that her daughter was staying with them when J.W.C. went to Williams Lake for his birthday. When A.B. began bleeding, L.B. called J.W.C. and asked him to come back, but he refused, telling her that he was having his birthday party. So she and her husband took A.B. to the hospital and stayed with her. After A.B.’s discharge from hospital, L.B. was aware of the medical instructions regarding bed rest.

She testified that her daughter called her, crying that J.W.C. refused to do anything to help her, not even clean the cat’s litter box (L.B. said that her son J.B. went to clean it). [ 61 ] L.B. said that J.W.C. called her from his work and talked to her for more than an hour. She was planning Easter dinner so she asked him what his work hours were, but he was evasive about when he was available. Then, she said, he traded in the truck on a new car, explaining that it was to be a family vehicle.

L.B. commented that the car was not a family vehicle – it was hard to get into it because it was so low. [ 62 ] Shortly after J.W.C. bought the car, L.B. said the family had a bit of an intervention with him – to try to help him understand that A.B. was pregnant. According to A.B., J.W.C. told her that he had changed his mind and didn’t want to be a father. He made this announcement in her parents’ living room, in front of her family. He told A.B. he wanted her to have an abortion.

According to A.B., her family tried to win him over. [ 63 ] B.B. testified that after J.W.C. returned from a visit to Williams Lake, when his daughter was about 13 weeks pregnant, he said he didn’t want the baby and didn’t want anything to do with the child. B.B. reminded him that A.B. had to have weekly medical appointments because of her medical condition, and asked J.W.C. how she would get to those appointments. According to B.B., J.W.C. said “that’s your problem, I’m not having anything to do with it.” B.B. described standing there open mouthed in shock. He described J.W.C. as “smug”.

[ 64 ] J.B. testified that he was in his parents’ living room sitting across from J.W.C. when J.W.C., in a very stern voice, “I do not want the baby any more, I don’t want to do this.” J.B. said that he tried to convince him that it was not the right thing to do. J.B. was visibly shaken and tearful when recounting this part of his testimony. [ 65 ] L.B. testified that after this announcement, which was just a few days after he got the car, J.W.C. left for Williams Lake again.

Attempts to Cause a Miscarriage [ 66 ] A.B. testified that a few weeks earlier, she had given J.W.C. a list of things that pregnant women should not consume, because they could cause a miscarriage. After he announced that he did not want the baby and wanted her to have an abortion, he gave her herbal tea. It was hibiscus tea, which was on the list she had given him of things pregnant women should not consume. When she refused to drink it, he became angry. On another occasion, when he was driving, he gave her another iced tea drink which she again refused.

He became very angry again and began driving very fast, which was dangerous because, she said, he was not a good driver. [ 67 ] As mentioned earlier, A.B. testified that J.W.C. also forced unwelcome and painful sexual activity on her during her pregnancy, after she had received medical advice to abstain from sexual activity because it might cause a miscarriage. That activity caused her to bleed vaginally. Financial Control and Abuse [ 68 ] A.B. testified that J.W.C. took control of her life and her finances.

A.B. said that J.W.C. spent all of her savings, took control of her credit cards and refused to allow her to travel any more. He used her credit cards to buy things, like video game accounts, her engagement ring and furniture. She said he insisted on buying a new bedroom suite that she did not want from Kandolas furniture store on her credit card, which cost approximately $8,000. It was suggested to her that he used his own credit card, but she testified that he had terrible credit and his credit card wouldn’t extend past $300.

A.B. testified that she loved her antique furniture and did not want new furniture, but she had no choice in the matter. [ 69 ] A.B. testified that a short time later, in the spring of 2019, he forced her to purchase a new car. J.W.C. told her the car would be better as a family vehicle than the truck that B.B. had co-signed for him. A.B. testified that they went to the Nissan Dealership in Penticton, where he chose a red Hyundai Sonata automobile to purchase, costing more than $43,000.

She said J.W.C. filled out all the forms and made all the arrangements, as she was too ill from morning sickness to pay any attention. When she came out of the bathroom, he told her to sign and initial documents and that was it. The conditional sales contract was made an exhibit in this trial.

A.B. pointed out that the details in the credit application filled out by J.W.C. while she was in the bathroom were patently false. [ 70 ] The conditional sales contract dated April 9, 2019 states that A.B. had been working as a [omitted for publication] for over two years and that she earned $4,850 per month, which was wildly inaccurate. In fact, she had been working four hours per week at $25 per hour on call since August 2018, a period of only eight months. It also stated her home was worth $295,000, more than double its actual value.

A.B. said she did not provide this information and did not notice it at the time, as she was too ill. [ 71 ] Shortly after J.W.C. purchased the car, he informed A.B. that he wanted to spend $1,000 on a tattoo for himself. When she suggested they purchase a crib for the baby instead, he smashed her antique nursing chair, her collection of coffee mugs and her DVD player. [ 72 ] Shortly thereafter J.W.C. decided to go to Williams Lake to take care of his mental health.

J.W.C. took the car with him. [ 73 ] A.B. testified that after he broke up with her, J.W.C. demanded $40,000 from her, told her she had to sell the house and get rid of the baby. He told her she should move into low-income housing and get rid of her cats. After the Breakup [ 74 ] After the parties separated, A.B. remained in her home in [omitted for publication] for a time. There were conciliatory texts back and forth. She continued corresponding with J.W.C. and some members of his family by text. A.B. provided J.W.C. with multiple photos of his old dog at his request.

The emails appear to suggest her willingness to co-parent with J.W.C., but midsummer, that cordiality had diminished. According to A.B., J.W.C. demanded that she sell her home and give him $40,000. Around the same time, A.B. learned from some friends of J.W.C. that he had been drinking and partying and gambling and seeing another woman.

She testified that she wrote a Facebook post in which she expressed her anger at his behaviour and her dismay at people enabling his behaviour. [ 75 ] On August 3, 2019, the parties exchanged a series of text messages, beginning with J.W.C. promising to return her controller but asking for $100 to pay for her internet. A.B. pointed out that she had paid for his insurance, so they should be even. J.W.C. responded angrily claiming she would be “draining him of every cent” once the child was born. A.B. told him she didn’t want child support, and told him to cancel the internet service.

A.B. continued that she wanted a clean break, without financial ties. J.W.C. provided a booklet containing a printout which purports to contain all of the texts in chronological order, but it is apparent that significant portions of the text message exchange have been omitted from his booklet, including a lengthy text from A.B. to J.W.C. in which she wrote, inter alia: “like I wrote to you before, I just want a clean break in every aspect and I don’t want you worrying about anything going wrong in my life. You are me and living separate lives and I won’t hold you to any responsibility.

You said this baby was a mistake, and that’s fine – I don’t want to hold you to any responsibilities. Especially if things are complicated. You have known me for 6 years, and you should know that I would rather cut people out than hang on to them when they hurt me. I’m neutral about this. And I just want to have my own life.” [ 76 ] J.W.C. discovered the Facebook post and responded with acrimonious messages, blaming A.B. for “dragging his name through the mud”, claiming he had blocked the friends of his he thought provided the information to her, and then blaming the information on other people.

He concluded with:

“I could care less, when I find out who they are, im done with em. Im gunna live my best life, don’t need you guys dragging me down. On another note, are you gunna let me see my son or what? Well? Yes or no? If no., prepare for the fight of your life, there’s no way in hell im gunna let you keep me from seeing him.

If yes, cool, we can continue on with our lives and arrange time for me to see him once he is eating on his own.” [ 77 ] A.B. did not respond. [ 78 ] A.B. testified that J.W.C. later spoke to her on the phone and told her he was “weightlifting 400lbs and in the best shape of his life” and that she should be “prepared for a fight’. A.B. took those words to be threatening. She moved into her parents’ home, where she continued to reside for the next couple of years.

She testified she was afraid of J.W.C. and that is why she lived with her parents until the fall of 2021. [ 79 ] She said she received an angry voicemail from J.W.C. on the day of H.B.B.’s birth and later received an email from him. She testified that during one meeting she had with her lawyer, J.W.C. telephoned her five times. She testified that she believed J.W.C. had driven past her home, because she saw tire tracks and footprints in the snow at her empty home in December 2019 and footprints came to her parents’ door as well.

She testified on August 31, 2021, that she was spending a night or two a week at her own home but had not yet moved her belongings home from her parents’ house. [ 80 ] B.B. and L.B. testified that their daughter moved in with them in August 2019 and remained until just after her birthday, [omitted for publication].

L.B. testified that at first, A.B. slept on the pull out couch in the living room, and later, after they cleaned out her old bedroom, she slept on the pullout couch in her old bedroom, with the baby. [ 81 ] B.B. explained that his daughter moved in with them due to her medical condition, and her fear of J.W.C. He said she wanted security, and they could offer that to her. He also testified that before she moved back into her home in September 2021, her house required a lot of work. The septic tank had to be replaced, the toilet was not working and water was leaking into the basement.

Major plumbing repairs were required. [ 82 ] J.B. testified on August 31 2021. He confirmed that when A.B. moved into his parents’ house she slept on the pullout couch in the living room. He testified the house had two bedrooms, and one storage room. J.B. appeared to be unaware that his parents cleared out the storage room so that A.B. could move back into her old bedroom.

He testified in examination in chief that A.B. “is gradually starting to live at her place, but is living at our place principally still.” He testified that he babysat H.B.B. three days a week since A.B. returned to work, and that he sees him on Sundays at Sunday dinner. [ 83 ] He testified that he lives in his parents’ home and that H.B.B. lived there since birth. He could not recall when he started babysitting H.B.B. It was suggested to J.B. in cross-examination that A.B. leaves her home and comes to his home for Sunday dinner and he was unable to recall.

He agreed with the suggestion Sunday dinners happened in August and July of 2021, but disagreed that Sunday dinners had been happening since the previous Christmas. It was then suggested to him that A.B. and H.B.B. had been living at A.B.’s home at Christmas of 2020 and he said he believed so, but then testified that it was only recently that she had been living at her place. [ 84 ] D.O., who lived next door to B.B. and L.B. testified that A.B. moved in with B.B. and L.B. just before her son was born two years ago and moved out again in September of 2021. He likes to sit out on his porch with his coffee.

From there he observed her regularly throughout that time, multiple times per day, out for walks, going in and out of the house and with H.B.B. in the backyard. He testified that he spoke with her parents almost every day and that they and A.B, told him during that time she was living at her parents’ home. He testified that he observed members of the B. family loading things into her dad’s truck when she moved out in September, and after that he didn’t see her nearly as often. [ 85 ] N.L. is a resident of [omitted for publication] who has known A.B. and her brother since they were children.

Until her retirement she was [omitted for publication] in [omitted for publication]. A.B.’s house in [omitted for publication] is [omitted for publication]. During conversation at the post office with the B. family she learned that A.B. had moved out of her home and in with her parents prior to the birth of H.B.B. She noted that after that point, A.B.’s property was let go, the weeds were high, plants overgrown, there were no vehicles in the yard and there were no lights on in the winter. However, in September 2021 she spoke to A.B. in the neighbourhood and was told she had moved back in.

It was suggested to her that it was possible that B.B. had moved back into the house in 2020 but N.L. hadn’t noticed. N.L. disagreed, on the basis of her conversations with A.B. at the time and her observations that there were no lights on, no vehicles and never anyone in the yard. J.W.C.’s Version [ 86 ] J.W.C. testified that he met A.B. on a bus while he was en-route to a rehabilitation centre, a few days before his 16 th birthday. J.W.C. testified that he moved into A.B.’s home in the fall of 2012 and repeatedly referred to events occurring between them in 2012.

J.W.C. testified that the pregnancy occurred in 2014, after they had been together “a couple of years”. However, J.W.C. was born [omitted for publication]. That would make him turning 16 on [omitted for publication], so his evidence suggesting the parties met and moved in together in 2012 is clearly incorrect. I note that the submissions by his counsel contradict J.W.C.’s direct evidence on this point. [ 87 ] J.W.C. testified that he was in rehab for four to five months. He testified that he moved back in with his mother in Penticton when he got out of rehab.

He admitted in cross-examination that he attended rehab because he was using party drugs, including Marijuana and mushrooms. He admitted that he had been caught breaking and entering into cars. He testified that it was “part of the discussion” about attending rehab that he was told if he attended rehab then charges would not proceed against him. He denied ever telling A.B. that he was addicted to drugs.

However, in a text message to his grandmother dated January 14, 2016 he wrote: “when I was on drugs, you guys didn’t do shit…it was actually my mother who helped….she’s the one who put in the effort to get me into a proper institution”. [ 88 ] He said he called A.B. about a week after getting out of rehab and that they began dating for five to six months, before he moved

in with her. J.W.C. said he moved into A.B.’s apartment in the fall of 2012, when he was in Grade 11. He said he did pay rent when he moved in, but that they were not room mates, but a couple, sleeping together, when he moved in. [ 89 ] The difficulty with this evidence is that, if J.W.C. started rehab on February 11, shortly before his 16 th birthday (on [omitted for publication]), and he was in rehab for four to five months, then he would not have been discharged from rehab until, at the earliest, mid- June (four months) or at the latest, mid-August (five months) of 2013 (not 2012).

However, he also testified that he left rehab in late May, which would have been approximately three months, not four to five months duration of treatment. [ 90 ] Further, if J.W.C. “dated” A.B. for five to six months after leaving rehab, while living with his mother, then on his evidence it was either November/December of 2013 (if he left rehab at the end of May 2013), mid-December or January (if he was in rehab for four to five months and dated A.B. for five months,) or January/February of 2014 (if he left rehab after five months and dated A.B. for six months) before he moved in with A.B.

Not only are none of these dates consistent with each other, but none of these scenarios is consistent with his evidence that he lived with his mother for five to six months while “dating” A.B. and moving in with her in the fall of Grade 11, in 2012. [ 91 ] J.W.C. testified that when he was 17, he and A.B. went on a trip to Mexico shortly after his birthday in March, (which must have been 2014) and had a good time. He said they were both working hard and had saved up the money to go, which was only about $3,000. A.B. was not confronted about this evidence.

However, it seems somewhat surprising that J.W.C. would have had the opportunity to save up the money to go to Mexico, while working, going to school and paying rent, a mere one to three months after moving in with her (if his evidence regarding moving in with her after dating for five to six months after four to five months in rehab is to be believed.) [ 92 ] I also note that this is the same time period in which, according to J.W.C., A.B. took a trip to Europe - by herself. According to J.W.C., the Europe trip happened in the year following them getting together, which would have been 2014.

He recalled making only a couple of calls to her on her cell phone, but not a lot – on his own cell phone. When confronted about the $1,000 phone that A.B. says he incurred, he answered that he had not been told what the bill was, but then said that he that he had unlimited call and text Canada wide.

Given that the subject of the inquiry was the cost of calls to Europe, not Canada, I find his answer curiously unresponsive. [ 93 ] J.W.C. testified that he met A.B.’s parents in the spring following the fall in which he moved into A.B.’s apartment, about a year or eight months after they got together, although he later changed his evidence to nine months after they got together. J.W.C. testified he was 17 at the time. He testified that he met them in the spring of 2013, which is, as I noted earlier, must be incorrect, since he first met A.B. in February of 2013. I find the meeting must have been in 2014.

He said the meeting occurred when her parents came to bring groceries for their daughter, and that he was introduced as her boyfriend. [ 94 ] J.W.C. testified that in 2014, A.B. became pregnant because his condom broke. He said they didn’t know what to do and decided to tell her parents. He said her parents told them they were too young and to abort the child. (B.B. and L.B. were not confronted about that evidence.) He said shortly after that A.B. began having issues with the pregnancy and the doctor said it was unlikely the baby would have made it, so they decided to get an abortion for her safety.

He said her parents offered to drive them to the hospital for the procedure, because he only had his learner’s driver’s licence at that time. He said he had known them about a year at that point. [ 95 ] J.W.C. testified that he graduated from high school in June 2015. It was around then, he said, that the subject of moving to [omitted for publication] was raised. He said he was hesitant about moving, but he attended with A.B. to look at homes, and her parents put down the down payment. He said he didn’t have a say, because it was not his money.

He testified that a couple of months after the sale was finalized, the moving process began. [ 96 ] J.W.C. testified that he didn’t have his “full” licence when the move to [omitted for publication] was under way. He said the house needed a lot of work before they could move in as it had not been occupied for two years before the purchase. He said he helped with moving in between his shifts at work at the [omitted for publication] and hers at [omitted for publication] in Penticton.

He testified that he and A.B. had savings, although he did not have as much as she did, and that they lived on those savings and that her parents helped out. He testified they received help from her parents for about eight months. [ 97 ] When they moved to [omitted for publication], he got his “N” licence and B.B. taught him how to drive. He used B.B.’s truck for the driver’s test. After he passed his test his grandpa got him a car, a Chevy Cavalier. He testified that B.B. helped him get a job at the [omitted for publication] in Princeton.

He said that when he worked at the [omitted for publication], he was concerned about driving the road to Princeton in his car, because he went into the ditch once. He wanted to get a truck. At the time he had “barely any credit”, so B.B. agreed to co-sign for him to buy the truck, which, J.W.C. said, was very nice of him. [ 98 ] J.W.C. testified that “a couple of years later”, after he had the job at the [omitted for publication], he felt A.B. and her parents were very controlling; he felt he was dating not only her but her parents as well.

He said he couldn’t do anything without her parents’ approval. [ 99 ] As an example of this controlling behaviour by A.B.’s parents, J.W.C. testified about an occasion when he and A.B. went to visit his grandmother, P.A., her husband and his other relatives over Christmas in Williams Lake and 100 Mile, British Columbia. [ 100 ] J.W.C.’s grandmother, P.A., testified. She said this visit occurred at Christmas in 2017. She testified that A.B. was domineering and that her grandson simply did what she said and it wasn’t healthy.

She said she would stop in to see her grandson and A.B. in Penticton every three to four months. She said her grandson had not been to see her for about three to four years, when A.B. said, “okay, we’re coming”. She said J.W.C.’s Grandpa W. went and got them and she and her husband were going to give them a ride home when they were heading to Nanaimo a few days after Christmas. She said on Christmas night, after dinner, A.B. went to her room crying and yelling and carried on all night.

P.A. said she went upstairs to the bedroom where A.B. was and told her “I have had it, your behaviour is awful in someone else’s home. Its only 2.5 days, or you can take the bus.” [ 101 ] P.A. said the police came. She spoke to them, and then the police officers went inside and went upstairs. After that J.W.C. came downstairs and Mr. A. said he would drive them to Merritt if her parents would pick them up there. P.A. did not mention any reason

given by A.B. for her desire to leave. When it was suggested to her in cross-examination that A.B. had to go back to work, P.A. testified that A.B. was not working except selling lighters. [ 102 ] J.W.C. testified this event took place in Christmas 2015. A.B., he said, was nervous, but excited to meet his relatives. He thought they took the bus to get there, because he did not yet have a driver’s licence or a car. He said his grandparents had agreed to take them back home when they attended a wedding or a funeral on the coast the following Wednesday.

However, J.W.C. testified that A.B. decided on Christmas night that she wanted to go home on Boxing Day and they had “a little fight” about that. He did not mention, in his testimony, about A.B. having any reason to wish to leave when she did. He said his grandma said “I’ve had it, A. is being difficult” and he recalled his grandmother saying to A.B., ”this is enough, we are not taking you until Wednesday”.

He said all his grandmother did was speak to A.B. in a “stern” voice. [ 103 ] He said his grandmother was not aware that A.B.’s parents were listening to the conversation on the phone and that his grandparents were flabbergasted when the police attended their home. He said the police spoke to his grandmother and were gone. Ultimately, Mr. A., his grandmother’s husband, drove them to Merritt the following day where A.B.’s parents picked them up. He said he felt very awkward about A.B.’s parents having called the police on his relatives. [ 104 ] A.B. and her parents were confronted about this incident.

A.B. testified that she was still doing respite work at [omitted for publication] at the time these events occurred and that the arrangement had been that she and J.W.C. would leave on Boxing Day so that she could attend work. However, on Christmas night, she was informed that they refused to take her home. She said that she was told she could stay, or take a bus, but that they also refused to help her get to a bus station. [ 105 ] A.B. testified that J.W.C. and Mr. A. informed her that P.A.’s drinking had gotten out of control after her family members had died.

She testified that P.A. had been “severely” drinking when the incident occurred. She testified that P.A. came to her room in the morning and had forgotten to put her teeth in. She said P.A. had become physical with her. She said that she was on the phone with her mother in her bedroom when P.A. started spitting on her and trying to grab her. A.B. said she was screaming, trying to get away from P.A. when J.W.C. grabbed the phone and told her parents to call the police. A.B. said J.W.C. and Mr.

A. pulled P.A. away from A.B. [ 106 ] She testified that J.W.C. asked her not to tell the police that P.A. had assaulted her, and she felt that she had to do what he said, because she didn’t know what he would do to her when they got home if she did not, and also because she did not want to cause a greater rift in the family. So she when the police arrived A.B. did not tell them she had been assaulted, and the police escorted them out of the residence. She testified that Mr. A. took them to a hockey rink where he had hockey practice, and after that was over, he took them to meet her parents in Merritt.

A.B. said Mr. A. apologized, saying that P.A. had consumed too much “Christmas Cheer”. [ 107 ] L.B. testified that she was on the phone with her daughter during the Williams Lake Christmas incident. She testified that her daughter was crying, telling her that they wouldn’t let her come home for her work and that they were yelling at her. L.B. could hear two female voices screaming at her daughter. L.B. said she put the call on speaker phone and used her cell phone to call the police.

She testified that the police dispatcher could hear the screaming going on over the speakerphone and told L.B. she would get the police out there right away. She said she spoke with Mr. A., who met them in Merritt. She said he was a nice man and that they discovered when talking that they had a mutual friend. She said he was apologetic, blaming the incident on “too much Christmas Cheer”. She assured him he had nothing to apologize for, as he had not been the one screaming. [ 108 ] J.W.C. denied all allegations of physical or sexual violence against A.B., and denied punching his dog.

He testified that none of that happened. With respect to the allegations of physical violence, when asked how A.B. became bruised, J.W.C. answered that she didn’t get bruised, that it simply didn’t happen. [ 109 ] J.W.C. testified that when they moved to [omitted for publication], both he and A.B. had a computer. He later admitted that it was her computer. J.W.C. denied that he broke the keyboard tray on the desk and damaged the desk chair – rather, he said the chair was pristine the last time he saw it.

He admitted the he made the wall beside the desk dirty by putting his feet on it, but claimed that A.B. put her feet up there too. [ 110 ] J.W.C. testified in examination in chief that he was not banned from playing on line video games and never called other players derogatory names.

In cross-examination, after he was confronted with a video of himself in which he admitted being banned and swearing at other players, he admitted that he had been banned “maybe once” but was not angry and could not explain why he swore at them. [ 111 ] J.W.C. said that they bought new furniture from Kandolas in late 2018 or early 2019, by financing it all. He said it cost about $7,000.

He said they bought it because the furniture they had was “old, beaten up or too small”. [ 112 ] J.W.C. said that in March 2019 he was at the breaking point in depression and anxiety and stress and so he decided go to Williams Lake for a while. In late March, he said that A.B. had an ultrasound and they discovered the unborn child was a boy. J.W.C. testified that he told A.B. on the phone, after the ultrasound results that he intended to break up with her. He said he came back to [omitted for publication] from Williams Lake in early April, but did not recall why.

However, while he was in [omitted for publication], he said her parents took him aside and were pressuring him, acting as if there was something wrong with him. He testified that the said “No, I’m fine, this is a decision I want to make – If I stick around and stay with her it would be bad for A.B. and my son.” [ 113 ] With respect to the Sonata automobile, J.W.C. testified that both he and A.B. mutually decided to buy the Sonata because it was more suitable for a child and cheaper on gas, because they were spending too much on gas going into Penticton on weekends for groceries.

He denied forcing A.B. to purchase the vehicle. [ 114 ] J.W.C. testified that they were on good terms after the breakup until August 2019. There were conversations about her placing items in an album he purchased for her. J.W.C. testified that there were a few telephone conversations in which he asked her to re- mortgage her house so he could get his “half” out of it. [ 115 ] He testified that all of A.B.’s testimony about physical and sexual abuse by him is lies that she made up because she felt very

scorned about him breaking up with her. He testified that A.B. made it all up because she is the “woman scorned”. Findings of Disputed Facts Ages of the parties and when they met: [ 116 ] J.W.C. testified that he turned 16 while he was in rehab, but he also repeatedly testified that he began his relationship with A.B. and moved into her home in 2012. According to J.W.C., he was 15 when the parties met on the bus and turned 16 a few days later. He was born [omitted for publication], which would have him turning 16 on [omitted for publication].

A.B. was born [omitted for publication], which would mean she turned 23 in [omitted for publication], and she would still be 23 in March of 2013, when J.W.C. turned 16. On the basis of the birthdates of both parties, and the evidence of J.W.C. that he turned 16 shortly after the parties met on the bus, they met in 2013, not 2012. I find J.W.C.’s 1repeated evidence regarding events occurring between the parties in 2012 is untrue.

The Christmas Incident [ 117 ] The Christmas incident itself is of no particular relevance to any issue to be determined in this trial, except with respect to credibility generally and whether J.W.C. was the victim of control by A.B. (and her parents). [ 118 ] On the issue of credibility, there are difficulties with the account given by J.W.C. P.A. testified that when the police came she spoke to them and then they went inside the house and went upstairs, after which her grandson came downstairs and Mr. A. agreed to drive them to Merritt.

J.W.C. testified that when the police came they spoke to his grandmother and then were gone. It seems to me highly unlikely that if police attended as a result of a complaint that A.B. was being assaulted by P.A., they would leave after speaking only to the alleged aggressor, without speaking to the alleged victim. J.W.C.’s version makes no sense. [ 119 ] I note there is a striking omission in both the versions offered by J.W.C. and his grandmother. Neither of them mentions any reason given by A.B. for wanting to leave.

It seems to me, as a matter of common sense, that arguments occur when people disagree about an issue – but neither J.W.C. nor P.A. make any mention of why A.B. said she wanted to leave, even if they disagreed with it. [ 120 ] Similarly, J.W.C. testified that his grandmother did nothing more than to speak to A.B. in a “stern voice”, and P.A. gave identical evidence. If that were the case, that would render inexplicable the action of L.B. in calling the police. [ 121 ] However, the Facebook messages sent by J.W.C. after the event do provide an explanation – that was left out of his testimony.

In the messages, he said: “A.B. did nothing to deserve the disrespect and screaming and yelling she received from you guys. A.B. has done nothing but support me and she is behind me in whatever I want to do in life. Kinda like how you guys SHOULD be. Just because you guys are family doesn’t mean I have to agree with you guys. And quite frankly, I couldn’t care less what you guys think. I am eighteen, and legally and morally I can choose to do what I want with my life, without your guys interference. You guys got angry because me and A.B. had OBLIGATIONS and RESPONSIBILITIES.

You guys brushed off me and hers business like it didn’t mattered….” [ 122 ] This message, which J.W.C. admits writing, is consistent with the version of events given by A.B. regarding the events at Christmas. However, J.W.C. testified that what he wrote in that message was fabricated – that he put the “screaming and yelling”

part in to please A.B., that A.B. was not working and therefore the part he wrote about “obligations and responsibilities” was not true. On the other hand, he maintained that the balance of the messages he sent that night, which were also confrontational and unflattering to his grandmother, were true. [ 123 ] A.B. and L.B. gave detailed accounts of the events of that evening, including extraneous details that were, I find, unlikely to have been invented. For instance, A.B. explained that P.A. had forgotten to put in her false teeth, something P.A. could not recall either way.

I infer that P.A. did in fact have false teeth, something that would be obvious to another person only if she were not wearing them. [ 124 ] L.B. described Mr. A. as pleasant and nice, and recalled their friendly discussion revealing that his employer was a friend of theirs. During cross-examination, L.B. was repeatedly accused of fabricating her evidence. However, had L.B. been attempting to tailor her evidence to cast J.W.C. and his relations in a bad light, I doubt she would have included those flattering details concerning Mr.

A. [ 125 ] I do not accept J.W.C.’s evidence that he inserted lies created by A.B. into his messages to his grandmother regarding this incident.

The details he now calls lies were not challenged by P.A. in her responses to him at the time, and J.W.C. did not suggest that he had any input from A.B. regarding the balance of the messages he sent that night – but I note that his messages carry on in the same vein, complaining that his grandmother and other family members failed to help him when he needed help and that he is refusing to do what they (my italics) want him to do with his life. [ 126 ] I find that his contemporaneous messages did accurately represent his view, at the time, of what had occurred at the Christmas incident.

That account is consistent with the account given by A.B. and L.B. I find that the Christmas incident occurred as described by A.B. and her parents. To the extent that it differs from the version given by A.B. and her parents, I find the version given by J.W.C. and P.A. is untrue. [ 127 ] There is nothing about the Christmas incident that would support a finding that J.W.C. was “controlled” by A.B. or her family.

Rather, I find that J.W.C.’s contemporaneous messages support the inference that he was objecting to his family’s controlling behaviour. [ 128 ] Counsel for J.W.C. suggested to each of the witnesses, aside from his client, that the Christmas incident occurred in 2017. However, not only did J.W.C. testify that the Christmas incident occurred in 2015, but his account also included that he did not yet have a full driver’s licence or a car, which would explain why they needed transportation assistance.

Additionally, all parties agree that the series of Facebook messages exhibited at trial were sent by J.W.C. to his grandmother P.A. a short time after this event. The messages are dated January 14, 2016. In those messages, J.W.C. mentions that he is 18 years old, which is consistent with these events having taken place at Christmas of 2015. Thus, there was no legitimate factual foundation for the suggestion that these events took place in

2017. [ 129 ] J.W.C. gave evidence that, at A.B.’s request, B.B. taught him to drive, allowed him to use B.B.’s truck for the driving test, got him a job at the [omitted for publication] in Princeton and co-signed for him to buy a truck, which J.W.C. acknowledged was very nice of him.

None of these actions, which were apparently appreciated by J.W.C., and certainly benefited him, are consistent with his description of B.B. and L.B. as “controlling” of him – and all of those beneficial actions must have occurred after the Christmas incident occurred, because J.W.C. testified he did not yet have his driver’s licence when the Christmas incident occurred. [ 130 ] It seems to me that the suggestion that the Christmas incident occurred in 2017 was a stratagem to support J.W.C.’s evidence that A.B. and her parents began to “control” him after he had been employed at the [omitted for publication] for a couple of years.

If that was the plan, it has failed. The evidence does not support that theory. [ 131 ] I find on J.W.C.’s evidence, A.B., and B.B. and L.B. went to great lengths to assist J.W.C. – including B.B. co-signing the debt so that J.W.C. could purchase a pickup truck. According to the conditional sales contract for the Sonata, in April 2019, the trade in value of the 2017 Dodge Truck was $41,000, the same as the amount owing on it. To co-sign a debt of that magnitude was a very generous act on the part of B.B. There is no evidence that B.B. and L.B. actually exerted any “control” over J.W.C. at all.

I am not persuaded that A.B. and/or B.B. and L.B. attempted to or succeeded in exerting “control” over J.W.C., nor that the Christmas incident is an example of any such thing. Abuse of Pets [ 132 ] J.W.C. flatly denied neglecting or mistreating any animals. As with everything else unflattering to him, he says A.B. and her parents are making that up. I do not accept that they were making it up. They have no reason to invent a story about J.W.C. nibbling on cats’ ears or refusing to clean up after his dogs or refusing to vaccinate his puppy.

The evidence of each of them in this regard was detailed and clearly had the differences of perspective that I would expect different people to have regarding events that really happened. With respect to the evidence of L.B. about seeing J.W.C. punching his puppy repeatedly, L.B. was very careful in her evidence, even returning to court to correct minor details. It appeared to me that she was describing an event and a scene that was real, and shocking to her.

I accept the evidence of A.B., and her parents that J.W.C. refused to attend to his animals’ needs, refused to clean up after his dogs, injured A.B.’s cat by biting it and beat his puppy. Abusive behaviour towards A.B. and other videogame players [ 133 ] J.W.C denied yelling at A.B. or swatting a cup of tea from her hand, and denied verbally abusing video game players, and denied getting banned from video games. However, in the video of him taken by A.B., he admitted getting banned from video games for swearing at other players. J.W.C.’s testimony is directly contradicted by his utterances on the video.

I find that J.W.C.’s denial of being banned for abusing other players was a falsehood. I accept A.B.’s evidence on this point. I also accept her evidence, corroborated by the evidence of her mother and brother, that J.W.C. yelled at her if she disturbed him while he played video games and that on one occasion when she brought him a cup of tea he swatted it from her hand. Physical and sexual abuse and coercive behaviour [ 134 ] All of the incidents of physical and sexual violence alleged by A.B. occurred in private.

There is no independent evidence to corroborate her complaints with respect to sexual assaults, nor would I expect that such corroboration would exist, given the private nature of the circumstances. However, corroboration is not required. With respect to the physical assaults, A.B. testified she was injured and had visible bruises as a result of J.W.C.’s assaults on her. [ 135 ] J.W.C. denies that any sexual or physical assaults occurred, and more particularly, denied that A.B. ever had any bruises at all . He testified that she made it all up because she is the “woman scorned”.

He submits she should not be believed, largely because she did not report the physical and sexual abuse to the police, did not take pictures of her injuries, did not provide documentary evidence to support her claims and did not video tape the broken cups when she took the video of J.W.C. in the spring of 2019. [ 136 ] Generally speaking, it is always helpful to the Court if the parties are able to provide contemporaneous, independent and unbiased corroboration of their claims. Both J.W.C. and A.B. provided some documentary evidence, in the form of emails and text messages.

A.B. provided the conditional sales contract which assisted the court. In addition, A.B. provided a video depicting J.W.C.’s behaviour, and an independent witness who testified that he observed significant bruising to A.B.’s arms.

J.W.C. provided some photographs of himself and the Hyundai automobile, as well as emails and text messages, but his version of the text messages, which he presented as a complete chronological version, contained significant omissions of messages which were present in the version provided by A.B. [ 137 ] Regarding the video, J.W.C.’s explanation that he was simply tired and sleepy after a night shift does not explain his odd behaviour in the video, (including touching and sniffing his genitals) which A.B. had commented on during text messages between them long before.

If he had indeed worked night shift and wanted to go to bed, one would have expected him to go to bed, but he did not – he instead sprawled on the couch. Additionally, if all that had happened was that he wished to go to sleep after a night shift, the distress in A.B.’s voice and her requests that he seek medical help are completely unexplained. [ 138 ] A.B. explained that she had already cleaned up the broken items when she took the video of J.W.C. She explained she took the video in order to have something to demonstrate to him his condition, in order to persuade him to seek psychiatric help.

The words she is uttering in the video are entirely consistent with that purpose. She was imploring him, in a distraught, but most loving manner, to go to the doctor. The video provided by A.B. corroborated her account of the behavioural characteristics of J.W.C. and her desire to have him obtain psychiatric assistance – which was further corroborated by text messages between them. [ 139 ] There is no indication in the video that she believed her relationship with him to be over; to the contrary, she was imploring him to do things to improve their relationship.

I draw no inference against her that she did not video the broken crockery. In such a context, it would make no sense to photograph broken crockery. I find A.B. took this video for the purpose that she stated, not for the purpose of subsequent, as yet unanticipated litigation.

[ 140 ] J.W.C. argues that A.B.’s evidence should not be believed because it she had the opportunity to report it to the police when J.W.C. was at work, but did not. A.B. testified that she was too ashamed of the things that J.W.C. did to her to reveal them to anyone when it was happening. She explained that she did not know that his sexual abuse of her was against the law, because they were in a relationship. I do not find that belief to be surprising. [ 141 ] It was not until 1982 that the law as we know it today came into effect.

Prior to that time, the law was that a man could rape his wife with impunity, because such behaviour was not against the law. Rape could be a crime only if the victim was not the perpetrator’s wife.

In the course of my career, I have encountered many women who never reported the suffered sexual abuse by their husbands and partners because they believed, incorrectly, that the law provided no recourse, even after it had changed. [ 142 ] No evidence, expert or otherwise, was provided to me that all genuine victims of spousal abuse immediately report that fact to the authorities, nor that a failure to report to the police should support an inference that the unreported complaint is a falsehood.

The notion that genuine victims report abuse immediately, (and its corollary known as “recent complaint”,) is based on myths that have no longer any place in the law. The highest courts of this land have long held that that a trier of fact cannot draw a negative inference from the fact that a complainant did not immediately report her complaint to authorities.

The law changed because of the recognition that there is no standard way in which victims can be expected to behave. [ 143 ] A.B. explained that she did not tell her parents or anyone else about how J.W.C. treated her because she was too ashamed and she loved him. In my experience of 36 years as a lawyer and judge, many women report domestic abuse only when they have left the relationship and are in a safe environment. Many women never report domestic abuse to the authorities.

Many women report independently verifiable abuse to the authorities but nevertheless find themselves drawn back into the abusive relationship anyway. I accept A.B.’s explanation. [ 144 ] A.B.’s parents testified that they observed bruises on her wrists and arms in the summer of 2018, around the time that she attended to the training session in Kelowna. J.W.C. argues that the court should not accept their evidence because there are no photographs of the bruises. B.B. and L.B. explained that they did nothing when they saw the bruises because, to use B.B.’s words, “it was moot”.

I infer that he meant that unless A.B. asked them to intervene, they could not. Obviously, they could not take photos of A.B. without her cooperation. Ultimately, J.W.C.’s attack on the credibility of B.B. and L.B. comes to nothing more than as A.B.’s parents the Court should treat

[…]