Vickberg v. Vickberg, 2023 BCSC 1030

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Vickberg v. Vickberg, 2023 BCSC 1030 Date: 20230614 Docket: Vancouver Registry: E211017 Between: Anja Vickberg also known as Anja Christina Liimatainen Claimant And Kris Vickberg also known as Jon Kristian Vickberg Respondent Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Forth Reasons for Judgment The Claimant, appearing on her own behalf: A. Vickberg The Respondent, appearing on his own behalf: K. Vickberg Place and Date of Trial: Vancouver, B.C. May 15-17, 2023 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C.

June 14, 2023 Introduction .. 2 Background Facts .. 3 Procedural Background .. 4 Issues .. 7 Issue 1: Should a Divorce be Granted? . 7 Issue 2: What Therapies Should be Considered s. 7 Expenses and How Should These Expenses be Paid by the Parties? . 7 Legal Principles . 7 Review of O.V.’s development and assessments . 9 The Recommended Therapies . 14 Counselling . 14 Occupational Therapy Services . 15 Speech Language Therapy . 15 Social Skills Therapy . 16 Play Therapy . 16 Swimming . 17 Costs of the Therapies . 17 Financial circumstances of the parties . 18 Position of the Parties . 19 Position of the claimant 19

Position of the respondent 20 Analysis . 21 Are the expenses necessary? . 21 What is the reasonableness of the expenses in relation to the means of the parties and to the family’s spending pattern prior to separation? . 22 Issue 3: What Parenting Responsibilities Should be Ordered? . 24 Issue 4: What Costs Should be Awarded? . 25 Conclusion .. 25 Introduction [ 1 ] This short family law trial only involved three issues being: whether the parties should be divorced, the future s. 7 expenses, and parenting responsibilities for their son.

To the parties’ credit, the other issues were resolved by mediation and a consent order dealing with the other outstanding issues, which I granted on May 16, 2023. Background Facts [ 2 ] At the time of trial, the claimant was 46 years old and the respondent was 53 years old. The claimant and respondent began living together in December 2006 and got married on August 1, 2011 in Tofino, British Columbia. They had a son born in 2015, who is currently 7 years old, who I will refer to as O.V. in these reasons.

They separated on January 27, 2021. [ 3 ] In 2020, the claimant attended school to obtain a certificate as a library technician. The claimant works part-time as a librarian technician for the Vancouver Public Library and as an accounting clerk for a film and television production company. [ 4 ] The respondent works full-time as a porter transporting patients at Vancouver General Hospital. He has worked at the hospital for 21 years. He has certifications as a bridge watchman from BCIT, and as a paramedic. [ 5 ] The respondent was diagnosed with cardio vascular disease in March 2022.

In the Spring of 2022, he required a cardioversion, which he described as shocks to his heart, which did not restore a normal heart rate. He then had an ablation, which he described as going up through his groin and the burning of the heart, to establish the right rhythm. In March 2023 he had another cardiac event which required a further ablation. He was off work for five days.

He is required to take six different medications daily to control his cardiac issues and is being monitored by a cardiologist. [ 6 ] O.V. has been diagnosed with a number of neurodevelopmental issues including: Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”); Mild Intellectual Disorder (“MID”); Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Combined Type, Moderate to Severe Severity (“ADHD”); and Sensory Processing Disorder. As a result of a number of behaviours that O.V. exhibited, he was terminated from attending a child care centre on September 1, 2022, leaving the parties with no pre or afterschool care.

O.V. is currently in Grade 2, has an individual education plan (“IEP”) and has a one-to-one student support worker with him at school. As a result of his challenges at school, in the fall of 2022, O.V.’s attendance at school was reduced. The claimant has worked hard to advocate for her son to get him back into the classroom and to school full-time. He currently is attending school four full-days per week. [ 7 ] Unlike many family law trials, this case involved no issues of credibility of either parties’ evidence. The claimant testified in a credible, straight-forward, and candid manner.

I was impressed with her ability to present evidence in an organized and understandable fashion. I also would commend her for the depth of her devotion and commitment to O.V. and her determination that her son will achieve his highest potential. [ 8 ] The respondent answered all questions the best of his ability. He readily conceded that he has a poor recollection of a number of events due to the pressure he was under.

It was clear to me that the respondent has been, and is under a great deal of pressure arising from the MCFD investigations, the litigation process, his financial circumstances, and his health challenges. He presented as a father who cares deeply for his son, but who is also concerned with his financial ability to continue to fund the various therapies that he is now being asked to fund. He experienced a great deal of stress as a result of the litigation process and the three MCFD investigations that were triggered against him.

Overall, I found him an honest witness that was somewhat overwhelmed with the trial process. Procedural Background [ 9 ] This action was filed on April 23, 2021, with a response to family claim being filed on April 30, 2021. In the response to family claim, the respondent agreed that O.V. should have counselling. A counterclaim was also filed on April 30, 2021. [ 10 ] The judicial case conference (“JCC”) was heard on October 20, 2021, before Justice Beames.

The parties were to disclose documents and the respondent was given parenting time with O.V. for every second weekend from Friday at 4:30 p.m. until Monday at 7:30 a.m.

[ 11 ] On January 17, 2022, the parties agree to a consent order (the “January Consent Order”) which provided: Child Support 1. Pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines , and based on an agreed 2020 guideline income of $53,298 for the Claimant and a 3-year averaged guideline income of $60,186 for the Respondent with professional fees of $980.20 deducted, the Respondent is to pay the Claimant child support in the amount of $559 per month, based on the parties being in a non-shared parenting arrangement; 2.

The parties will exchange T1 General tax returns and all applicable CRA Assessments and Reassessments by June 1st of every year, beginning June 1, 2022. Adjustments to the Support will be made according to the Guidelines by July 1st of every year; 3. The Respondent will pay to the Claimant $559 per month in child support on the first day of every month, commencing January 1, 2022; 4. As of January 6, 2022, there are no arrears owing by the Respondent to the Claimant for Child support payments; Special and/or Extraordinary Expenses 5. Pursuant to

section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines , the parties will share all special and extraordinary expenses of the Child proportionate to their incomes, being 53% by the Respondent and 47% by the Claimant; 6. As of January 6, 2022, the arrears owing by the Respondent to the Claimant for the Child’s

section 7 expenses are $348.92; a. the Respondent will pay $348.92 by January 31 2022; and 7. The following expenses are currently considered as special and extraordinary: a. Counseling; b. Annual childcare expenses and school fees; c. Afterschool care; d. Summer, winter, and spring camps; e. Skating classes; f. Swimming classes; and g. Any other expense agreed upon by the parties. 8. Neither party shall incur a cost related to special or extraordinary expenses without first consulting the other party and obtaining his or her consent. 9.

A party incurring a special or extraordinary expense shall provide the other party with a receipt or invoice for reimbursement. The reimbursement shall occur within 7 days of receiving the receipt or invoice. 10. The parties agree that the Child's ongoing daycare expenses will be taken solely out of their personal accounts. Child Counselling 11. The Child will attend counselling with Alyson Jones and Associates; 12. The parties will both be fully involved in the counselling process from the outset; 13.

The parties will exhaust all extended health benefits to cover the costs of the Child’s counselling, prior to either party being responsible for their proportionate share; 14. After exhausting the parties’ extended health benefits, the parties will be responsible for the Child’s ongoing counseling as a

section 7 expense apportioned based on their respective guideline incomes; 15. The parties contribution for the individual costs of the Child after exhausting the extended health benefits will be based on their respective guideline incomes; 16. Any documentation fees, emails, or any out of session fees will be apportioned based on the parties guideline incomes; and 17.

Any costs related to the parties for attending individual or joint parent sessions with the Child will be the sole responsibility of that party. [ 12 ] On March 14, 2022, the respondent brought an application for parenting time with O.V. on a shared parenting arrangement. The claimant filed an application seeking that the parenting time be supervised. [ 13 ] On April 22, 2022, the parties appeared before Justice Edelmann on their respective applications.

The respondent’s parenting time was varied to every second weekend from 4:30 p.m. on Friday to 7:00 p.m. on Sunday and afterschool until 7:00 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays. The claimant was unsuccessful on her request for supervised parenting time. The parties could modify the parenting time by written agreement. In August 2022, the parenting time was modified to change the respondent’s parenting time on Mondays and

Wednesdays afterschool to Saturday. [ 14 ] On July 20, 2022, the parties agreed to a consent order that varied the amount of child support paid by the respondent to $464 a month and the sharing of s. 7 expenses with 53% by the respondent and 47% by the claimant. The parties further agreed to equally share the costs of a neurodevelopment assessment. Issues [ 15 ] I will address the following four issues: 1. Should a divorce be granted? 2. What therapies should be considered s. 7 expenses and how should these expenses be paid by the parties? 3. What parenting responsibilities should be ordered? 4.

What costs should be awarded? Issue 1: Should a Divorce be Granted? [ 16 ] The parties both seek an order for divorce. They have been living separate and apart since January 27, 2021. There is no prospect of reconciliation. I am satisfied that the grounds for a divorce pursuant to s. 8 of the Divorce Act , R.S.C. 1985, (2nd Supp.) c. 3, are met in this case. I grant an order for divorce that will take effect on the 31st day after the day on which these reasons are pronounced. Issue 2: What Therapies Should be Considered s. 7 Expenses and How Should These Expenses be Paid by the Parties?

Legal Principles [ 17 ] Subsections 7(1) (

a) to (

f) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 list special and extraordinary expenses as:

a) child care expenses incurred by a custodial parent for a variety of specified reasons;

b) the child’s portion of medical and dental premiums;

c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses;

d) extraordinary expenses for the child’s educational needs;

e) post-secondary education expenses; and

f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities. [ 18 ] Subsection 7(1.1) defines “extraordinary expenses” referred to in ss. 7(1)(

d) and (

f) as follows: Definition of “extraordinary expenses”

(1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(

d) and (f), the term extraordinary expenses means (

a) expenses that exceed those that the spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that spouse’s income and the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate; or (

b) where paragraph (

a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account (

i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate, (ii) the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities, (iii) any special needs and talents of the child or children, (iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and (

v) any other similar factor that the court considers relevant. [ 19 ] In Bodine-Shah v. Shah, 2014 BCCA 191 , the Court discussed the distinction between “special” expenses listed in ss. 7(1) (a),(b), (

c) and (e), and the “extraordinary” expenses in ss. 7(1) (

d) and (f). While both special and extraordinary expenses must be reasonable and necessary, special expenses are defined in s. 7(1) , whereas extraordinary expenses are not. Their “extraordinariness” must be determined.

The Court in Bodine-Shah explained how this determination is to be made: [66] …Special expenses are defined as relating to child care, medical or dental insurance premiums, health-related costs, and post-secondary education. They must be found to be reasonable and necessary. Extraordinary expenses are not defined. Theirextraordinariness is determined in the context of the combined income of the spouses, as well as other considerations, including thenature and amount of the individual expense, the nature and number of the activities, any special needs or talents of the child, and theoverall cost of the activities.

They also must be found to be reasonable and necessary. Relevant considerations for the tests of necessityand reasonableness include whether the expenses are necessary in relation to the child’s best interests, and reasonable having regard tothe means of the spouses, the child, and to the family’s spending pattern prior to separation. See McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (1998), (BC CA), 57 B.C.L.R. (3d) 186 at paras. 81-82 (C.A.).

In assessing “means”, the court may consider the parties’ capitalassets, income distribution, debts, third-party resources, access costs, support obligations, receipt of support, and any other relevantfactor: Delichte v. Rogers, 2013 MBCA 106, 37 R.F.L. (7th) 81 at para. 38. Courts may consider whether the non-custodial parent wasconsulted regarding the expense, though a lack of consultation does not automatically preclude a finding that the expense is reasonableand necessary: Delichte at paras. 39, 44.

Review of O.V.’s development and assessments [20] In May 2021, O.V. was attending kindergarten and the school team noted that he demonstrated challenges in several areas of hislearning profile and that there was a need for further assessment.

The list of concerns included: • Limited understanding and critical thinking… • Easily confused, gets lost at school • Difficulty attending to lessons; distractible • Gross motor concerns … • Difficulty with impulse control, controlling or understanding his emotions and recognizing the emotions of his peers • Difficulty self-regulating • Can be aggressive on the playground when he gets excited, and is focused on play. [21] The recommendation was that O.V. have a full pediatric assessment. This recommendation was again made when O.V. was inGrade 1 by the school. [22] Dr.

Sarah Freedman, pediatrician, assessed O.V. on January 19, 2022. In her report dated March 15, 2022, she noted a number ofchallenges that O.V. was having at home and at school. Her initial opinion was that O.V. may have a potential diagnosis of “ADHD vs ahigh functioning autism”. She recommended that he be assessed by Wonderkids OT and have an assessment for DevelopmentalCoordination Disorder.

She recommended an assessment with a psychologist to consider the possibility of autism as O.V. might beeligible for additional supports. [23] On February 14, 2022, O.V. was assessed by Randi Weiss, occupational therapist, with Wonderkids Therapy for Children Ltd.,who prepared an occupational therapy assessment report dated May 5, 2022. This assessment was requested by Dr. Freedman, whowanted an assessment for a Developmental Coordination Disorder. Ms.

Weiss opined that O.V. was likely experiencing a sensoryprocessing disorder, which is a disorder that relates to the way the nervous system receives sensory messages and turns them intoresponses. Ms. Weiss ruled out any developmental coordination challenges at that time. [24] Ms. Weiss made the following professional recommendations: 1. Occupational Therapy • [O.V.] will benefit from 8-12 weekly OT sessions with an occupational therapist who is trained in sensory integration. This willassist him with his sensory processing and modulation challenges.

Should additional challenges arise, therapy can be extended. • An OT can also work with [O.V.] on a weekly basis to further develop his skills around self-regulation, emotional regulation,social skills, and any fine motor skills that need to be addressed. These therapy objectives will all work together to build his ability tomaster skills and develop self-confidence. • An OT can work with [O.V.’s] family to implement some regulating activities and can also provide recommendations on whatequipment to buy that would best support [O.V.’s] regulation. 2.

Pediatrician/Psychology Assessment • It is recommended to pursue assessment for underlying neurological challenges such as ADHD or ASD which could be impacting[O.V.’s] ability to participate in activities of daily living to his full capabilities. [25] O.V. was assessed by the BC Centre of Ability by Tara Marrington, supported child development consultant, who completed aChild Development & Support Needs Profile dated February 25, 2022. Ms. Marrington noted that O.V. needs direct adult assistance inmany child development areas.

She recommended that O.V. have supported child disorder services to address O.V.’s needs. [26] O.V. was assessed by Dr. Raazhan Rae-Seebach, registered psychologist, in June and July 2022. Dr. Rae-Seebach prepared apsycho-educational and autism spectrum assessment report dated July 24, 2022. Dr. Rae-Seebach diagnosed O.V. with ASD, MID,

ADHD, and Sensory Processing Disorder. She further noted that her findings were consistent with an Unspecified Anxiety Disorder.

She recommended he be monitored for a possible Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (“DMDD”) and it was recommended that the parents may want to consult with a registered psychologist, child psychiatrist or developmental pediatrician about possible DMDD. [ 27 ] Of significance she noted the following concerns: • He requires significantly more adult supervision with everyday living skills compared with children of a similar age; • He has a history of difficulty with hyperactive, impulsive, and inattentive behaviours that occur at home and school; • He showed behaviours reflective of depression in children and was easily upset; and • His academic abilities are much lower than expected. [ 28 ] Dr.

Rae-Seebach made a number of recommendations for therapies including: • Occupational therapy consultation and intervention is strongly recommended to provide support focused on fine motor abilities, sensory processing differences, independence with everyday living skills and interactive play skills. • Behavioural intervention is strongly recommended to support [O.V.], his parents and teachers with aggressive tendencies and dysregulated behaviours. • Play therapy may support [O.V.] to express how he feels in a safe environment and learn how to effectively cope with and manage how he feels. [ 29 ] Dr.

Rae-Seebach further recommended that based on the designation of ASD, the family should contact MCFD to inquire into eligibility/availability of family supports including: o provision of special needs’ social worker, o under 6 Autism Intervention Funding, o provision of behaviour management consultant, o provision of behaviour interventionist, o provision of speech-language therapy intervention, o provision of occupational therapist, … [ 30 ] Dr. Rae-Seebach noted that: Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders may benefit from a variety of interventions .

In general, when younger, these children need to “learn how to learn”, and the emphasis on supports that could be beneficial include speech and language therapy , forms of behavioural interventions, and social skills training. [Bold in original.] [ 31 ] She opines that for O.V. his interventions should include: • Behavioural intervention to support [O.V.] with aggressive tendencies and dysregulated behaviours. • Occupational therapy focused on identified areas of need. • Speech language interventions focused on social communication and interaction.

Social stories and scripts to help navigate varying social situations and activities may be helpful.

In particular, developing pragmatic language (or social communication) skills (e.g., how to start and end conversations, find common healthy interests, have back and forth conversations, understand and use nonverbal communication effectively) will be helpful. • Continued participation in structured educational programs with additional one-on-one adult support…. [ 32 ] She further recommended group-based social skills instruction, which can be provided by a speech-language therapist, a behavioural interventionist or a Registered Psychologist with expertise in ASD. [ 33 ] Dr.

Rae-Seebach provided a long list of school-based recommendations, including that O.V. be provided with an IEP and classroom accommodations. [ 34 ] She recommended that to address O.V.’s anxiety, he may benefit from participating in play-based, expressive therapy to learn strategies focused on managing how he feels. [ 35 ] In the summer of 2022, O.V., while attending summer camp at Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House, was demonstrating significant behavioural issues including acting out, aggression and running away. Ms. Marrington attended at Frog Hollow in July and August 2022 to observe O.V.

She observed significant behavioural issues. Ms. Marrington requested some temporary funding to assist O.V. It appears that some funding was located to provide extra staffing support in dealing with O.V.’s needs. [ 36 ] On August 12, 2022, Frog Hollow advised the parents that it was terminating care for O.V. as of September 1, 2022, when O.V. begins school, due to safety concerns. They did not have enough staff to ensure the safety of O.V. and the other children. This resulted in

the loss of pre and afterschool care for O.V. [ 37 ] O.V. commenced Grade 2 at Chief Maquinna Elementary. The claimant testified that O.V. moved to Chief Maquinna because the arts program in which O.V. was enrolled in at his previous school required him to switch teachers two times a day, and transitions are hard for O.V. In addition, Chief Maquinna is his catchment school and other children living in the same co-op attend that school. [ 38 ] In September 2022, with O.V.’s designation, he received funding for one-to-one support.

Even with accommodations, O.V. began to struggle in school and in October 2022 an incident occurred where the other students in the classroom had to leave. The school principal requested that O.V. only attend school for half days, from 9:00 a.m. to noon, and then go home. The claimant requested that on Wednesdays O.V. stay at school for a full-day so that the claimant could work. As a result of the change in school schedule, the claimant had to be home to care for O.V. on each weekday, except Wednesday.

This impacted her income. [ 39 ] In November 2022, there was still no plan in place for O.V. to return to full-time schooling. The claimant garnered the support of O.V.’s speech and language pathologist (“SLP”) and occupational therapist (“OT”) to assist her in working with the school in order to coordinate O.V.’s return to school. Ultimately, the claimant was successful in having O.V. return to school four full-days a week after spring break 2023. [ 40 ] As a result of the various recommendations made by the medical professionals, the claimant began pursuing the therapy recommendations.

The respondent described her efforts to secure therapies for their son as “nothing short of heroic”, which is an apt description. [ 41 ] I will deal with each of the recommended therapies. The Recommended Therapies Counselling [ 42 ] The claimant wanted to arrange counselling for O.V. In April 2021, the respondent agreed to counselling as set out in his response to family claim. The claimant was able to secure counselling with Michelle Deshaw in June 2021. O.V. only had one session, as Ms.

Deshaw was of the view that there was something more beyond anxiety impacting O.V. and noted that she did not have the expertise to diagnose neurodevelopmental disorders. She recommended that O.V. be assessed by the ADHD Clinic at BC Children’s Hospital or by a child psychologist. [ 43 ] The parties ultimately agreed by November 2021 that O.V. should have counselling with Alyson Jones & Associates. Counselling was arranged to start in January 2022. There was a counselling

schedule put in place by the counsellors in which the parents alternated in bringing their son for counselling. The claimant testified that O.V. had three counselling sessions, but that the respondent stopped taking O.V. for counselling sessions. It appears that the sessions were also paused due to the MCFD involvement. [ 44 ] As provided for in the January Consent Order, the parties agreed to O.V. having counselling with the costs being paid from extended health benefits and the remainder being paid on a proportionate basis.

Occupational Therapy Services [ 45 ] O.V. began weekly occupational therapy sessions with Robyn Miles at Wonderkids in September 2022. The type of therapy consists of working on gross motor skills, sensory awareness, and self-regulation strategies. The OT also became involved in collaborating with the school on strategies to support O.V. and getting him back to school on a full-time basis. The costs of an OT on a monthly basis is $600. Speech Language Therapy [ 46 ] In November 2022, the claimant enrolled O.V. at Grow Speech and Language Therapy to see Catherine Peciuch, SLP, to assist.

He is primarily getting assistance with reading, since O.V. is not yet reading. The SLP is working on his reading skill while allowing him to do so while in movement. O.V. learns best with movement. The focus also has been on working on O.V.’s core strength and fine motor skills, regulation strategies, and body awareness. The plan is for a phonological awareness assessment to be conducted and then to work on literacy, regulation and language use to communicate O.V.’s needs. [ 47 ] I note that based on the educational records and various assessments, O.V. has challenges with social interactions.

It is in O.V.’s best interest to remain in the school setting. [ 48 ] The costs of the SLP is $640 a month. Social Skills Therapy [ 49 ] In October 2022, the claimant enrolled O.V. in social skills therapy with Kids Connex Brick Club (the “Brick Club”) ran by Crista Kundu, behavioural consultant. The Brick Club involves a small group of children who attend to learn social skills while building Lego. O.V. is a fan of Lego. The cost for each session is $100 plus taxes. The claimant testified that O.V. enjoys attending these sessions and is building up a group of friends. [ 50 ] On March 31, 2023, Dr.

Freedman confirmed that O.V. had benefitted from participation in Brick Club, as a social skills group. As she notes, “This is a therapy that has been effective for many of my patients with similar profiles.” Dr. Freedman highly endorsed O.V.’s continued participation in this therapy.

Play Therapy [ 51 ] On July 8, 2022, the claimant was advised by MCFD a referral had been made for counselling for the parties and play therapy for O.V. at Westcoast Families. [ 52 ] O.V. attended one session, but O.V. did not want to return. The claimant testified that at this time O.V. was also undergoing the psycho-educational assessment and she agreed that it was not a good time for O.V. to start this therapy. [ 53 ] The claimant inquired whether there was a therapist available with training in ASD and ADHD.

It was her understanding that Westcoast Families did not have a therapist with those qualifications. [ 54 ] On December 16, 2022, Dr. Freedman confirmed that O.V. would benefit from play therapy by an individual experienced with children with autism and severe ADHD. The claimant attempted to find a play therapist and ultimately located Krystle Sivorot , registered clinical counsellor, who offers synergetic play therapy, or movement-based therapy. O.V. had attended one session with Ms. Sivorot in May 2023. The sessions are 50 minutes long.

The claimant plans to only have three sessions a month over the summer 2023 so that she can use her benefits to pay for these sessions. Each session costs $157.50 including GST. Swimming [ 55 ] The claimant testified that O.V. enjoys swimming. She wants to continue to keep him in swimming both for physical activity and for water safety. The costs are $200 for a set of group sessions. Costs of the Therapies [ 56 ] O.V. will receive annual autism funding of $6,000, which is received each November.

In addition, the claimant currently has extended health benefits that pay $1,400 towards counselling, $700 towards an OT, and $700 towards SLP on a yearly basis. [ 57 ] The claimant projects the monthly costs of the therapies to be $2,300 a month, being $27,400 a year.

This is reduced to $24,600 after deducting the claimant’s extended health benefits. [ 58 ] If all of the autism funding is used to pay for therapies, and no additional equipment is needed, that would require the parties pay $18,600 yearly, or $775 per month, if divided equally. [ 59 ] In 2022, the claimant used $912.90 of the autism funding towards needed equipment that had been approved by MCFD. [ 60 ] For 2023, the claimant has applied for a CKNW grant of $2,500 to pay for the Brick Club.

She will find out in June 2023 if she has received the grant. [ 61 ] The claimant is also planning to apply for a part-time position with the library, which she understands will provide additional extended health care benefits that could off-set some of the therapy costs. [ 62 ] The respondent says that he has extended health care benefits through his employment. It is his understanding that none of O.V.’s therapies are covered. He is willing to share his policy with the claimant to see whether there could be any possible reimbursement.

Financial circumstances of the parties [ 63 ] The claimant earned the following income: • 2020 - $8,225 (this was when she was attending school and represents a CERB payment) • 2021 - $62,491 • 2022 - $62,574.48 [ 64 ] In the claimant’s financial statement made and filed April 25, 2023, she sets out her employment income as $42,459.60.

She testified that she anticipates that she may make more money now that O.V. is back in school full-time four days a week and she is hoping to secure a more permanent part-time position with the library. [ 65 ] The claimant at the time of separation had family debt, in her name, in the amount of $79,303.49 and family assets of a value of $21,988.84. The parties have resolved the financial issues and have agreed that the respondent will pay the claimant the sum of $21,221.98 in full and final settlement of all claims of either party with respect to excluded property, family property, and family debt.

The claimant, as part of this resolution, remains responsible for the family debts. [ 66 ] Her monthly expenses amount to $6,050.43, including contributions to pay off the debts. All of the expenses claimed appear reasonable. [ 67 ] The respondent earned the following income: • 2018 - $54,124 • 2019 - $57,692

• 2020 - $68,741 • 2021 - $50,343.29 • 2022 - $53,458.07 [ 68 ] In March 2023, the respondent did work one day of overtime. [ 69 ] During 2021, when the respondent moved to live with his parents in Fort Langley, he did not pay rent. He now pays rent of $1,550 a month and child support of $464.

This leaves him with approximately $750 to pay for other expenses. [ 70 ] The respondent has responsibility for a credit line debt of $14,870. [ 71 ] In July 2022, the respondent purchased a vehicle for $2,000. [ 72 ] In submissions, he advised that he was securing a loan from his parents to pay the equalization payment owed as part of the mediated settlement. [ 73 ] The respondent testified that his heart condition does not impact his ability to work full-time. He also stated that he could work some overtime, but not as much as he has done in the past.

His view is that he could work approximately one overtime shift a week. According to his pay stub for one overtime shift he earned approximately $300. Position of the Parties Position of the claimant [ 74 ] The claimant’s position is that all of the therapies are recommended by health care professionals and therefore necessary. She submits that it is not in O.V.’s best interest to have his treatments interrupted. She argues that the expenses are reasonable in light of the means of the parties and the degree of necessity. In support, she references the comment in Richter v.

Richter , 2010 BCSC 1578 at para. 8 that: Most forms of extraordinary health care is usually looked upon as reasonable if the well-being of the child in the sense of his or her physical or mental health is a serious issue.

That is, what is necessary for the health of the child as opposed to a perhaps desired but not necessary cosmetic procedure. [ 75 ] The claimant submits that the respondent is able to earn some more money working some overtime, as substantiated in his recent pay stub. [ 76 ] The claimant has been pursuing other opportunities to obtain monies, like the CKNW grant, and she will be requesting a Variety Club grant. [ 77 ] The claimant sought an order that the following expenses be considered special or extraordinary expenses: 1) Swimming lessons; 2) Annual school fees; 3) Spring, Summer, and Winter camps (including a fee for a support person to accompany child to camps if required by the Camp); 4) Childcare; 5) Expenses relating to Autism and ADHD interventions including: a.

Occupational Therapy b. Speech Language Pathology c. Play therapy d. Social Skills groups e. Tutoring 6) Any other expenses as agreed by the parties. Position of the respondent [ 78 ] The respondent’s position is that he does not object to any of the therapies that have been provided. He agrees they have been recommended and that O.V. would benefit from them. He described them as “ideal” expenses. It is a financial issue for him. If he had the money, he would not object to any of the therapies. Analysis

[ 79 ] I will consider two issues: 1) Are the expenses necessary in relation to the child’s best interest? 2) What is the reasonableness of the expenses in relation to the means of the parties and to the family’s spending pattern prior to separation? Are the expenses necessary? [ 80 ] The OT, SLP, play therapy, and counselling, which I view includes the social skills therapy, have been recommended by medical experts to help treat O.V.’s various medical diagnoses. I am persuaded that they are necessary and in O.V.’s best interest.

The respondent did not provide any evidence to support that the therapy expenses were not necessary. It is crucial that O.V. continue to address his challenges, particularly so that he can continue to participate in his education. [ 81 ] I find that the following falls within the definition of health-related expenses:

a) Occupational therapy;

b) Speech language therapy;

c) Social Skills therapy; and

d) Play therapy. [ 82 ] The claimant also sought to have swimming considered a s. 7 expense. I understand the claimant’s desire that O.V. learn how to swim from a safety perspective, but I am not persuaded that this is an extraordinary expense. This is something that should be included in the basic child support that the claimant receives from the respondent. In the January Consent Order, skating classes are considered a s. 7 expenses.

I am not persuaded that it should be an extraordinary expense in light of the evidence I have heard. [ 83 ] In addition, in the January Consent Order, the parties agreed that the following would be s. 7 expenses: a. Counseling; b. Annual child care expenses and school fees; c. Afterschool care; d. Summer, winter, and spring camps. [ 84 ] I see no basis to vary the agreement that the parties made on these expenses.

What is the reasonableness of the expenses in relation to the means of the parties and to the family’s spending pattern prior to separation? [ 85 ] I note that these various therapies have arisen after the parties’ separation, since O.V. was not diagnosed until the summer of 2022. As such, the family’s spending pattern prior to separation is not particularly relevant. [ 86 ] I am hopeful that following this trial, the parents can shift their focuses away from litigation and towards trying to maximize their earnings while at the same time nurturing their son.

The legal fees they both faced should be in the past. [ 87 ] The respondent has faced a number of very challenging circumstances since January 2021. It is understandable he has been stressed and traumatized by having to deal with the various investigations he has faced. Hopefully that is now in the past, and in the future, this will not happen again. [ 88 ] He says he can work some overtime and he is willing to work with the claimant to see if he can change his shifts to help out more with school drop-off and pick-up. I would encourage him to do so.

He is also entitled to ensure that his physical health is not compromised by working too many hours of overtime. [ 89 ] The parties need to consider whether some reductions in the frequency of the therapies can be made in light of the financial pressure they are both under. [ 90 ] It seems that one potential reduction is in the weekly OT visits, to have those reduced to bi-weekly. That alone would result in a reduction of $300 per month. [ 91 ] I would also encourage the respondent to provide a copy of his extended health policy to the claimant.

It is not clear to me why that policy has no coverage for a dependent child in need of therapies. It is essential that every possible means of financial coverage is exhausted. [ 92 ] I have considered the parties’ financial circumstances. The respondent says that after he has paid for housing and child support he is only left with $740 to pay for all other expenses.

He simply does not have enough money to fund his share of all the therapies. [ 93 ] If the respondent could now pick up perhaps one overtime shift a week, that would greatly assist his financial circumstances and his ability to pay his proportionate share of his son’s therapies.

[ 94 ] He suggested that one remedy would be to assign to him a fixed sum each month that he was to pay. I do not see that as an option since that would then place to large a burden on the claimant to make up the difference.

The claimant is not only working two jobs but is the primary caregiver to O.V. [ 95 ] I would further recommend that the parties speak to the service providers to see what other reductions could be made without impacting the value of the services provided to O.V. [ 96 ] Based on the evidence, I am persuaded that the parties have the means to continue O.V.’s therapies if they work together to maximize their earning potential. This may mean that the respondent plays a more active role in assisting with school drop-offs or pick- ups. If he can alter his

schedule at work to assist the claimant so that she can take on more work, he should be doing so. Issue 3: What Parenting Responsibilities Should be Ordered? [ 97 ] The claimant seeks an order that the parenting responsibilities should be made under the Joyce model. The respondent seeks an order that the parties equally share parenting responsibilities under s. 41 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 . [ 98 ] In my view it is important that the respondent continue to be involved in decisions respecting O.V., even though the claimant is the primary caregiver.

It is in the best interest of O.V. that both his parents share the decision-making responsibilities. Such involvement should help strengthen the bond the respondent has with his son. [ 99 ] However, I do agree with the claimant that in the event there is a disagreement, she is the one that is the most involved with O.V.’s physicians, therapy team, and the school administration. The decisions she has made and the path she has chosen has consistently been in O.V.’s best interest.

I have no hesitation in accepting that this will continue. [ 100 ] I also agree with the respondent that every effort should be made to avoid attending in court. If the respondent does not agree with the decision made by the claimant, they should first attend before a Family Justice Counsellor or parenting coordinator to try and resolve the respondent’s concerns. If that does not work then, as a last resort, the parties can come to court to seek further directions. [ 101 ] I heard the claimant and her concern that allowing anything to do with s. 7 expenses to go to a Family Justice Counsellor could delay matters.

As a result of these reasons, the parties understand what are s. 7 expenses and a treatment plan has been put in place for O.V. I am not persuaded that any delay will occur which will be detrimental to O.V. [ 102 ] As a result, I will be making a modified Joyce model order that allows the parties to seek the input of a Family Justice Counsellor or parenting coordinator prior to having to come to court. Issue 4: What Costs Should be Awarded? [ 103 ] The rule governing costs in family proceedings is that costs should follow the event unless the court otherwise orders.

In this case, I am of the view that the parties each achieved success on the two main outstanding issues. The claimant was successful on the s. 7 issues and the respondent more successful on the issue of parenting responsibilities. I am also of the view that it was appropriate for the respondent to bring up the financial concerns he had in respect to the significant monthly costs of the therapies. In my view, the appropriate costs order is that each party bear their own costs. Conclusion [ 104 ] In conclusion, I order that: 1.

Subject to s. 12 of the Divorce Act , the claimant, Anja Christina Vickberg also known as Anja Christina Liimatainen, and the respondent, Kris Vickberg, also known as Joh Kristian Vickberg, who were married at Tofino, British Columbia, on August 1, 2011 are divorced from each other. The divorce is to take effect on the 31st day after the date of this order. 2. The following expenses are to be considered special or extraordinary expenses:

a) All childcare expenses incurred as a result of either party’s employment, illness, disability or as necessary given the specific needs of the child;

b) Annual school fees;

c) Afterschool care;

d) Summer, winter, and spring camps;

e) Counseling;

f) Health-related expenses that exceed the autism funding, any insurance reimbursement, and any other subsidy or grant; and

g) Expenses arising in the future that the parties agree qualify as special or extraordinary expenses. 3. The parties will share proportionally O.V.’s special or extraordinary expenses. The parties’ current proportional share is the claimant at 47% and the respondent at 53%. This will be adjusted yearly in July of each year as reflected by the parties’ income. 4. The parties shall seek recovery of the special or extraordinary expenses from any type of health care or extended health care program

they have. 5. The party incurring a special or extraordinary expense shall provide the other party with a receipt for reimbursement. 6. The other party shall reimburse for their proportional share of the receipt within 7 business days after receiving the receipt. 7. The respondent will provide a copy of the coverage provided by his benefits package through his employment to the claimant for her review. 8. The claimant and the respondent will share equally all of the s. 41 parental responsibilities for the child under s. 40(2) of the Family Law Act , pursuant to the Joyce model as follows:

a) In the event of the death of either party, the surviving party will be the only party with decision-making responsibility of the child;

b) Each party will have the obligation to advise the other party of any matters of a significant nature affecting the child;

c) Each party will have the obligation to discuss with the other party any significant decisions that have to be made concerning the child, including significant decisions about the health (except emergency decisions), education, religious instruction and general welfare;

d) The parties will have the obligation to discuss significant decisions with each other and the obligation to try to reach agreement on those decisions;

e) In the event that the parties cannot reach agreement on a significant decision despite their best efforts, the party with the majority of the parenting time with the child will be entitled to make those decisions and the other party will have the right to require the parties to attend before a Family Justice Counsellor or parenting coordinator to try and mediate a resolution and if that is not successful then apply for directions on any decision(

s) the party consider(

s) contrary to the best interest of the child; and,

f) Each party will have the right to obtain information concerning the child directly from third parties, including but not limited to teachers, counsellors, medical professionals, and third-party care givers. 9. Each party will bear their own costs of this proceeding. [ 105 ] Although these reasons focus on the many challenges O.V. has, one must not lose sight of his many strengths. As his parents described to Dr. Rae-Seebach, O.V. is a: …very creative, imaginative, funny boy who is kind, eager to learn and show his parents what he has learned.

He loves to talk, to be funny and “lives for praise and laughs”. [ 106 ] I have every confidence in both of O.V.’s parents that they will continue to strive to support and nurture his many strengths and will do their best to continue to support the various therapies that have been essential to his growth. As Dr. Rae-Seebach noted: “[O.V.] is very fortunate to have the ongoing love, commitment and dedication of his parents who continue to provide every source of support for [O.V.] that they can. Without his parents’ advocacy he would likely not be as successful as he is”. I agree with Dr.

Rae-Seebach’s comment that “His parents are to be acknowledged and commended for all the energy, devotion, commitment, care and love they provide [O.V.]”. “Forth J.”