J.P. v. J.B. Date:, 2013 BCPC 168

Citation: J.P. v. J.B. Date: 20130619 2013 BCPC 0168 File No: 10-1971 Registry: Sechelt IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: J.P. APPLICANT AND: J.B. RESPONDENT RULING OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE MERRICK Counsel for the Applicant: C.C. Appearing on their own behalf: J.P. Place of Hearing: Sechelt , B.C.

Date of Judgment: June 19, 2013 [1] THE COURT: S.D.R.P. will be four in September. Her mother, J.B., gave notice to S.’s father, J.P., of her intention to move toSurrey with S. This notice was provided in accordance with s. 66 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25. [2] Mr. P., in accordance with s. 68 of the Family Law Act, filed notice to prohibit the move. [3] Both parents are guardians; see P. v. B., 2013 BCPC 94 [4] The parents do not have substantially equal parenting time with S. Mr. P.’s parenting time is Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundaysfrom 10 to 5:30 p.m. [5] If Ms.

B. satisfies me that the move is in good faith and she has reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve therelationship between S. and her father, I must consider the relocation to be in S.’s best interests, unless Mr. P. satisfies me that it is not. See s. 69(4) of the Family Law Act. [6] Ms. B. has not worked outside the home on a consistent basis since S.’s birth. Mr. P., only weeks ago, found gainfulemployment here on the Sunshine Coast, but not in his field. [7] Ms. B. wishes to move to Surrey with S. where, I agree, her prospects for employment are much better.

She has proposed anappropriate parenting plan and has proposals to ensure S. and her father can maintain their relationship. [8] Mr. P. opposes the relocation. He submits that S.’s quality of life will be better on the Sunshine Coast. He submits further thathe has significant ties and supports on the Sunshine Coast and that he will be able to ensure S.’s relationship with her mother continues. [9] Mr. P. argues, supported by affidavit evidence, that Ms. B.’s move is an attempt to limit his involvement with S. In furthersupport he refers to a s. 211 report prepared by Dr.

A. [10] I appreciate that this is a valid concern. [11] That said, however, the reality is that S. lives in poverty on the Sunshine Coast and will continue to live in poverty if sheremains on the Sunshine Coast. [12] The affidavit evidence filed on behalf of Ms. B. states that the move is an opportunity to better both S.’s and her mother’squality and standard of living. [13] While I have given careful consideration to Mr. P.’s argument, I am satisfied that the move is in good faith, and workablearrangements have been proposed to maintain Mr.

P.’s relationship with S. [14] I wish to say that I acknowledge that S. can have a wonderful life here on the Sunshine Coast. But based on the affidavits filedon behalf of Ms. B., I am of the view that S. will prosper in Surrey as well. S. deserves the opportunity not to live in poverty. [15] I have therefore concluded that Mr. P. has failed to show that the relocation is not in S.’s best interests. That is to say, I amsatisfied that the statutory requirements contained in s. 69 that allow for the presumption have been proven and, as I say, Mr.

P. has failedto show that the relocation is not in Savannah’s best interests. [16] Accordingly, the application by Ms. B. to relocate to Surrey with S. is allowed. [17] Mr. P. submits that having permitted S. to relocate, I should re-examine the entire parenting structure and make fundamentalchanges to the parenting arrangements. Ms.

B. argues that the only changes that can be made are changes necessitated by the move topreserve the current role of the guardians. [18] Having considered the wording of s. 70 of the Family Law Act and adopting a purposive approach, I agree that this sectionprevents the court from fundamentally changing the parenting arrangements. The changes contemplated by s. 70 are those required topreserve existing arrangements to the extent that is reasonably possible. [19] However, in this case the parenting responsibilities have not been defined and there is considerable disagreement regardingresponsibilities. [20] Mr.

P. has submitted that if relocation was granted he will relocate to Vancouver. [21] I am therefore prepared to make orders regarding parenting arrangements and parenting times that preserve existingarrangements. I wish to clarify that those existing arrangements are contained in court orders and some operate by agreement. Prior tomaking any orders pursuant to s. 70, s. 45 and s. 47, I wish to hear further from the parties now that they have my ruling with respect tothe relocation application. (RULING CONCLUDED)