H.D.L. v. G.E.L., 2021 BCPC 102

Citation: H.D.L. v. G.E.L. 2021 BCPC 102 Date: 20210330 File No: 1028 Registry: [Omitted for publication] IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: H.D.L. APPLICANT AND: G.E.L. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE M.J. BRECKNELL Counsel for the Applicant: S. Walter Appearing on their own behalf: G.E.L. Places of Hearing: Prince George, [omitted], & [omitted] , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: October 9, December 10, 11, 2020 & March 5, 2021 Date of Judgment: March 30, 2021 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on April 19, 2021. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Applicant, H.D.L. and the Respondent, G.E.L. (jointly the Parties) are the parents of J.C.L., born [omitted for publication]. This decision will refer to J.C.L. as the “Child” to protect his privacy. [ 2 ] The Parties have been engaged in litigation on numerous issues concerning the Child since 2016. The most recent

chapter in that litigation was a trial recently conducted over parts of five days. [ 3 ] Despite the trial, a determination of the issues before the Court remain fluid because each of the Parties indicated they may be changing their residences or otherwise seeking better employment opportunities. PLEADINGS AND ORDERS [ 4 ] On June 3, 2016, H.D.L. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking guardianship, a determination of parenting time and parenting responsibilities, retroactive and prospective child support and a protection order.

She also sought an order that G.E.L.’s parenting time with the Child be supervised. [ 5 ] On June 27, 2016, G.E.L. filed a Reply with a Counterclaim disagreeing with the relief sought by H.D.L. and seeking unsupervised parenting time including time away from [omitted for publication].

He also offered to pay child support, as he was able. [ 6 ] On July 15, 2016, H.D.L. filed a Notice of Motion seeking a protection order, supervised parenting time for G.E.L., an order that he not remove the Child from [omitted for publication] and a police enforcement clause. [ 7 ] On the same date H.D.L. filed an affidavit alleging that G.E.L.:

a) had threatened to take the Child away from [omitted for publication] to a different province;

b) had limited parenting skills;

c) was a consumer of digital pornography;

d) had been convicted of an assault on her in the Child’s presence; and

e) breached the terms of his probation order arising from that incident. [ 8 ] August 3, 2016, G.E.L. filed a Notice of Motion seeking an order that the Child not be relocated from [omitted for publication], that H.D.L. provide him with an address and that he be granted specified parenting time. [ 9 ] On August 5, 2016, the Court ordered, by consent:

a) H.D.L. have all the parenting time with the Child except as provided for in the order;

b) G.E.L. have supervised parenting time two times per month in [omitted for publication];

c) a police assist clause;

d) G.E.L. not to be found within certain locations where H.D.L. , is employed, attends school or worships;

e) contact between the Parties be by email or text only for the purposes of parenting time and concerning the care, health or well-being of the Child; and

f) G.E.L. to provide a Financial Statement 14 days before the next court date. [ 10 ] On September 11, 2016, G.E.L. filed an affidavit outlining what had occurred subsequent to the Court’s recent order and attaching documentation regarding the expenses he incurred in exercising parenting time. [ 11 ] On September 21, 2016, G.E.L. filed an incomplete Financial Statement. [ 12 ] On October 7, 2016, the Court ordered, by consent:

a) the order of August 5, 2016 be varied with regard to G.E.L.’s parenting time with the Child;

b) G.E.L. may request makeup visits to occur in the months following a missed a visit;

c) all communication between the Parties be conducted via phone or text;

d) G.E.L. provide updated financial information for 2016 prior to February 3, 2017; and

e) either Party must provide notice to the other Party if they are leaving the province with the Child.

[ 13 ] On February 3, 2017 the Court ordered, by consent:

a) G.E.L. to confirm the dates for his parenting time one month in advance;

b) H.D.L. to provide two names as alternative individuals to call; and

c) G.E.L. to comply with financial disclosure of his 2016 income by March 31, 2017. [ 14 ] On April 10, 2017, G.E.L. filed an Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements seeking to have the August 5, 2016 Order changed to permit parenting time with the Child in Prince George. On that date he also filed an incomplete Financial Statement. [ 15 ] On May 30, 2017, H.D.L. filed a Reply opposing the relief sought by G.E.L. in the April 10, 2017 Application. [ 16 ] On March 19, 2018 the Court ordered, by consent:

a) the Child’s primary residence be with H.D.L.;

b) G.E.L. have scheduled parenting time twice per month commencing in April 2018 with some “book ended” supervision;

c) G.E.L. pick the Child up in [omitted for publication] at the beginning of his parenting time and H.D.L. pick the Child up in Prince George at a specified location at the end of G.E.L.’s parenting time;

d) H.D.L. be permitted to call the Child every hour on the hour to ensure he is safe during G.E.L.’s parenting time;

e) G.E.L. be permitted to call the Child on Sundays at 5 PM and to have parenting time with him by telephone on the Child’s birthday;

f) G.E.L. was found to be a BC resident with a gross annual income of $41,600 resulting in a child support order $392 per month, payable in instalments;

g) G.E.L. provide to H.D.L. a copy of his tax return for the previous year by June 15 of each year and copies of any Notice of Assessment or Reassessment from the Canada Revenue Agency immediately upon receipt;

h) there be no direct or indirect contact between the Parties save by email or text except in emergencies;

i) G.E.L. not to be found within 500 meters of various locations in [omitted for publication] and that he not attend any place he knows to be H.D.L.’s place of employment, school or other educational place or place of worship except on weekend parenting time exchanges;

j) aside from transporting the Child between [omitted for publication] and Prince George G.E.L. shall not remove the Child from the city limits of Prince George during his parenting time; and

k) the Child be homeschooled or attend correspondence school but if he is to attend public or private school, H.D.L. will advise G.E.L. by email. [ 17 ] On January 28, 2019, G.E.L. filed an Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements seeking to have the March 19, 2018 Order varied seeking a one-year assessment. [ 18 ] On March 29, 2019, G.E.L. filed a Notice of Motion seeking to have a hearing held in Prince George due to greater court availability. Attached to that Notice of Motion was a long statement prepared by G.E.L. outlining his concerns and issues that had arisen since the earlier court order. [ 19 ] They included:

a) H.D.L. was complaining to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) social worker that the Child was experiencing stress during his parenting time with G.E.L. The social worker reported that she did not find this to be the case and that the Child had told her he and G.E.L. had fun together;

b) H.D.L. was claiming he was not paying child support but she was interfering in his attempts to do so;

c) H.D.L. raised false allegations against him concerning sexual interference of the Child and other in threats with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). He was interviewed by the RCMP and they chose to take no further steps;

d) he wants increased parenting time on a monthly basis and the opportunity to take the Child to Ontario for an extended visit with his family;

e) his disagreement with H.D.L. about having the Child “homeschooled” when there is public schooling available in [omitted for publication];

f) H.D.L. ’s refusal to have dinner with him and the Child citing the no contact order and her safety concerns; and

g) H.D.L. involving the Child in discussions about his parenting time and her reneging on a prearranged change to the parenting time schedule. [ 20 ] On April 8, 2019, H.D.L. filed a Reply opposing the relief sought by G.E.L. in the January 20, 2019 Application based on what she described as “safety concerns.”

[ 21 ] On June 7, 2019, the Court ordered:

a) the March 19, 2018 Order be varied with regard to G.E.L.’s alternate weekend parenting time with the Child including requiring H.D.L. to designate any makeup parenting time for G.E.L. if his parenting time was interfered with; and

b) various conduct orders concerning the Parties behaviours and their interactions with the Child. [ 22 ] On June 27, 2019, G.E.L. filed an Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements seeking to have the March 19, 2018 and June 7, 2019 Orders varied on the basis that H.D.L. had not been complying with those orders. [ 23 ] On June 27, 2019, G.E.L. filed a Notice of Motion seeking disclosure of RCMP investigatory documents. [ 24 ] On June 27, 2019, G.E.L. filed an affidavit alleging that H.D.L. had breached previous court orders concerning his parenting time with the Child. [ 25 ] On August 9, 2019, the Court ordered, by consent, that the pickup and drop-off locations for G.E.L.’s parenting time with the Child be varied. [ 26 ] On February 7, 2020, the Court ordered the Parties to file an updated Financial Statement by April 3, 2020 and setting out the issues for trial as:

a) G.E.L.’s parenting time with the Child in Prince George, within British Columbia, outside British Columbia and during the Child’s home schooling;

b) H.D.L.’s attendance at counselling;

c) parental responsibilities;

d) child support; and

e) general conduct matters. [ 27 ] G.E.L. acknowledged that the Child’s primary residence with H.D.L. was no longer an issue for trial. [ 28 ] On August 7, 2020, G.E.L. filed a incomplete Financial Statement which attached some Notices of Assessment or Reassessment for 2017 through 2019. TRIAL EVIDENCE H.D.L. [ 29 ] H.D.L. called two witnesses in addition to herself. [ 30 ] The evidence of [omitted for publication] B. S. relevant to the issues before the Court, in

summary, is:

a) she is the wife of the pastor of the church H.D.L. and the Child regularly attend in [omitted for publication];

b) H.D.L. and the Child are active members of the church attending a variety of services and activities;

c) based on her many years as a counsellor in women’s shelters she sees signs of great stress in H.D.L. when it comes to her dealings with G.E.L.;

d) H.D.L. shows no similar signs of stress in the other dealings she has with her;

e) H.D.L. is very involved with teaching the Child and other aspects of the Child’s life;

f) the Child is very mature, curious and knowledgeable for his age;

g) the Child has not spoken to her about any concerns about the time he spends with G.E.L.; and

h) she has never met G.E.L. [ 31 ] The evidence of [omitted for publication] E. M. relevant to the issues before the Court, in

summary, is:

a) she has known H.D.L. since H.D.L. was born;

b) they are both active members of their church;

c) she knows the Child and he has many different interests;

d) she was present on one occasion when the RCMP intervened to take the Child to G.E.L. On that occasion the Child was anxious, in trauma and wanted to remain with H.D.L. but did leave with the RCMP;

e) the incident was upsetting to H.D.L. and occurred in front of many church members who were gathered for a social event;

f) she did not see how the Child reacted when he got to G.E.L.’s vehicle; and

g) she has never met G.E.L. [ 32 ] H.D.L.’s direct evidence, in

summary, is:

a) she and G.E.L. met in Swan River, Manitoba. They briefly lived together before their marriage on [omitted for publication], 2014. They separated for the last time on October 5, 2015. She had left G.E.L. on previous occasions but they reconciled;

b) she belongs to the Seventh Day Adventist church and G.E.L. belongs to the Salvation Army;

c) during the relationship G.E.L. convinced her to sell her car and the family then had only one vehicle. G.E.L. monopolized the use of the family vehicle. When she did occasionally go somewhere on her own he would get angry and try to prevent her from leaving if he did not agree with what she wanted to use it for;

d) she worked regularly until just before the Child’s birth and from home afterwards. G.E.L. did not have stable employment and provided very little financial contribution at that time;

e) they lived in a rural area outside Yorkton, Saskatchewan when the Child was born and she was very isolated;

f) G.E.L. was very controlling of her while they lived together including: I. he treated her mother very poorly when she came to help after the Child’s birth to the point her mother left, II. he would often be very angry and would grab the Child from her while breastfeeding or insist he be fed before the Child, III. he would grab the Child from her arms and threaten to take him away so she would never see the Child again, IV. he would get angry while they were driving together to the point where she got out of the vehicle at a stop sign because she was fearful of him, V. he blocked her from attending a church event and when she went anyway he called the RCMP and reported her as missing;

g) There were occasions she had to call the RCMP for assistance due to G.E.L.’s raging behaviours. There were other occasions where she wanted to call for RCMP assistance but he blocked her from doing so;

h) On one occasion near Thanksgiving 2015, G.E.L. assaulted her. He was charged and put on bail with a no contact with her provision. That was later varied with her consent. The Saskatchewan child welfare authorities told her not to allow G.E.L. unrestricted contact with the Child at that time. However, he breached that provision and tried to convince her to return saying that if the authorities took the Child they would still have each other and could have more children;

i) G.E.L. was found guilty of assault and was sentenced to six months of probation with a no contact order. However, he breached that order on several occasions. It was about then she realized that he had a previous assault conviction. He had lied to her, telling her he had no criminal record;

j) It took almost a year for her to get G.E.L.’s permission to move from Saskatchewan to [omitted for publication]. She moved there in May 2016 after G.E.L.’s eviction from their former home. When she was at the home retrieving her belongings G.E.L. showed up, in breach of his probation order;

k) she grew up in [omitted for publication]. Her decision to return was influenced by the many family members she has in that community including her mother, her brother, his wife and their two children who are about the same age as the Child, aunts and uncles, cousins and a large church family;

l) she lives in a mobile home purchased by a relative so she pays no rent for it but she does pay pad rent and utilities. She has done some renovations to the home but more are needed;

m) when she moved to [omitted for publication] she had a large debt accumulated due to G.E.L.'s actions but she has now been able to retire that debt;

n) the Child is extremely bright and wanted to commence school last year but was too young. He is attending Kindergarten by correspondence with a remote teacher. He has gone far beyond the Kindergarten curriculum. He is well into the Grade 1 materials in Mathematics and at a Grade 2-3 level in both social studies and reading. If there is a move to the North Cariboo he would be able to continue his course of studies because there are lots of other children taking similar courses in that area;

o) Correspondence school is different from home-schooling because: I. there is a teacher involved regularly to monitor progress and assist the student. With home schooling there is no such oversight, II. it is based on the official Province of BC curriculum, III. it allows for more time during the day for the Child to get into the community and participate in a variety of activities including sports, nature hiking, caring for animals, music lessons and the community garden,

IV. it would allow G.E.L. to participate more fully in the Child's education. In particular she has suggested to G.E.L. that he assist the Child with his musical education because G.E.L. is a musician, V. it more readily allows for stepping up a grade as the Child progresses;

p) she is opposed to sending the Child to public school because he is very advanced in his learning and would be held back in a larger classroom setting. Furthermore, if they moved to the North Cariboo the Child would have to commute by school bus for approximately one hour each way each day;

q) She has some piecework employment in [omitted for publication] that she is able to do from home. It was interrupted due to Covid 19 but has now resumed. While she was off work she was able to collect the CERB benefits for several months;

r) her income from her present employment does not amount to full-time equivalent income. In 2019 she earned $10,228 from her [omitted for publication] employer. In 2020 her income from her [omitted for publication] employer and the CERB benefits was approximately $14,000 with a further $2,700 coming from the Child Tax Benefit and a GST rebate;

s) she has some employment opportunities in the North Cariboo area. She has a background as a landscape manager with three years of training. Some initial opportunities in that area were interfered with by G.E.L. refusing her request to move insisting it only be done through a court order. The employment she is considering would occur in a location where there were children of similar age to the Child;

t) prior to December 2019, the exchanges of the Child were generally quite smooth. She began recording the exchanges because G.E.L.'s behaviour when exchanges were not being recorded unsettled her and he mocked her;

u) parenting time by telephone generally occurs Sundays at 5 PM. In addition the Child is permitted to call either parent when he wishes because he has his own phone. However, sometimes G.E.L. does not ensure that the child's phone is readily available to him and fully charged;

v) G.E.L. sometimes yells at her when he has the Child and she is speaking to the Child by phone. On other occasions in the past she had tried to contact the Child but G.E.L. refused to permit her to do so. This causes distress for her and the Child;

w) she does not agree with communicating with G.E.L. except in a written form which Talking Parents provides for. She only wants to communicate with G.E.L. by text or by telephone in the event of an emergency situation or if one of them is going to be late for an exchange;

x) when Covid 19 became a real issue she agreed with G.E.L. that she would transport the Child to Prince George for day visits. G.E.L. agreed that he would compensate her for such travel costs. But with the exception of $50 he has refused or neglected to do so despite the expenses she incurred;

y) the Child tells her he is not happy with overnight visits with G.E.L. and would prefer only day visits. She has tried to encourage the Child for more overnight visits with G.E.L. but the Child has not been persuaded. She can only recall one occasion when the Child asked to stay longer with G.E.L. than what was scheduled;

z) she has never been told by the Child that he does not wish to regularly call her when he is with G.E.L. The Child does tell her is that G.E.L. frequently takes his phone away and refuses to allow him to use G.E.L.'s phone so he cannot call her; aa) at this time G.E.L. should have no more than one overnight visit because there are continuing problems with communication and his conduct; bb) G.E.L. has not paid child support for a very long time. By her recollection he may have paid her $100 in each of January and February 2020; cc) throughout the time they have been in [omitted for publication], G.E.L.'s adherence to any sort of a parenting time

schedule has been challenging. He has cancelled and rescheduled a number of times telling her it was due to his work

schedule or not having transportation available to him; dd) the Child expressed privacy concerns for some time and she has varied her parenting to accommodate those requests. She described the Child's request to G.E.L. and he agreed to cooperate in that regard.

The Child appreciated that change but has subsequently reported that he showers together with G.E.L.; ee) she does not believe that she and G.E.L. would be capable of co-parenting because he: I. has refused to return the Child at the time specified in the Court’s orders and also regularly tries to change the pickup and drop-off times, II. refuses to cooperate with her request to exchange information through Talking Parents. When he does communicate through that method he wants to talk about many topics rather than dealing with the one specific topic that is relevant at that time.

In addition, many of his communications have nothing to do with the Child, III. regularly interferes with her ability to communicate with the Child when the Child is in his care, IV. often communicates with her for the sole purpose of tormenting her by referring to them as still being married and sending her happy anniversary communication long after they were separated, V. frequently changes his employment and then demands changes to the parenting time schedule,

VI. regularly breaches both the wording and the spirit of the Court's orders; ff) she does not oppose G.E.L. travelling with the Child within British Columbia and in certain geographic range. She does oppose out of province travel because: I.

G.E.L. has made past threats to abscond with the Child, II. even now he interferes with her communicating with the Child, and III. the Child does not want to spend the amount of time with G.E.L. that would be needed to travel such a distance; gg) G.E.L.'s reasons for wanting to travel to Ontario are not genuine because he has had limited contact with his family over the years she has known him; hh) she has sought counselling assistance from time to time through the E.

Fry Society in order to be better able to deal with G.E.L. and his many unreasonable requests and demands; ii) G.E.L. has requested that they meet face-to-face several times or have dinner together with the Child. She is opposed to that because the closer he gets to her the more upset she becomes; and jj) in the event she moves to the North Cariboo and G.E.L. moves to Williams Lake it would be possible for him to have regular parenting time throughout the week. [ 33 ] H.D.L.’s cross examination evidence, not already covered in her direct evidence, in

summary, is:

a) she did not permit the Child to visit with G.E.L. on Father's Day in 2020. He did ask for a switch of time and she refused. Mother's Day was her scheduled weekend with the Child;

b) in November 2018 she made a report to the RCMP because the Child had told her that G.E.L. was taking pictures of him while he was changing. The Child was interviewed by the RCMP. After that the file was closed;

c) the Child reported inappropriate touching by G.E.L. on several occasions to both herself and a doctor and that he was injured in the groin area as a result. The Child had four visits with a doctor with regard to groin issues. There were no abnormalities detected in the Child's urine but she has a sample bottle ready to go in case any problems re-emerge;

d) G.E.L.'s employment was sporadic early in their relationship. He was out of work when they got married. When she was pregnant with the Child he insisted that they move away from the community they were living in because he had run out of employment opportunities in that area. She wanted to move to a community closer to where her mother resided but G.E.L. refused;

e) G.E.L. tried to limit her communications with friends and family. When she did contact her mother by telephone G.E.L. would see the phone log and get upset with her. At no time did G.E.L. suggest that she called her mother when he was not around;

f) on the date of the final separation she and the Child went to a woman's shelter but she did meet with G.E.L. the following day in a public place so he could visit with the Child;

g) longer periods of parenting time between G.E.L. and the Child might be appropriate in a normal healthy and stable parent/child relationship. However, G.E.L.'s actions to date have not demonstrated that he is acting in the Child's best interests;

h) it may be appropriate when the Child is older, is able to express his views and G.E.L. demonstrates that he is utilizing his parenting time appropriately for travel outside the province to be considered. G.E.L.'s relationship with his family in Ontario is not critical to the Child's best interests;

i) she has had several meetings with MCFD social workers since moving to [omitted for publication]. She believes those were a result of G.E.L.’s unfounded complaints against her;

j) when she and the Child went to the North Cariboo in April 2020, she did not tell the Child to hide their location from G.E.L., in fact she told the Child that he could inform G.E.L.;

k) she knew nothing of G.E.L.'s several phone contacts with the Child until the RCMP arrived at her location and advised that G.E.L. was concerned that the Child was locked in a trailer. Later she had a discussion with a social worker who said G.E.L. was concerned because they were camping in the woods and there may be bears;

l) there is nothing in the present court order requiring her to advise G.E.L. of where she and the Child may be but she is agreeable to such a term being in a final order;

m) she objects to G.E.L. passing messages through the Child. Any decision regarding the Child should start with a communication between her and G.E.L. before the Child is involved; and

n) in the event she and the Child encounter G.E.L. in public she would expect him to stay away from her and not call the Child to him. G.E.L. [ 34 ] G.E.L.’s direct evidence, in

summary, is:

a) he seeks more parenting time with the Child in an equitable way;

b) in the past he has been falsely accused of wrongdoing, has been investigated and has been subjected to supervised time with the Child. He has never been found to have harmed the Child in any way;

c) H.D.L. has not been truthful with the Court about their relationship past and present;

d) H.D.L. has done her best to interfere with his relationship with the Child. For many months she insisted on supervised visits on weekdays which interfered with his ability to maintain employment;

e) recently on Father’s Day H.D.L. refused him parenting time even though he requested it 60 days in advance. She told him the Child would be spending the day with her new boyfriend;

f) he did not interfere with H.D.L.’s wish to move to British Columbia (BC) and he followed to be closer to the Child;

g) since moving to BC, and in particular since the Covid 19 pandemic, he has had a difficult time finding regular work but that situation has recently been rectified. He has full time work and an additional opportunity for a new position in Williams Lake in the near future;

h) he had some past transportation difficulties, which included additional expense to him, but they have been resolved because he was able to buy a car. H.D.L. was helpful in ensuring his parenting time with the Child when he didn’t have a car;

i) his parenting time is so brief at this time that much of it is occupied with transporting the Child between the two communities;

j) he accepts his responsibility for some of the issues that arose during the marriage to H.D.L. but he took steps, with the help of counselling, to address them and improve himself;

k) H.D.L. refuses to tell him where she lives;

l) he has tried to be civil with H.D.L. and has no wish to reconcile but she is resistant to communicating with him. Her reluctance makes it difficult to co-parent with her. Co-parenting would be better achieved through open and direct communication including face to face meetings;

m) he is not a fan of online learning and believes the Child would be better in public school but he will not oppose H.D.L.’s plans at this time;

n) H.D.L. has not been forthcoming with regard to important information about the Child. Recent examples include an occasion when the Child arrived with a burn he could not explain. On another occasion, H.D.L. had the Child in a remote camp location and the Child woke up unattended and called him but could not explain where H.D.L. was or where they were located. On those occasions he contacted MCFD;

o) the Child recently suffered some medical issues which H.D.L. falsely suggested were caused by him and resulted in an investigation by the authorities. The Child’s medical distress did not occur during his parenting time so must have occurred when the Child was with H.D.L.;

p) the Child has a cell phone to enable free communication with H.D.L. but sometimes it is not charged or its location forgotten by the Child. He does encourage the Child to call H.D.L. but sometimes the Child declines to do so. He has no problem with ensuring a routine for calls;

q) there have been occasions where the Child resists bathing when it is necessary. The Child is now able to attend to all his bathing routines with little supervision. Sometimes the Child wishes to shower with him and he permits that;

r) he has a two bedroom apartment but on many occasions the Child prefers to have a campout in the living room;

s) H.D.L. acts as if the Child is her son and not their son and that results in him not getting appropriate parenting time with the Child. That interferes with his ability to build a strong relationship with the Child;

t) H.D.L. insists on using the Talking Parents app but when it suits her she has the Child to call to request changes to his parenting time or to express other views that are clearly the wishes of H.D.L.;

u) he has not contributed as much financially as he would like to and as he should. However, there have been occasions when he tried to send money to H.D.L. for child support but she insists that it only be considered a gift;

v) he does not want his parenting time to be subordinate to activities H.D.L. may plan for the Child because that will diminish the limited time he has with the Child;

w) he would like regularized parenting time to include weekends, Father’s Day, his birthday and some of the Child’s birthdays but he doesn’t want things etched in stone;

x) although he doesn’t want to approach H.D.L. if they cross paths in public, he doesn’t want to be prohibited from having a brief exchange with the Child;

y) as the Child grows older he wants to have more input into his life and activities;

z) his present employment is from Friday evening until Sunday evening. His new employment prospect will be weekdays during regular business hours;

aa) he objects to H.D.L. recording the exchange of the Child because she can choose when to start or stop the recordings and he doesn’t want to be recorded. [ 35 ] G.E.L.’s cross examination evidence, in

summary, is:

a) he and H.D.L. met in Manitoba in 2014. At that time H.D.L. had a house and motor vehicles. By the date of separation one vehicle had been sold, one was broken down and the house had been returned to the realtor;

b) prior to the separation while on a road trip he and H.D.L. got into an argument and she got out of the vehicle. He refused to leave her there. At no time did he refuse to stop driving a vehicle when she wanted to get out;

c) during their relationship he had an addiction to pornography which he hid from H.D.L.;

d) around the time of separation he assaulted H.D.L. but did not punch her or cause her any physical harm;

e) after that incident H.D.L. and the Child moved to a shelter and a safety plan was implemented;

f) between December 2019 and June 2020, H.D.L. did assist in transporting the Child to Prince George and he was grateful for that. However, that change was due in part to the Covid 19 pandemic and that they had agreed that his parenting time with the Child would be daytimes only;

g) there were some occasions when he and H.D.L. were able to agree on exchanging his parenting time on weekends but that was done most often when H.D.L. was coming to Prince George;

h) he has provided very little money to H.D.L. and did not repay her for any of the driving expenses she incurred travelling to Prince George;

i) due to the Child's specific diet there have been times when he had no food for the Child. Before he obtained his recent employment, he often had to go to the food bank;

j) there were times during 2020 he cancelled his parenting time in part due to a lack of transportation and in part because he lived in an apartment building and he was concerned about Covid 19;

k) he believes that H.D.L. should report her and the Child's location to him so that he can be able to help in an emergency;

l) after April 2020 he told H.D.L. that she needed counselling due to a variety of incidents between them, her meltdowns and rudeness to him when they were attending Court and the fact that she defied the Court’s order the day after it was made;

m) there were no discussions between him and H.D.L. concerning the Child's schooling. H.D.L. took unilateral steps to start the Child on home-schooling. He still has concerns about the present schooling and believes that H.D.L. reflects her views on the Child;

n) H.D.L. is very uncooperative when it comes to co-parenting and on occasion he does lash out in frustration. He has, from time to time, told H.D.L. to "tell it to the Judge" because he cannot get a straight answer from her on even the simplest of inquiries;

o) since April 2020 he has become more oppositional to H.D.L. because of her refusal to cooperate and she would often respond to him with a rant. An example of this is that the Child is a vegetarian but H.D.L. would not give him a straight answer as to what foods the Child would eat. Is it easier now that he can ask the Child directly what he might want;

p) communication through Talking Parents or text is not effective because there may be days that go by between when he sends information to H.D.L. and when she may choose to reply. He does not believe that electronic text communication would be as effective as he and H.D.L. speaking by telephone;

q) H.D.L. often makes assumptions without any evidence and accuses him of poor parenting when such accusations are ridiculous;

r) although his request to have Father's Day 2020 with the Child is not in the schedule, H.D.L. was being unreasonable in refusing to accommodate him because he gave lots of notice. She preferred that the Child spend time with her boyfriend on that day;

s) he has contacted the RCMP and MCFD on occasions when he thought the Child was in danger and he will continue to do so every time he believes that to be true. An example of that was when H.D.L. and the Child were in an undisclosed location and the Child called him on three occasions stating that he was alone and could not find H.D.L. He called MCFD out of concern for the Child's safety;

t) he is prepared to return to court until such time as H.D.L. complies with Court orders. Given that she will not communicate with him on the simplest of matters concerning the Child his only recourse is to go to court;

u) there have been times in their electronic communication when he has become frustrated and uncooperative with H.D.L. because she often refuses to accommodate a reasonable request;

v) he has never interrupted a phone call between H.D.L. and the Child but sometimes the Child accidentally cuts off the phone call;

w) he has told H.D.L. that she cannot tell them how to parent the Child. H.D.L. has no right to tell him what to do when he has the Child in his care;

x) he is concerned about H.D.L. and her boyfriend sharing a bedroom next to the Child's bedroom and has expressed that to her. He is the Child's father and needs to know who is caring for the Child;

y) there are occasions when H.D.L. does not bring the Child to the exchange location on time and does not advise him that she will be late. When that occurs he cannot leave because he doesn't know when she will arrive and has no way of contacting her to find out what the delay is;

z) on one occasion in August 2020, he did keep the Child longer than the 2:00 pm return time because H.D.L. did not bring the child to him until several hours after his parenting time was to start. He may have been referring to a previous Court order that was no longer in effect in making that decision. In addition, the Child wanted to spend more time with him; aa) H.D.L. often refers to the Court's orders when it is convenient to her and ignores them when they are not convenient to her.

An example of this is H.D.L. using the Child to communicate with him on various matters in defiance of the Court's orders; bb) there have been occasions when the Child's cell phone is unavailable but he permits the Child to use his phone and encourages him to call; cc) he does not remind H.D.L. that they are still married to cause her distress but to simply state that it is a fact legally, officially and religiously; dd) H.D.L. has encouraged the Child to tell him that he is more of a friend than a father and that H.D.L. is encouraging the Child to consider her boyfriend as his father figure.

He is concerned that her relationship with the boyfriend is not stable and that the Child will become attached to the boyfriend only to be disappointed if they break up; ee) he would like to travel with the Child to Ontario and other locations out of the province. He has family members in Ontario who he communicates with and that is where his roots are.

His family cannot afford to travel to BC because of health and other personal issues He is financially unable to travel out of province at this point in time but wants to be able to consider it in the future; ff) H.D.L. has taken the Child out of the province for extended periods without any objection from him; gg) his recent work history has been sporadic and in part affected by his various employer's budget constraints and Covid 19. He now has full-time employment on weekends at a Prince George wood processing plant.

He also had some intermittent and transient employment which ended; hh) in 2020 until he obtained full-time work he relied on odd jobs, loans from other people and food banks. There is no work available to him in [omitted for publication]; ii) he has been looking into employment in the Williams Lake area but is not going to make a commitment in that regard until he knows where H.D.L. and the Child will be living; [omitted for publication] or the North Cariboo; jj) earlier on he wanted to have face-to-face meetings with H.D.L. because the Child was under stress and a face-to-face meeting might reduce that stress.

He had wanted to settle matters without relying on the Court and even suggested a mediator but that did not work out; kk) he is no longer seeking an order that H.D.L. attend counselling. He has in the past been concerned that she was unstable and that instability was having an effect on the Child. The Child has told him that his actions have hurt H.D.L. and they have had bad issues in the past; ll) when he sent money to H.D.L. in the past it has been deposited into the Child's bank account because H.D.L. told him to do it that way.

He's happy to make child support payments in whatever fashion H.D.L. wishes; mm) he has permitted the Child to shower with him. It is the child's idea and he treats it like a game. He is not prepared to tell the Child that he should be embarrassed because both of them are naked in the shower; nn) he and the Child often camp out in the living room during his parenting time because the Child chooses that.

He does encourage the Child to go to bed in his bedroom but the Child declines; and oo) when H.D.L. has raised issues about parenting decisions around the Child he has told her to mind her own business because he believes H.D.L. should not interfere with what he decides to do with the Child in his own home. THE LAW [ 36 ] The following sections of the Family Law Act ( FLA ) apply in this case:

a) Best interests of child 37

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

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

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

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

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

d) the history of the child's care;

(

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(4) In making an order under this Part, a court may consider a person's conduct only if it substantially affects a factor set out in subsection (2), and only to the extent that it affects that factor.

b) Parents are generally guardians 39

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

c) Parental responsibilities 41 For the purposes of this Part, parental responsibilities with respect to a child are as follows: (

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

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

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

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

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

f) subject to

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

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

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

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

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

k) subject to any applicable provincial legislation, (

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

l) exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development.

d) Parenting time 42

(1) For the purposes of this Part, parenting time is the time that a child is with a guardian, as allocated under an agreement or order.

(2) During parenting time, a guardian may exercise, subject to an agreement or order that provides otherwise, the parental responsibility of making day-to-day decisions affecting the child and having day-to-day care, control and supervision of the child .

e) Denial of parenting time or contact 61

(1) An application under this

section may be made only (

a) by a person entitled under an agreement or order to parenting time or contact with a child, and (

b) within 12 months after the person was denied parenting time or contact with a child.

(2) If satisfied that an applicant has been wrongfully denied parenting time or contact with a child by a child's guardian, the court on application may make an order to do one or more of the following: (

a) require the parties to participate in family dispute resolution; (

b) require one or more parties or, without the consent of the child's guardian, the child, to attend counselling, specified services or programs; (

c) specify a period of time during which the applicant may exercise compensatory parenting time or contact with the child; (

d) require the guardian to reimburse the applicant for expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred by the applicant as a result of the denial, including travel expenses, lost wages and child care expenses; (

e) require that the transfer of the child from one party to another be supervised by another person named in the order; (

f) if the court is satisfied that the guardian may not comply with an order made under this section, order that guardian to (

i) give security in any form the court directs, or (ii) report to the court, or to a person named by the court, at the time and in the manner specified by the court; (

g) require the guardian to pay (

i) an amount not exceeding $5 000 to or for the benefit of the applicant or a child whose interests were affected by the denial, or (ii) a fine not exceeding $5 000.

(3) If the court makes an order under subsection (2) (a), (

b) or (e), the court may allocate among the parties, or require one party alone to pay, the fees relating to the family dispute resolution, counselling, service, program or transfer.

f) When denial is not wrongful 62

(1) For the purposes of

section 61 [denial of parenting time or contact] , a denial of parenting time or contact with a child is not wrongful in any of the following circumstances: (

a) the guardian reasonably believed the child might suffer family violence if the parenting time or contact with the child were exercised; (

b) the guardian reasonably believed the applicant was impaired by drugs or alcohol at the time the parenting time or contact with the child was to be exercised; (

c) the child was suffering from an illness when the parenting time or contact with the child was to be exercised and the guardian has a written statement, by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, indicating that it was not appropriate that the parenting time or contact with the child be exercised; (

d) in the 12-month period before the denial, the applicant failed repeatedly and without reasonable notice or excuse to exercise parenting time or contact with the child; (

e) the applicant (

i) informed the guardian, before the parenting time or contact with the child was to be exercised, that it was not going to be exercised, and (ii) did not subsequently give reasonable notice to the guardian that the applicant intended to exercise the parenting time or contact with the child after all; (

f) other circumstances the court considers to be sufficient justification for the denial.

(2) If, on an application under

section 61, the court finds that parenting time or contact with a child was denied, but was not wrongfully denied, the court may make an order specifying a period of time during which the applicant may exercise compensatory parenting time or contact with the child.

g) Determining child support 150

(1) If a court makes an order respecting child support, the amount of child support must be determined in accordance with the child support guidelines.

h) Changing, suspending or terminating orders respecting child support 152

(1) On application, a court may change, suspend or terminate an order respecting child support, and may do so prospectively or retroactively.

(2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the court must be satisfied that at least one of the following exists, and take it into consideration: (

a) a change in circumstances, as provided for in the child support guidelines, has occurred since the order respecting child support was

made; (

b) evidence of a substantial nature that was not available during the previous hearing has become available; (

c) evidence of a lack of financial disclosure by a party was discovered after the last order was made.

i) Purposes for which orders respecting conduct may be made 222 At any time during a proceeding or on the making of an order under this Act, the court may make an order under this Division for one or more of the following purposes: (

a) to facilitate the settlement of a family law dispute or of an issue that may become the subject of a family law dispute; (

b) to manage behaviours that might frustrate the resolution of a family law dispute by an agreement or order; (

c) to prevent misuse of the court process; (

d) to facilitate arrangements pending final determination of a family law dispute.

j) Orders respecting case management 223

(1) A court may make an order to do one or more of the following: … (

c) require that all further applications be heard by the judge or master making the order unless that judge or master directs otherwise; (

d) prohibit a party from making an application, without leave of the court, respecting any matter over which a parenting coordinator has authority to act under an agreement or order.

(3) Nothing in this

section limits any other order a court may make under an enactment or the common law for the purpose of controlling a proceeding before the court.

k) Orders restricting communications 225 Unless it would be more appropriate to make an order under

Part 9 [Protection from Family Violence] , a court may make an order setting restrictions or conditions respecting communications between parties, including respecting when or how communications may be made. Child Support Guidelines [ 37 ] The following sections of the Child Support Guidelines ( CSG ) have application in this case:

a) Special or extraordinary expenses 7

(1) In a child support order the court may, on either spouse’s request, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family’s spending pattern prior to the separation: (

a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the custodial parent’s employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment; (

b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child; (

c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses; (

d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’s particular needs; (

e) expenses for post-secondary education; and (

f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities. 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. Sharing of expense

(2) The guiding principle in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1) is that the expense is shared by the spouses in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any, from the child.

b) Imputing Income 19

(1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following: (

a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse; SUBMISSIONS [ 38 ] Subsequent to the Court inviting written submissions the circumstances of the Parties changed in a number of areas. As such, a

summary of the submissions will not include topics that are no longer relevant to the Court’s determinations but will reflect recent changes in the Parties circumstances. H.D.L. [ 39 ] Mr. Walter’s written and oral submissions on behalf of H.D.L. and the reasoning behind them, in

summary, are:

a) H.D.L. agrees that both Parties are guardians, and this is not in dispute;

b) H.D.L. will have all of the parental responsibilities for the Child, with G.E.L. exercising the parental responsibility of day-to-day care of the Child while in his care;

c) H.D.L. will have the obligation to advise G.E.L. of any significant issues with respect to the Child;

d) both Parties will have the right to obtain information concerning the Child directly from third parties, including but not limited to teachers, counsellors, medical professionals, and professional third party caregivers;

e) it is in the Child’s best interests for H.D.L. to retain all the parental responsibilities because: I. G.E.L. resists or opposes basic agreements about schooling and other matters in response to the larger conflict. He has made it clear in writing and his testimony he will involve the authorities until he is satisfied, and he doesn’t care if they have to go back to court every other day until the Child is 12. II. G.E.L.’s beliefs about seeing nothing wrong showering with his 5-year-old son, and that it would be “the Child’s choice” represents a distressing difference in parenting styles between homes.

G.E.L. views his role in the Child’s life as his “right”, rather than a responsibility. He has expressed no willingness to make any effort to maintain consistent parenting styles between the two homes. III. G.E.L. may create continuing conflict by disagreeing with significant decisions that H.D.L. makes for the Child, such as his schooling.

f) G.E.L. continues to make unilateral changes and treat court ordered time as optional. G.E.L. has unilaterally refused to return the Child at the scheduled time, telling H.D.L. to “Tell the Judge”;

g) the analysis under s. 37 of the FLA recognizes that a parenting arrangement is not in the best interests of a child unless it protects the child’s physical, psychological, and emotional safety, security and well-being to the greatest extent possible;

h) it clear from both the case law and the FLA that that the division of parental responsibilities is not presumed (s. 40 (4)) and it must be assessed by considering if the Parties sharing responsibilities might create a risk of further conflict;

i) the evidence shows G.E.L. is likely to create additional conflict and frustration in the decision making for the Child, if the Parties are required to discuss and reach agreement about basic decisions;

j) H.D.L. will have the majority of the parenting time with the Child. There is no dispute that H.D.L. will remain the primary caregiver of the Child;

k) G.E.L.’s parenting time will include some overnights on weekends depending on where each of the Parties lives and their work

commitments including: I. G.E.L. in Prince George and H.D.L. split between [omitted for publication] and/or North Cariboo area i. Every other week on Saturdays at 1:00pm to Sundays at 2:00pm,

l) this option is in the Child’s best interests in light of: I. H.D.L.’s religious Sabbath is from sunset on Friday and includes worship on Saturdays, II. G.E.L.’s

schedule and work situation changes so rapidly it is hard to keep up. H.D.L. should not be required to adjust the parenting time based on G.E.L.’s changing schedule, III. H.D.L.’s evidence is that the Child does not want consecutive overnights and the option avoids having multiple overnights in a row, IV. providing one block of weekend time on an alternate basis will ensure: ii. It provides more than one overnight per month without putting two overnights together on a weekend, iii. G.E.L. expressed desire to take the Child to locations during the daytime, iv. G.E.L.’s desire to be involved with the Child’s schooling.

m) unless the Parties agree in advance by email or text the locations would be: I. G.E.L. in Prince George and H.D.L. in [omitted for publication]; i. at the start of G.E.L.’s parenting time - the Petro Canada Station in [omitted for publication]; and ii. at the end of G.E.L.’s parenting time - the [omitted for publication] Dental parking lot in Prince George

n) for all exchanges: I. either Party is at liberty to bring a third party but the third party shall not leave the vehicle during the exchange. II. either Party is at liberty to record the exchange. If a Party intends to rely on a recording as evidence of improper conduct or a breach of a court order, the recording party will provide a copy of the recording to the other party and the recording will be stored. Otherwise, recordings of uneventful exchanges will be deleted within 30 days.

o) under s. 222 of the FLA each Party is solely responsible for their own transportation to and from exchanges of the Child. A Party’s inability to make a scheduled exchange would constitute a reasonable basis for the denial of parenting time without any make up dates;

p) notwithstanding the regular parenting time schedule, G.E.L. will have every Father’s Day with the Child from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm and H.D.L. will have every Mother’s Day with the Child, from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm;

q) H.D.L. may identify any parenting time that would normally be G.E.L.’s parenting time as being parenting time that the Child has an activity that requires cancellation of G.E.L.’s time to accommodate that activity. When H.D.L. elects to do so, she must designate compensatory parenting time of her choice to fall within her parenting time and provide that to G.E.L. not later than 4 weeks after the cancelled parenting time .

r) the Parties will have the following Holiday Parenting Time: I. G.E.L. from December 24 – December 26 of each and every year; and II. the Parties can agree to such further and additional parenting time during the Child’s school holidays, provided that such dates do not include consecutive overnights.

s) except as described above the regular parenting time continue over the Winter Holidays and Summer Holidays, based on the regular

schedule that their residences would suggest. The Child continues to express resistance and a dislike of spending multiple overnights at G.E.L.’s residence. H.D.L. is open to additional parenting time on holidays, as long as these are not consecutive overnights with G.E.L. By age 8, the Child would be at an age and stage of development to express his view on consecutive overnights with G.E.L.;

t) G.E.L. will not remove the Child from the Province of British Columbia during his parenting time until the Child attains the age of 12. G.E.L. and H.D.L. disagree on an age and stage of development where it would be appropriate for the Child to travel to Ontario. Given the Child’s current age, and that G.E.L. appears to have no concrete plans for travel at this time, an Order should prohibit extra- provincial travel until the Child reaches a more appropriate age;

u) both Parties may travel with the Child in the Province of British Columbia, provided that the travelling Party provides: I. the anticipated travel dates;

II. an emergency contact number; and III. a scheduled return date;

v) both Parties will promptly advise each other of any change in residence, whether permanent or temporary;

w) under s. 225 of the FLA , the Parties will communicate solely through “Talking Parents”, except for such incidental contact as necessary to facilitate telephone parenting time with the Child and except for: I. emergencies involving the Child II. providing schoolwork of the Child that cannot be sent by Talking Parents III. notice of being late for exchanges; and IV. last-minute notice of cancelling parenting time; in which case a Party may text the other respecting those circumstances;

x) unless specifically agreed upon in writing, neither Party will attend at or be found within 500 meters of the residence or place of worship of the other Party, unless in a vehicle passing through on their way to another destination;

y) if the Parties encounter each other in public, they will not approach the other and will otherwise stay no less than 30 feet away from each other;

z) when the Parties attend a regularly scheduled exchange of the Child, G.E.L. may come no closer than 10 feet from H.D.L.’s vehicle to facilitate the exchange of the Child; aa) H.D.L. has maintained the protection of being able to video-record exchanges for a significant period of time. Exchanges are a particularly anxiety-inducing part of many family law files. H.D.L. gets extremely anxious by the liberties G.E.L. takes when she does not film him; bb) in public, H.D.L. feels uncomfortable about what G.E.L. may say or do.

There is absolutely no reason for them to interact with each other in any meaningfully way outside of day-to-day communication respecting the Child, in writing; cc) the Parties will: I. put the best interests of the Child before their own interests; II. encourage the Child to have a good relationship with the other parent and speak to the Child about the other parent and that parent’s partner in a positive and respectful manner; and III. make a real effort to maintain polite, respectful communications with each other, refraining from any negative or hostile criticism, communication or argument in front of the Child; dd) the Parties will not: I. question the Child about the other parent or time spent with the other parent beyond simply conversational questions; II. discuss with the Child any inappropriate adult, court or legal matters; or III. blame criticize or disparage the other parent to the Child; ee) the Parties will encourage their respective families to refrain from any negative comments about the other parent and his or her extended family, and from discussions in front of the Child concerning family issues or litigation; ff) the Child will be home-schooled or attend via correspondence at the time that he is scheduled to start school.

If the Child is going to attend public school or private school, H.D.L. will advise G.E.L. G.E.L. agreed that homeschooling was no longer opposed. The question was simply to what extent he is involved with it; gg) this should be a Final Order, because when something goes wrong, G.E.L. is quick to revoke or suddenly become challenging on other fronts.

This will be particularly important if the Court were to order shared parental responsibilities; hh) G.E.L. be found to be a resident of British Columbia and to have a gross annual income of $33,696. ii) H.D.L. be found to be a resident of British Columbia and to have a gross annual income of $13,748. jj) G.E.L. will pay to H.D.L. the sum of $315 per month for the support of the Child, payable on the 1 st day of December 2020, and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter, for as long as the Child is eligible for support under the FLA or until further Court order. kk) G.E.L. will pay to H.D.L. his proportional share of the Child’s special or extraordinary expenses.

The Parties respective proportional shares are H.D.L.: 28% and G.E.L.: 72%. The following expenses will be special or extraordinary expenses:

I. health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and prescription drugs, hearings aids, glasses and contact lenses, II. extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’s particular needs, and III. such further or additional expenses are discussed and agreed upon in advance to constitute special & extraordinary expenses; ll) for as long as the Child eligible to receive child support, the Parties will exchange: I. copies of their respective income tax returns for the previous year, including all attachments, not later than May 31 of each year, and II. copies of any Notice of Assessment or Reassessment provided to them by Canada Revenue Agency, immediately upon receipt, mm) under s. 222 of the FLA , upon exchange of their income tax returns and notices of assessment, the Parties be required to discuss any material change in circumstances which warrant a change in the amount of support payable.

If the Parties are unable to agree on whether the amount of support payable should be changed, the Parties may refer the issue to the Court for determination. nn) any adjustments made to ongoing child support to take effect on June 1 st ; oo) G.E.L. was recently employed at $18.00/hr for 36 hours a week. His income should be set at $33,696; pp) the relevant BC Minimum Wage Guidelines are: I. June 1, 2019 – June 1, 2020 = $13.85/hr II.

June 1, 2020 – June 1, 2021 = $14.60/hr qq) using $14.60/hr as a minimum wage, if G.E.L. were to be imputed an income at minimum wage for 40 hours/week at $14.60 an hour; this yields a total number of $30,368. It is unknown how much G.E.L. will be paid at the Salvation Army job in Williams Lake; and rr) the numbers for a full time minimum wage job align very closely with G.E.L.’s current employment, finding an income in this range would be appropriate. G.E.L. [ 40 ] G.E.L. had the benefit of Mr. Walter’s submissions before providing his submissions.

As a preface to his written submissions, G.E.L. noted that he is not a lawyer and as such was not familiar with how submissions should be set out. He then included in his written submissions many things that are not proper submissions including referring to new evidence not presented in the trial. [ 41 ] G.E.L.’s appropriate written and oral submissions and the reasoning behind them, in

summary, are:

a) he agrees that both he and H.D.L. are the Child’s guardians;

b) he and H.D.L. should jointly share all the parental responsibilities for the Child. In the past H.D.L. has made unilateral decisions on major matters concerning the Child and that must stop;

c) H.D.L. should be prohibited from involving the Child in advocacy about issues that should be determined by the Guardians;

d) parenting time should be more equitable with his parenting time being on alternate weekends from Saturday at Noon to Monday at 2:00 pm from October 1 through April 30 and extended until Monday at 5:00 pm from May 1 through September 30. These times may need to be adjusted in inclement weather and will permit more involvement in the Child’s education;

e) he sees no harm in the Child sharing a shower with him. The Child jumps in of his own accord because the Child contends his bathing is limited when with H.D.L. due to water conservation;

f) he has always tried to be on time for parenting time exchanges dependant on vehicle availability and employment requirements. H.D.L. has often been late arriving at exchanges by as much as 1½ hours without explanation. On some of those occasions he has kept the Child past the end of his parenting time to make up for the lost time;

g) he does not oppose an order that he and H.D.L. keep their distance from each other in public but it should not apply to the Child;

h) H.D.L. has falsely complained to the RCMP and MCFD about his parenting. After investigations of each of those complainants they were determined to be unfounded. H.D.L. should be directed to cease in such activities;

i) his tentative plan to relocate to Williams Lake will not be proceeding. Exchanges of the Child should occur in [omitted for publication] and Prince George as they do now and if H.D.L. moves to the North Cariboo they can be at a location in Quesnel;

j) H.D.L.’s concerns about the Child spending overnights at his residence are not valid. The Child has never expressed any concerns to him except when he has been coached by H.D.L. Often the Child has asked to spend more time with him;

k) there have been a few occasions when the Child’s cell phone has not been readily available or has a depleted battery. On those occasions his cell phone is available to the Child. When with him the Child rarely asks to call H.D.L. and if he does a phone is made available. He also regularly encourages the Child to call H.D.L. ;

l) there have been past occasions where H.D.L. has travelled to undisclosed locations with the Child and the Child has contacted him in distress but been unable to say where he is. H.D.L. should be required to provide notice to him of where she and the Child are when such moves occur;

m) in addition to the regular parenting time

schedule he should have the following additional time: I. two seven day vacation periods on 30 days’ notice with a requirement to supply an itinerary and regular electronic contact, II. every other long weekend each year with the Easter, Canada Day and Labour Day weekends in 2021, III. short weekend trips to points around BC, IV. every Father’s Day, V. the weekend closest to the Child’s birthday in odd years, and VI. vacation trips out of province to Saskatchewan and Ontario;

n) H.D.L. has not provided any evidence to support her claims that he would not return the Child at the end of his parenting time or that the Child’s safety is compromised while with him;

o) H.D.L.’s claim that the Child is too young for extended trips is unsubstantiated given that she has travelled with the Child for extended periods to Alberta and Mexico when he was much younger;

p) he should have direct access to medical information about the Child and H.D.L. should be required to provide information about the Child’s health and any health related issues and appointments;

q) H.D.L. should be required to provide considerable advance notice of any intention to move from either [omitted for publication] or the North Cariboo so he can consider his position on the matter. She has moved the Child three times in the past six years;

r) Talking Parents is an efficient way to exchange information about the Child but H.D.L. should be directed that it not be used to insult or belittle him;

s) H.D.L. should be directed not to include the Child in any Court related topics or information. The Child often repeats, word for word, the dialog he and H.D.L. have on Court topics;

t) if H.D.L. wishes to video record the Child exchanges she should be required to provide them to him in a timely fashion. There is no assurance that H.D.L. will destroy unremarkable videos;

u) H.D.L. should be ordered not to use the Child to pass on messages to him;

v) the Child should be in public school so that he can be in an environment that is away from H.D.L. and allow him time with other children in a safe and clean environment. H.D.L. enrolled the Child in the alternate program without consulting or even advising him in advance;

w) his employment has been sporadic in the past but that has now been rectified. He has also secured reliable transportation;

x) Family Maintenance Enforcement Program has contacted him about child support payments which he does not agree with. He has had sporadic employment due to a variety of factors including relocating to BC and Covid 19;

y) his inability to properly provide for the Child’s needs is an embarrassment to him and he is working at obtaining skills to seek and maintain fulltime and fulfilling employment. He wants to provide support for the Child;

z) he should not be responsible for any extra expenses for activities that H.D.L. enrolls the Child in without him being consulted and consenting to the expense; aa) H.D.L. should be ordered to comply with the Court’s orders. In the past she has simply ignored orders she does not agree with or used the excuse that the Child does not want to comply with them; and bb) H.D.L. has to accept that they each have a different approach to parenting but they and the Child would benefit if she would adopt a more cooperative approach to parenting discussions and decisions in the best interests of the Child.

DISCUSSION [ 42 ] The Parties’ submissions referred to many areas the Court must consider including: a) Section 37(3) of the FLA recognizes that a parenting arrangement is not in the best interests of a child unless it protects the child’s physical, psychological, and emotional safety, security and well-being to the greatest extent possible;

b) the division of parental responsibilities is not presumed and it must be assessed by considering if the Parties sharing responsibilities

might create a risk of further conflict;

c) when making orders concerning care and time with the Child the Court may consider a person’s conduct only if it substantially affects a factor set out in Section 37(2) and only to the extent that it affects that factor. [ 43 ] It will always be open to the Parties to agree, in writing and in advance, to vary any of the orders the Court makes in this decision but there has to be a starting point set out in an order so the Parties can plan their and the Child’s schedule. The Child [ 44 ] The Parties and the witnesses all agree that the Child is very knowledgeable, curious and mature for his age.

He has progressed in his schooling far beyond his grade level in most areas. [ 45 ] The Child’s correspondence education program, allows for greater opportunities to participate, on his schedule, in sports, activities, animal husbandry, gardening and music. [ 46 ] He is progressing well in his present learning environment and, despite G.E.L.’s concerns to the contrary, there is no evidence that any change would be in his best interests at this time.

However, if H.D.L. wishes to change the Child’s education delivery model she will be required to give G.E.L. plenty of advance notice so he can consider his position. [ 47 ] There have been concerns raised about G.E.L. respecting the Child’s privacy in the past but they appear to have been rectified. There remains the issue of G.E.L. permitting the Child to shower with him. [ 48 ] It is not the Court’s place to direct parents to raise their children in a specific manner because such micromanagement is, in most cases, not in the child’s best interests.

However, if the Child expects his privacy to be respected he should be taught to give similar respect for the privacy of others. Any actions that endanger the Child can, and should, be reported to the MCFD. [ 49 ] According to H.D.L., the Child has expressed certain wishes on a variety of topics in contention between the Parties. The Child should be encouraged to and feel free to express his wishes and have them heard and considered by the adults charged with his care and upbringing.

However, when the Parties disagree about an issue it is up to the Court to determine what is in the Child’s best interests even if he might disagree with the decision. [ 50 ] The topic of unexpected contact between the Parties and the Child in public was another source of disagreement. There is no reason for them to approach each other in such circumstances but it would be artificial and unsettling for the Child if he was not permitted to have a brief interaction in such circumstances. [ 51 ] H.D.L. has proposed that certain changes in the Child’s travel routine be based on some predetermined ages.

Although the courts have mentioned certain age milestones as markers to consider they should not be prescribed in advance. The maturation of children is a very unique process. That is exemplified by the Child’s own progress to date. There will not be any predetermination regarding any future changes based on the Child’s chronological age in this decision. Relationship: Past, Present and Future [ 52 ] It is clear from the evidence that the Parties relationship was as tumultuous as it was short lived.

Based on the evidence the Court accepts that it was doomed to failure. [ 53 ] H.D.L. portrayed G.E.L. as a criminally abusive and controlling ne’er do well with immoral pastimes. G.E.L. portrayed H.D.L. as a near hysterical, uncooperative, uncommunicative, overprotective and suspicious parent. [ 54 ] The Court accepts H.D.L.’s evidence of her poor treatment by G.E.L. during their marriage and his willingness to chart his own course without much regard for how it affected her or the niceties of court orders.

Those past actions come very close to, if not meeting, the definition of family violence in the FLA . [ 55 ] It has had a lasting impact on her mental health. G.E.L.’s past behaviour is the catalyst for many of the buffers H.D.L. seeks to have the Court impose regarding her interactions with G.E.L. Despite G.E.L.’s past actions the Court is satisfied that conduct orders will satisfactorily address the Parties future interac

[…]