M.D.G. v. C.J.G. Date:, 2016 BCPC 298

Citation: M.D.G. v. C.J.G. Date: 20160822 2016 BCPC 298 File No: 134430 Registry: 100 Mile House IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: M.D.G. APPLICANT AND: C.J.G. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L.S. MARCHAND Counsel for the Applicant: Ms. Alicia Glaicar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Nicholas Maviglia Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Dates of Hearing: July 25 - 28, 2016 Date of Judgment: August 22, 2016 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] M.D.G. and C.J.G. met in June 2008, were married one year later and separated in March 2013. They have one child together, G.G., who was born on [omitted for publication] in 100 Mile House. G.G. is now six years old. [ 2 ] C.J.G. has two older daughters from a previous relationship with M.S. T.S. is 16 and R.S. is 12. R.S. was adopted by C.J.G. and M.S. in 2005, about two years before they separated.

M.D.G. has no other children. [ 3 ] The G.’s successfully co-parented T.S., R.S. and G.G. while they were together. Following some initial post-separation conflict, the parties have successfully co-parented G.G. under the terms of an interim order made by Associate Chief Judge Brecknell (as he then was) on June 17, 2013. The G.’s agree that they currently have substantially equal parenting time with G.G. Since the separation, M.D.G. has had no parental involvement with T.S. and R.S. [ 4 ] M.D.G. is a self-employed contractor and [omitted for publication] who lives in Forest Grove near 100 Mile House.

C.J.G. is a [omitted for publication] with [omitted for publication] who recently moved to Langley where she lives with her current partner, R.B., his two children and R.S. T.S. continues to live in 100 Mile House. [ 5 ] On February 25, 2016, C.J.G. advised M.D.G. by email that she wished to relocate with G.G. to “the lower mainland and Fraser Valley” on July 1, 2016.

While M.D.G. was open to discussing possible relocations to the Okanagan or perhaps Abbotsford or Chilliwack this was subject to work being available for both parties and to suitable parenting arrangements being in place. [ 6 ] On June 6, 2016, M.D.G. filed an application to prohibit C.J.G. from relocating with G.G. On June 7, 2016, M.D.G. emailed C.J.G. that he was opposed to a relocation to “Langley/Surrey”. C.J.G. replied the same day to advise that she would be relocating with G.G., T.S. and R.S. to the “Langley/Cloverdale area” on July 1, 2016. [ 7 ] M.D.G. served his application on June 8, 2016.

On June 13, 2016, the Honourable Judge Church (as she then was) heard an interim application to prohibit C.J.G.’s planned relocation. In written reasons released the next day, Judge Church prohibited C.J.G., on an interim and without prejudice basis, from relocating with G.G. and ordered that a hearing on whether the proposed relocation was in G.G.’s best interests was to be scheduled prior to September 6, 2016. That hearing came before me on July 25 to 28, 2016 in Kamloops because there was no available court time in 100 Mile House.

In the meantime, C.J.G. completed her move to Langley. [ 8 ] Though C.J.G. did not transparently inform M.D.G. of all of her reasons for wanting to relocate with G.G., they include superior work opportunities for her, superior amenities for G.G., proximity to G.G.’s extended family on both sides, proximity to T.S. and R.S.’s father and her desire to establish a household with R.B. [ 9 ] M.D.G. opposes the proposed relocation for a variety of reasons, including his beliefs that it would be best for G.G. to be raised by both her parents living in the same community, that a rural lifestyle is safer and better for G.G., that C.J.G. is unable to maintain stable intimate relationships and that C.J.G. cannot be trusted to preserve his relationship with G.G. [ 10 ] The parties have approached this case on the basis that I must choose one of two alternatives, namely that G.G. remains in the 100 Mile House area with her father or she relocates to live with her mother in Langley.

ISSUES [ 11 ] The issues are: 1. is C.J.G.’s proposed relocation made in good faith? 2. has C.J.G. proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve G.G.’s relationship with M.D.G.? 3. is C.J.G.’s proposed relocation in G.G.’s best interests? 4. whether the relocation is permitted or prohibited, are any amendments to the current parenting arrangements required? ANALYSIS Legislative Framework [ 12 ] In the context of this case, the parties agree that Division 6 of

Part 4 of the Family Law Act , SBC 2011, c. 25 (the “ FLA ”) governs M.D.G.’s application to prohibit C.J.G.’s proposed relocation with G.G. to Langley. Because the G.’s have substantially equal parenting time with G.G., the relevant parts of Division 6 of

Part 4 of the FLA provide as follows: Notice of relocation 66 (1) … a child's guardian who plans to relocate himself or herself or a child, or both, must give to all other guardians and persons

having contact with the child at least 60 days' written notice of (

a) the date of the relocation, and (

b) the name of the proposed location. Resolving issues arising from relocation 67

(1) If notice is required under

section 66 [notice of relocation], after the notice is given and before the date of the relocation, the child's guardians and the persons having contact with the child must use their best efforts to cooperate with one another for the purpose of resolving any issues relating to the proposed relocation. … Child may be relocated unless guardian objects 68 If a child's guardian gives notice under

section 66 [ notice of relocation ] that the guardian plans to relocate the child, the relocation may occur on or after the date set out in the notice unless another guardian of the child, within 30 days after receiving the notice, files an application for an order to prohibit the relocation. Orders respecting relocation 69

(1) In this section, "relocating guardian" means a guardian who plans to relocate a child.

(2) On application by a guardian, a court may make an order permitting or prohibiting the relocation of a child by the relocating guardian.

(3) Despite section 37 (1) [ best interests of child ], the court, in making an order under this section, must consider, in addition to the factors set out in section 37 (2), the factors set out in subsection (4) (

a) of this section.

(4) If an application is made under this

section and the relocating guardian and another guardian do not have substantially equal parenting time with the child, (

a) the relocating guardian must satisfy the court that (

i) the proposed relocation is made in good faith, and (ii) the relocating guardian has proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the relationship between the child and the child's other guardians, persons who are entitled to contact with the child, and other persons who have a significant role in the child's life, and (

b) on the court being satisfied of the factors referred to in paragraph (a), the relocation must be considered to be in the best interests of the child unless another guardian satisfies the court otherwise.

(5) If an application is made under this

section and the relocating guardian and another guardian have substantially equal parenting time with the child, the relocating guardian must satisfy the court (

a) of the factors described in subsection (4) (a), and (

b) that the relocation is in the best interests of the child.

(6) For the purposes of determining if the proposed relocation is made in good faith, the court must consider all relevant factors, including the following: (

a) the reasons for the proposed relocation; (

b) whether the proposed relocation is likely to enhance the general quality of life of the child and, if applicable, of the relocating guardian, including increasing emotional well-being or financial or educational opportunities; (

c) whether notice was given under

section 66 [notice of relocation]; (

d) any restrictions on relocation contained in a written agreement or an order.

(7) In determining whether to make an order under this section, the court must not consider whether a guardian would still relocate if the child's relocation were not permitted. If relocation permitted

(1) If the court makes an order under

section 69 [ orders respecting relocation ] that permits a child's relocation, the court may make any of the following orders: (

a) subject to subsection (2) of this section, if the order made under

section 69 affects an agreement or order that allocates parenting arrangements between the relocating guardian and another guardian, an order under

section 45 [ orders respecting parenting arrangements ] or 47 [ changing, suspending or terminating orders respecting parenting arrangements ], as applicable; (

b) any order necessary to ensure that the relocating guardian complies with the terms of the order permitting relocation, including an order to do one or more of the following: (

i) give security in any form the court directs; (ii) transfer specific property to a trustee named by the court.

(2) In making an order under subsection (1), the court must seek to preserve, to a reasonable extent, parenting arrangements under the original agreement or order. [ 13 ] The case law has become clear that even where a proposed relocation is not made in good faith and/or where reasonable and workable arrangements have not been made to preserve the important relationships in a child’s life, the court must still consider whether the proposed relocation is in the best interests of the child. This

interpretation is consistent with s. 37(1) of the FLA which provides that in making orders respecting parenting arrangements, “the court must consider the best interests of the child only.” (See C.M.B. v. B.D.G. , 2014 BCSC 780 at paras. 62 to 78 .) [ 14 ] In cases where the relocating guardian enjoys substantially more parenting time than the non-relocating guardian, if the proposed move is made in good faith and reasonable and workable parenting time/contact arrangements have been proposed then the relocating guardian benefits from the presumption in s. 69(4)(

b) that the move is in the best interests of the child.

In cases such as this, where the parents share substantially equal parenting time, these factors simply provide context and are factors to consider in determining whether the proposed move is in the child’s best interests. ( C.M.B. , supra .) Credibility and Reliability [ 15 ] Before analysing the issues, I must make some general comments regarding the credibility and reliability of the testimony I heard. [ 16 ] In support of M.D.G.’s application to prohibit C.J.G.’s proposed relocation with G.G., I heard from M.D.G., M.S., Cariboo Regional District (CRD) Director, Margo Warner, former friend of C.J.G., C.M. and Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) Social Worker, Gillian Belicka.

In support of C.J.G.’s proposed relocation, I heard from C.J.G., T.S., R.B. and C.J.G.’s best friend, C.V. [ 17 ] Of all the witnesses I heard, the only one who posed significant credibility and reliability concerns was C.J.G. Though C.J.G. presented as bright, articulate and sincere, there were simply too many inconsistencies or efforts to mislead within her testimony for me to accept her evidence on controversial points. At this stage, I will only provide a sample of C.J.G.’s problematic testimony to highlight my concerns.

Throughout my reasons, some of my other concerns with C.J.G.’s testimony will become apparent. [ 18 ] On June 10, 2016, C.J.G. swore in an Affidavit for the hearing before Judge Church that she believed M.D.G. was not opposed to her proposed relocation with G.G. Judge Church described this evidence as “disingenuous”. The reasons for this finding are fully set out in Judge Church’s written Reasons for Judgment and I will not repeat them.

Suffice to say that I have reviewed the evidence carefully on this point and I agree with Judge Church’s description. [ 19 ] In C.J.G.’s June 10, 2016 Affidavit, she swore that she had entered a one year lease with R.B. at an address on 70 th Avenue in Surrey. This lease appears to have been signed on June 1, 2016 and indicates a rent of $2,200 per month.

I agree with M.D.G. that this lease was simply a ruse for use in the hearing before Judge Church. [ 20 ] The address in Surrey was a basement suite owned by a good friend of R.B.’s which was completely inadequate for the needs of C.J.G. and her three children plus R.B. and his two children. The reality of the situation became clear when C.J.G. and R.B. both testified about and provided photographs of a lovely home they have now rented together in the Walnut Grove area of Langley. The Langley lease was signed shortly after Judge Church’s decision.

Though C.J.G. testified that she and R.B. broke the Surrey lease because M.D.G. had voiced strong objections to G.G. living in Surrey during the hearing before Judge Church, the evidence and timing leads me to the inescapable conclusion that C.J.G. attempted to mislead Judge Church and was not honest in her testimony regarding the lease in Surrey. [ 21 ] The final example I will refer to at this point relates to C.J.G. posing as M.D.G.’s current partner to gather information about him.

On July 16, 2016, C.J.G. sent an email to a supplier of M.D.G.’s in which she said “I understand my husband’s business [omitted for publication] has an outstanding bill with (you). Is it possible to get a copy of it?” C.J.G. attempted to justify her inquiry by testifying that she is still technically M.D.G.’s wife and was unsure about her liability as his wife for any debt he was carrying. C.J.G. secondarily acknowledged that she was attempting to gather evidence to use against M.D.G. in these proceedings.

It is noteworthy that at about the same time R.B. posed as a potential customer to gather information via Facebook regarding M.D.G. [ 22 ] I simply do not believe that C.J.G.’s July 16, 2016 email was motivated in any way out of concern for her potential liability for M.D.G.’s debts. Based on the timing, R.B.’s conduct and the fact that C.J.G. could have sought advice on this point from competent counsel, it is crystal clear that C.J.G. was motivated only by her hope of uncovering information showing that M.D.G. was in a poor financial position and, therefore, unable to meet G.G.’s needs.

In submissions, counsel for C.J.G. described C.J.G.’s conduct as “unorthodox”. It was, in fact, deceitful and the deceit of her conduct was only exacerbated by her efforts to portray it otherwise during her testimony.

Is C.J.G.’s Proposed Relocation Made in Good Faith? [23] To determine whether a relocating guardian is acting in good faith, s. 69(6) sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors that thecourt must consider. Regarding factors (

a) and (b), I will focus on C.J.G.’s subjective belief and whether that belief is objectivelyreasonable. (See L.J.R. v. S.W.R., 2013 BCSC 1344 at para. 71 and A.V. v. M.D., 2014 BCPC 252 , 2014 BCPC 0252 at paras.9 and 10.) Regarding factor (b), as stated by the Honourable Mr. Justice Ball at paragraph 102 in B.D.S. v. A.L.J., 2015 BCSC 927,“there is a need for evidence regarding any enhancement of the child’s lives (sic) beyond mere speculation.” [24] I will consider each of the four factors listed in s. 69(6) of the FLA before reaching my conclusion on good faith.

Factor (a): the reasons for the proposed relocation [25] C.J.G. began speaking with M.D.G. about a possible relocation in January of 2016. I accept M.D.G.’s uncontested evidence thatC.J.G. initially proposed Vernon, Kelowna or Vancouver so that T.S. could live at home while attending university. [26] C.J.G.’s first written communication to M.D.G. about her proposed relocation was an email dated February 25, 2016. In thatemail, C.J.G. highlighted a career opportunity for her “in the lower mainland and Fraser Valley”.

C.J.G. also indicated that T.S. couldlive with her while pursuing post-secondary education and noted that the relocation would allow more contact between G.G., T.S. andR.S. and their families on both sides. [27] During the trial, C.J.G. noted other reasons for her proposed relocation with G.G., including the availability of superior schools,amenities and programs and C.J.G.’s positive relationship with R.B. [28] Regarding C.J.G.’s financial motivation for moving to Langley, I accept that she was struggling financially in 100 Mile House.

She was serving at a restaurant, working very limited hours at the [omitted for publication] and struggling to turn a profit at her [omittedfor publication]. I accept that she has transferred with [omitted for publication] to obtain a more favourable position which will offer hermore hours, benefits, security, a pension and opportunities for advancement.

I also accept that there will be financial benefits to C.J.G.associated with her sharing household expenses with R.B. [29] All of that said, I do not accept that C.J.G.’s future financial situation in 100 Mile House would have been quite as dire as shesuggested during her direct testimony. On top of her employment income, she also receives $8,400 per year in post-adoption assistancefor R.S. and she was about to start receiving newly introduced and generous Federal Universal Child Care Benefits and recentlyincreased child support from M.S.

Further, although C.J.G. led me to believe in her direct testimony that her rent in 100 Mile Housewould be essentially the same as her share of the rent in Langley, C.J.G. acknowledged in cross-examination that she was receiving a$600 per month rent subsidy in 100 Mile House. [30] Regarding C.J.G.’s decision to transfer to Langley rather than to a location potentially agreeable to M.D.G. such as Vernon orKelowna, C.J.G. appears to have misled M.D.G.

In her February 25, 2016 email to M.D.G., she indicated the reason she was “notoffered” a position by [omitted for publication] in Vernon or Kelowna was “likely due to others having higher seniority.” In an emailfrom [omitted for publication] to C.J.G. dated February 23, 2016, [omitted for publication] only references that C.J.G. applied fortransfers to Burnaby, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Abbotsford, Surrey and Langley. In her testimony, C.J.G. stated that she “could have”applied for a position in Vernon but likely would not have got a position there because of her seniority.

On the evidence, it is apparentthat C.J.G. was not offered a position by [omitted for publication] in Vernon or Kelowna because she did not apply for a position in thoselocations. If C.J.G. chose not to apply for positions in the Okanagan because she did not believe she would be successful, she shouldhave said that in her email to M.D.G.

Because of the misleading nature of C.J.G.’s communications, I now have no reliable way ofknowing whether C.J.G. may have been able to obtain a favourable [omitted for publication] position in the Okanagan. [31] Regarding C.J.G. wanting to relocate to Langley so that T.S. could live with her while pursuing her post-secondary education, Ifind that C.J.G. initially misled M.D.G. by suggesting T.S. was graduating one year early from high school and would be attendinguniversity in the fall of 2016.

In fact, T.S. has one remaining year of high school to complete and, at least at this point, T.S. intends tostay in 100 Mile House to graduate with her friends. T.S. is a very bright and mature young woman and I have no trouble accepting thatthere will be wonderful opportunities for her to pursue post-secondary education from Langley. The trouble for C.J.G. is that thispurported reason for wanting to relocate to Langley is premature by one year and fails to take into account that there are also wonderfulpost-secondary opportunities for T.S. in the interior of the province.

If C.J.G. had suggested a relocation to an interior community with asuitable program for T.S., M.D.G. may have agreed and G.G. would then have benefitted from being raised equally by both of herparents. [32] Regarding the availability of superior schools, amenities and programs for G.G. in Langley, I accept there are amenities andprograms in Langley that are simply not available in a more rural location like 100 Mile House. Similar amenities and programs areavailable in larger interior cities such as Vernon or Kelowna.

In terms of schools, I do see some advantage to G.G. attending aneighbourhood school in Langley as opposed to taking a bus or being driven to school by M.D.G. from Forest Grove. That said, I cannotconclude that public schools in Langley offer a superior education to what is offered in 100 Mile House. Also, although 100 Mile Housemay not have the same level of amenities and programs as Langley or larger interior cities, there are different but, in my view, equallybeneficial opportunities associated with rural living.

In this regard I note that C.J.G. had no trouble relocating T.S. and R.S. from theFraser Valley to 100 Mile House to be with M.D.G. and that T.S., R.S. and G.G. have all done very well being raised in the 100 MileHouse area. [33] Regarding family, there is no doubt that C.J.G.’s move to Langley offers G.G., T.S. and R.S. enhanced opportunities to spendtime with family. Now that C.J.G. has relocated to Langley, M.D.G. is G.G.’s only family in the 100 Mile House area. [34] Finally, regarding R.B., I conclude that C.J.G.’s relationship with R.B. is the driving force behind her move to Langley.

If notfor R.B., C.J.G. may have sought employment elsewhere but, given M.D.G.’s opposition, I very much doubt that C.J.G. would havemoved to Langley. Any doubts I had about the real reason for C.J.G.’s move were resolved by R.B. when he testified that “we (meaninghe and C.J.G.) gave notice (of the proposed relocation) to M.D.G. on February 25, 2016.” On all of the evidence, it is clear that C.J.G.

was not transparent with M.D.G. about the true reason for her move. C.J.G. exacerbated the situation by attempting to minimize the importance of her true motivation during her testimony. [ 35 ] Looking more closely at the relationship between C.J.G. and R.B., I accept that, at this point, the relationship is going very well. I also accept that positive marital relationships provide significant benefits to partners and to their children. In this case, the only concern is that C.J.G.’s relationship with R.B. is in the “honeymoon” stage.

Though I sincerely hope this relationship will last and allow C.J.G., R.B. and their children to flourish, it is too early to tell. [ 36 ] Viewed objectively, C.J.G. has a number of legitimate reasons for proposing to relocate G.G. but she has not been transparent with M.D.G. and her reasons are not as compelling as she tried to convey during her testimony.

Factor (b): whether the proposed relocation is likely to enhance G.G.’s and/or C.J.G.’s quality of life [ 37 ] C.J.G. submits that G.G.’s life will be enhanced if I approve her proposed relocation because Langley offers superior schools, amenities and programs, G.G. will remain in the same household as R.S., G.G. will be closer to extended family on both sides, G.G. has established a great relationship with R.B. and his children, G.G. is adaptable and has already established close friendships in Langley and G.G. will benefit from C.J.G.’s improved financial position. [ 38 ] How a move may enhance the life of a child is always somewhat speculative but C.J.G. presented objective evidence on all of these points.

I will now assess the strength of this evidence against M.D.G.’s competing evidence and submissions. [ 39 ] As I have indicated, I accept that Langley has superior amenities and programs compared to 100 Mile House. That said, there are different but equally valuable benefits associated with a more rural lifestyle. I do not accept that schools in Langley offer a superior education to schools in 100 Mile House but G.G. will spend less time commuting to school if she lives in Langley. [ 40 ] There is no doubt that G.G. is close to R.S. and that living in the same household as R.S. will be beneficial to G.G.

I also accept that G.G. stands to benefit from spending more time with her extended family in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley.

I temper my comments about extended family somewhat by the fact that C.J.G. has a strained relationship with M.D.G.’s family which does not bode well for increased contact between G.G. and M.D.G.’s family. [ 41 ] All of the witnesses described G.G. as a bright, happy and social girl so I have no trouble accepting that she has quickly established good relationships with R.B., his children and other children who live in C.J.G. and R.B.’s new neighbourhood. [ 42 ] Finally, I accept that C.J.G.’s financial situation will improve somewhat in Langley owing to her new position with [omitted for publication] and sharing of expenses with R.B.

G.G. would stand to benefit from C.J.G.’s improved financial situation. [ 43 ] Determining whether a child’s life will be enhanced by a relocation, ordinarily involves a comparison of the child’s anticipated situation in the proposed new location versus the child’s actual situation in the existing location. In this case, C.J.G. has already moved so she has unilaterally changed the status quo .

In the circumstances, in my view, it will be useful to compare G.G.’s anticipated situation in Langley to the former situation with both of her parents in the 100 Mile House area as well as to her anticipated situation if she remains in Forest Grove with her father. In making these comparisons, I will also consider any negative consequences associated with a relocation to Langley. [ 44 ] Prior to C.J.G.’s relocation, G.G. shared time with her parents almost equally.

She received nothing but love in both homes and had very close relationships with both parents, her sisters, her classmates and other friends in the community. She was active, happy and, by all accounts, thriving. The only negative aspect to G.G.’s previous life in the 100 Mile House area was that her mother was facing some financial struggles and was not as happy as she could be in her personal relationships.

As mentioned earlier, C.J.G.’s financial situation was about to improve if she had remained in 100 Mile House in that she was about to start receiving new and enhanced Federal Universal Child Care Benefits as well as increased child support payments from M.S. I conclude that G.G.’s life was very good in the 100 Mile House area before her mother’s move to Langley. [ 45 ] If G.G. remains in Forest Grove, some parts of her life will remain the same while others will be quite different. G.G. will continue to attend a school at which she has had success. She will remain close to her existing circle of friends.

She will continue to enjoy living in a rural setting and to participate in her current activities. Provided T.S.’s plans do not change, she will remain in the same location as T.S. for the next year. She will, unfortunately, see far less of her mother and R.S.

Compared to the current situation, she will have greater opportunities to see extended family in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley during C.J.G.’s parenting time (though I recognize that these opportunities will be limited by C.J.G.’s need to spend significant time with G.G. during her parenting time and that there will be fewer opportunities than would be available if G.G. was living in Langley). [ 46 ] In terms of her immediate family, C.J.G.’s unilateral decision to move to Langley has created a situation where G.G. stands to lose the benefit of being raised equally by both parents.

That said, both parties have proposed similar arrangements to preserve G.G.’s important relationship with the other if G.G. lives primarily with them. As will be seen when I analyse the proposed arrangements, the arrangements themselves make the most of a difficult situation but I have greater trust in M.D.G. to ensure that G.G.’s relationship with C.J.G. is preserved rather than the other way around. [ 47 ] Comparing financial situations, there was evidence showing that M.D.G. has some financial worries, including a recent judgment debt of $25,000 and a claim regarding a credit card debt of about $16,000.

That said, M.D.G. has always been able to meet G.G.’s financial needs and has even provided financial assistance to C.J.G. by, for example, giving her advances on child support from time to time. As well, M.D.G. has a realistic opportunity to find work as a building inspector with the CRD which will increase his income and provide other benefits and security. In addition, if G.G. resides with M.D.G. in the 100 Mile House area, C.J.G. will be obliged to pay child support and M.D.G. will receive the Universal Child Care Benefit.

I do not foresee financial problems negatively affecting G.G. if she remains with M.D.G. [ 48 ] Given the situation created by C.J.G.’s unilateral decision to move, G.G.’s life is about to undergo significant change and G.G.’s

life will clearly be different depending on where she lives. Accepting what I have heard about G.G., I have confidence she is the type of child who can thrive in either Langley or the 100 Mile House area. Compared to the life G.G. was leading before her mother’s move and compared to the life I anticipate she will lead if she remains in Forest Grove with her father, I am unable to say that G.G.’s life will be “enhanced” if she relocates with her mother to Langley.

Simply put, G.G.’s life would be different but not necessarily better in Langley. [ 49 ] Regarding C.J.G., I accept that her move to Langley has offered a number of enhancements to her life. She is living with a man with whom she shares a very good relationship. She is closer to family and friends. She has a new and better position with [omitted for publication]. Provided her relationship with R.B. lasts, C.J.G.’s move stands to enhance her life from both an emotional and financial perspective. [ 50 ] On this last point, I have some concerns.

Without passing moral judgment on C.J.G., the fact is that she has had a number of marital relationships in the past that have broken down and, while I was generally impressed by R.B., he has shown some volatility in his communications with M.D.G. and C.M. C.J.G.’s relationship with R.B. is not risk free. Factor (c): whether notice was given under

section 66 [ 51 ]

Section 66 of the FLA required that C.J.G. give at least 60 days’ written notice to M.D.G. of the date of her proposed relocation and the name of the proposed location. [ 52 ] C.J.G.’s original written notice was her email dated February 25, 2016. This email specified July 1, 2016 as the date of C.J.G.’s proposed relocation but was not specific about the location. C.J.G.’s email indicated a proposed move to “the lower mainland and Fraser Valley”. This area stretches from Hope to Tsawwassen or West Vancouver.

In her early written communications with M.D.G., C.J.G. promised to provide some “thoughts” to M.D.G. on parenting arrangements if she were to move but C.J.G. never did provide her thoughts or details of any kind.

In fact, C.J.G. was not specific about the location of her proposed relocation until her email of June 7, 2016 when she indicated her move would be to “Langley/Cloverdale”. [ 53 ] Given that C.J.G. was not specific about the location of her proposed move until June 7, 2016, did not provide M.D.G. with any details about possible parenting arrangements and moved on July 1, 2016, I find that C.J.G. did not comply with either the letter or the spirit of s. 66 . [ 54 ] It is worth noting that the requirement of notice under s. 66 ties into the obligation of guardians under s. 67 to “use their best efforts to cooperate with one another for the purpose of resolving any issues relating to the proposed relocation.” M.D.G.’s early communications and actions make clear that he was amenable to discussions with C.J.G.

Unfortunately, C.J.G. dropped the ball by not following up on her promise to provide her “thoughts” on possible parenting arrangements to M.D.G. C.J.G. did not comply with her duties s. 67 of the FLA . Factor (d): any restrictions on relocation contained in a written agreement or an order [ 55 ] M.D.G. submits that there were two court ordered restrictions on relocation and that C.J.G. breached both. [ 56 ] On June 17, 2013 ACJ Brecknell ordered that “(e)ach party shall provide notice to the other if they intend to take the Child from the Greater 100 Mile House area for a period longer than 36 hours.

Each party shall provide to the other a general itinerary with their location during their absence.” This order appears to be geared towards the parties keeping each other informed about short term travel plans and not relocation. [ 57 ] Directly on point, however, on June 14, 2016, Judge Church ordered, on an interim and without prejudice basis, that “neither guardian shall change the residence of the child… from the Greater 100 Mile House area without the written consent of both guardians or further order of this court.” [ 58 ] C.J.G. submits that while she has moved, she has not relocated G.G.’s residence.

C.J.G. notes that up to the date of the hearing she has maintained the existing parenting time arrangements, including exchanges in the 100 Mile House area. [ 59 ] In my view, C.J.G. is trying to have it both ways. She has moved and invites me to draw favourable conclusions about the proposed relocation based on how well G.G. has adjusted to her new situation in Langley. C.J.G. has even had a conversation with G.G. to gauge G.G.’s interest in a musical theatre program which G.G. must surely understand to be in Langley.

I note as well that, to C.J.G.’s knowledge, R.B.’s nine year old daughter, M.B., has spoken to G.G. about various activities G.G. might like to try in Langley. [ 60 ] I appreciate that C.J.G. has completed exchanges in the 100 Mile House area and recognize that not much time had passed between July 1 and the date of the hearing.

I am quite sure, however, that from G.G.’s perspective, she has moved to Langley. [ 61 ] By the time that Judge Church made her order, C.J.G.’s plans to move may have been too far along to change and, since then, C.J.G. has made extraordinary efforts to exchange G.G. in the 100 Mile House area. Even so, C.J.G. is exclusively responsible for finding herself in a difficult predicament and I find that she has breached, at a minimum, the spirit of Judge Church’s order. Conclusion on Good Faith [ 62 ] C.J.G. has some legitimate reasons for wanting to relocate with G.G.

That said, aside from her desire to live with R.B., C.J.G.’s reasons for relocating to Langley are not overly compelling. While C.J.G.’s move will enhance her life, I am not satisfied that the same can be said for G.G.

Furthermore, C.J.G. was not transparent with M.D.G., did not comply with the notice requirements of s. 66 of the FLA , did not use her best efforts to cooperate with M.D.G. to try to resolve issues arising out of her proposed relocation as required by s. 67 of the FLA and has breached at least the spirit of Judge Church’s order prohibiting her from changing G.G.’s residence. [ 63 ] In all of the circumstances, I have reached the regrettable conclusion that C.J.G. has not made her proposed relocation in good faith.

Has C.J.G. Proposed Reasonable and Workable Arrangements? [64] Section 69(4)(a)(ii) requires that C.J.G. satisfy the court that she “has proposed reasonable and workable arrangements topreserve the relationship between the child and the child’s other guardian, persons who are entitled to contact with the child, and otherpersons who have a significant role in the child's life”. In T.C. v. S.C., 2013 BCPC 217 , 2013 BCPC 0217 at paragraph 86,Judge Dhillon characterized the burden on C.J.G. as follows: This

section requires the (relocating) mother to show how the father’s relationship with the child can be preserved, not augmented orenhanced.

It does not require anything other than a reasonable and workable arrangement to maintain the parent-child relationship. [65] In this case, the only serious issue under s. 69(4)(a)(ii) is whether suitable arrangements have been proposed by C.J.G. topreserve M.D.G.’s relationship with G.G. [66] In the event that I approve C.J.G.’s relocation with the G.G. to Langley, C.J.G. has proposed that M.D.G. have parenting timewith G.G. at least one long weekend per month, half the school Christmas and spring breaks, more than half the school summer break,pretty much any other time M.D.G. chooses in Langley and by phone, Skype or other means of electronic communication at times thatare mutually agreeable.

Though she was not specific about this in her testimony, I assume that C.J.G. would exchange G.G. with M.D.G.near the halfway point between Langley and 100 Mile House. These arrangements are similar to the somewhat more generousarrangements that M.D.G. proposes for C.J.G. if G.G. remains with him in Forest Grove. [67] I am satisfied that M.D.G. is a committed parent who would exercise all of his parenting time with G.G. I am also satisfied thatthe proposed arrangements would enable M.D.G. to remain an important part of G.G.’s life and preserve his relationship with G.G.

Thereal question is whether C.J.G. can be trusted to ensure that M.D.G.’s special relationship with his daughter is preserved. [68] C.J.G. testified that she recognizes the importance of M.D.G. to G.G. and that she intends to encourage and support therelationship. Furthermore, except during their immediate post-separation period, M.D.G. acknowledges that C.J.G. has never denied himparenting time with G.G. Likewise, M.S. acknowledges that C.J.G. has not denied him parenting time with T.S. and R.S. M.S. alsoacknowledges that C.J.G. has, at times, driven T.S. and R.S. to facilitate his parenting time with them.

Unfortunately, other conduct byC.J.G. leaves me with significant doubt about whether she will live up to her word to encourage and support G.G.’s relationship withM.D.G. [69] My specific concerns about C.J.G.’s past conduct are as follows: 1. After relocating with T.S. and R.S. to 100 Mile House, C.J.G. promised to regularly drive the girls to see M.S. in the LowerMainland. She did not live up to her original commitment. 2. Since relocating to 100 Mile House, C.J.G. has generally not involved M.S. in any parenting decisions.

To her credit, C.J.G.informed M.S. of some trouble R.S. had with inappropriate communications with boys that resulted in R.S. being home schooled forseveral months. I also accept that C.J.G. has given M.S. copies of his daughters’ report cards and that M.S. is aware of their dentalappointments as a result of claims made through his extended health insurer. I find it hard to imagine, however, that there have been noother important parenting decisions made by C.J.G. regarding T.S. and R.S. that called for C.J.G. to involve M.S. 3.

C.J.G. gave the responsibility of arranging parenting time with M.S. to T.S. and R.S. when they were far too young. At the time sheseparated from M.S., T.S. was eight and R.S. four. Within a year or two, C.J.G. gave them a say in the parenting time arrangements. T.S. was no more than 12 and R.S. eight when T.S. assumed control over the parenting time arrangements for both girls. 4. T.S. was upset at times when M.S. was unable to exercise parenting time with T.S. and R.S. Understandably, T.S. turned to hermother for comfort.

During these times, T.S. told me that her mother agreed with her that M.S. was stubborn and not the type of personwho would apologize. Rather than reassure T.S. and try to help her solve the problem, C.J.G. effectively “piled on”. C.J.G.’s approachonly served to undermine M.S.’s relationship with his daughters. 5. Both C.J.G. and T.S. testified that C.J.G. said some horrible things about M.D.G. directly to or in the earshot of T.S. in the aftermathof their separation. Specifically, C.J.G. said that she ended her relationship with M.D.G. because he was involved with a grow-op and theHell’s Angels.

She also characterized M.D.G. as “basically a criminal” for “stealing” household property “from his family”. There isnot a shred of evidence that M.D.G. is a “criminal” of any kind. In fact, all of the evidence demonstrates that M.D.G. is a committedfather, hard-working and respected contractor and outstanding volunteer fire fighter. 6. Immediately after the separation, I accept M.D.G.’s evidence that C.J.G. limited his parenting time with G.G. and that it took courtorders to normalize the co-parenting regime. 7.

It appears quite obvious that G.G. was initially negatively influenced by C.J.G.’s attitude towards M.D.G. Shortly after theseparation, when G.G. was only two and a half years old, she announced to M.D.G. that she did not love him anymore. 8. M.D.G. had a significant parental role in the lives of T.S. and R.S. and treated them as his own children. While T.S. was alwaysmuch closer to her mother, R.S. was closer to M.D.G. In fact, before they separated, the G.’s had initiated a process to have M.D.G.formally adopt R.S.

After the separation, I find that C.J.G. effectively cut off M.D.G.’s relationship with T.S. and R.S. and that remainsthe case today. T.S. still considers M.D.G. to be a “criminal” and tried to dissuade M.S. from testifying for M.D.G. It is no wonder thatR.S. has “chosen” not to see M.D.G. [70] C.J.G. submits that circumstances have changed and that any concerns I have regarding C.J.G. can be addressed throughconduct orders.

I agree that C.J.G. deserves credit for forging a successful co-parenting relationship with M.D.G. but note that thisoccurred during a time when she and M.D.G. lived in the same area, when she was relying on M.D.G. for extra financial help from timeto time and the parties were getting along. More recently, there has been conflict between C.J.G. and M.D.G., including, I find, aroadside confrontation involving R.B.

[ 71 ] While I would like to believe C.J.G.’s promises, the current strain in her relationship with M.D.G., her past parenting conduct and her various efforts to mislead M.D.G. force me to have serious concerns about whether C.J.G. will make the responsible and required efforts to preserve M.D.G.’s relationship with G.G.

C.J.G.’s past conduct, including her breach of at least the spirit of Judge Church’s order, undermine C.J.G.’s submission that I can address my concerns through conduct orders. [ 72 ] In contrast, there was no evidence that M.D.G. has ever said or done anything to undermine C.J.G.’s relationship with G.G. In fact, all of the evidence is that he has done quite a bit more than the minimum to support C.J.G. I will provide several examples below to make my point: 1.

When C.J.G. was on vacation with her children in Disneyland and had money problems, M.D.G. covered the hotel and park pass expenses (which, to her credit, C.J.G. repaid); 2. When C.J.G. first suggested that she wished to relocate to Vernon, Kelowna or Vancouver to enable T.S. to pursue her post- secondary education, M.D.G. did not wish to hinder T.S. and travelled to Kelowna to look into the real estate and job markets there.

Even though he had no ongoing relationship with T.S., M.D.G. was open to leaving the 100 Mile House area to enable C.J.G. to support T.S.’s educational goals while at the same time remaining equally responsible for raising G.G.; 3. When a report was made to MCFD that C.J.G. had left her children without appropriate oversight while she was taking two weeks of training in the Lower Mainland for her new job, M.D.G. offered to stay in her house with all three children to alleviate any concerns the Ministry may have had.

Though his offer was not well received by C.J.G. and R.B., I find that M.D.G. was sincerely motivated to help; and 4. During the course of the MCFD investigation, M.D.G. was interviewed and, according to Ms. Belicka, handled himself appropriately and was “not spiteful” towards C.J.G. [ 73 ] If I prohibit G.G.’s relocation to Langley, I have no reason to think that M.D.G. would not be fully supportive of C.J.G. maintaining the most active and meaningful role possible in G.G.’s life.

Is C.J.G.’s Proposed Relocation in G.G.’s Best Interests? [ 74 ] I will next consider each of the factors listed in s. 37(2) of the FLA before reaching a conclusion on whether C.J.G.’s proposed relocation is in G.G.’s best interests. Factor (a): the child's health and emotional well-being [ 75 ] G.G. is a happy, healthy, bright and social girl. Both parents are perfectly capable of looking after G.G.’s basic health and emotional needs. [ 76 ] G.G. faces no identifiable health risks. [ 77 ] The only risk to G.G.’s emotional well-being arises out of C.J.G.’s unilateral decision to relocate to Langley.

For the reasons I have already stated, I am concerned that if I allow G.G. to relocate, C.J.G. will not live up to her responsibility to preserve the special relationship that exists between M.D.G. and G.G. If that occurs, G.G.’s emotional well-being will be harmed and conflict between her parents is likely to ensue which will only make things worse for G.G. Factor (b): the child's views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them [ 78 ] G.G. is only six years old. She is too young for her views to carry any weight regarding what is best.

Factor (c): the nature and strength of the relationships in the child's life [ 79 ] G.G. has healthy and strong relationships with the four most important people in her life, namely, her parents and her sisters. [ 80 ] I did not hear much evidence about G.G.’s relationship with her extended family but it is clear that her mother’s move to Langley will give her greater opportunities to spend time with that family, particularly if G.G. resides in Langley with her mother. [ 81 ] G.G. also appears to be the type of child who easily forms close relationships with others.

I accept that she has a number of close friends in the 100 Mile House area and have no doubt that she will be able to form many close friendships in Langley. If G.G. remains in 100 Mile House, I have no doubt that she will still have fun spending time with new friends in Langley when she is there with her mother. Likewise, if G.G. relocates to Langley, I have no doubt that she will be able to maintain her close friendships in the 100 Mile House area when she is in Forest Grove with her father. [ 82 ] Finally, I accept that G.G. is already very close to R.B. and his children, particularly M.B.

These relationships are positive for G.G. but, even if just because of their age difference, G.G. and M.B. may not remain as close in the future. The greater risk to G.G. is that her mother’s relationship with R.B. does not last which will disrupt or end G.G.’s relationship with R.B. and his children. Factor (d): the history of the child's care [ 83 ] When G.G. was young and the G.’s were together, both parents were actively involved in raising G.G. but I accept that C.J.G. had the primary role. Since the parties have separated, the parties have forged a successful co-parenting relationship.

Factor (e): the child's need for stability, given the child's age and stage of development [ 84 ] G.G. is lucky to be a healthy and capable child who receives unconditional love from both of her parents. While all children need stability in their lives, G.G. is the type of child who is likely to be more resilient and adaptable than most.

[ 85 ] C.J.G.’s move to Langley will be disruptive to G.G. whether G.G. stays in Forest Grove or relocates to Langley. Suitable and stable arrangements can be put in place to preserve G.G.’s special relationship with the non-primary parent and her important relationships with others while allowing her to flourish in school and participate in a range of activities.

Having said that, there are risks associated with G.G. relocating to Langley. [ 86 ] As I have mentioned, if G.G. relocates to Langley, I am concerned that C.J.G. will not live up to her responsibility to help maintain G.G.’s special relationship with M.D.G. [ 87 ] Also, without passing any judgment on her circumstances and without “blaming” her in any way, the fact is that C.J.G. has not been able to establish a lasting intimate partner relationship.

C.J.G. has been married three times, had another partner stay with her for at least one summer after she separated from M.D.G. and is now living with R.B. [ 88 ] As I have said, I was generally impressed by R.B. He is a hard-working man who is serving his country as a reservist. He clearly adores C.J.G. On the other hand, no one is perfect and R.B. has demonstrated volatility in his communications with M.D.G. and C.M. and has significant conflict in his relationship with the mother of his children.

His volatile communications and his unflattering characterization of the mother of his children are warning signs that his relationship with C.J.G. may not have always been as rosy as at present. I cannot help but conclude that there is some risk that C.J.G.’s relationship with R.B. will not last. Any instability in C.J.G.’s relationship with R.B. will cause instability for G.G., particularly if G.G. relocates with her mother to Langley. [ 89 ] In contrast, if G.G. remains in Forest Grove with her father, there is no evidence of any stability concerns on the horizon.

M.D.G. has stable work and good future prospects. M.D.G. has dated but has not introduced G.G. to any new partners and I accept that he will not do so until he is in a sufficiently serious and stable relationship that it would be appropriate to do so.

Factor (f): the ability of each guardian to exercise his or her responsibilities [ 90 ] I have full confidence that both parents will shower G.G. with unconditional love and easily meet all of her basic needs. [ 91 ] With respect to C.J.G.’s decision to leave T.S. in charge of her sisters while C.J.G. was away for two weeks of training, C.J.G. was in touch with her daughters on a daily basis, C.J.G. had made suitable arrangements for responsible adults to check in and help out in case of emergency and T.S. was capable of taking good care of her sisters.

C.J.G. did not “abandon” her children and, though a “safety plan” was put in place, there were no serious child protection concerns. [ 92 ] Without wanting to sound like a broken record, the only parenting concern I have is C.J.G.’s ability to meet her responsibility to preserve M.D.G.’s special relationship with G.G.

Factor (g): the impact of any family violence on the child's safety, security or well-being [ 93 ] “Family violence” is defined broadly in s. 1 of the FLA to include such things as physical abuse, harassment and, in the case of a child, “direct or indirect exposure to family violence”. [ 94 ] The report to MCFD regarding C.J.G. included a concern that she had slapped R.S. in the face. C.J.G. acknowledged having done this on one occasion and also that she had done the same on one occasion to T.S.

C.J.G. did not deny C.M.’s testimony that C.M. witnessed C.J.G. raising her hand to R.S., without actually striking her, on other occasions. Though initially telling Ms. Belicka that she did not see her physical discipline of T.S. and R.S. as problematic or abusive, C.J.G. accessed appropriate services for herself and her daughters. [ 95 ] With respect to M.D.G., in the aftermath of the separation, he acknowledged having sent an inordinate number of text messages to C.J.G. I thank the parties and counsel for restraining themselves from inundating me with copies of those text messages.

I am satisfied that these were inappropriate but stopped once M.D.G.’s parenting time with G.G. was settled. I note that C.J.G. sought but did not obtain a protection order against M.D.G. [ 96 ] The risk of family violence directly or indirectly affecting G.G. in the future is small. Factor (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 [ 97 ] I am not concerned that either party’s ability to care for G.G. is impaired in any way.

Factor (i): the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child's guardians to cooperate including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or well-being of the child or other family members [ 98 ] I am not concerned about this factor. I will be ordering arrangements to make the best of a very difficult situation. The arrangements will not pose any risk to G.G. or other family members.

Factor (j): any civil or criminal proceeding relevant to the child's safety, security or well-being [ 99 ] There are civil proceedings against M.D.G. which are concerning but I have concluded that M.D.G.’s financial prospects are improving and that he will be able to meet G.G.’s financial needs if G.G. remains in Forest Grove with him. Conclusion on Whether the Proposed Relocation is in G.G.’s Best Interests [ 100 ] Section 69(3) of the FLA requires that, at this stage, I consider not only the factors listed in s. 37(2) but also the factors listed in s. 69(4) (

a) to determine whether C.J.G.’s proposal to relocate G.G. is in G.G.’s best interests. In doing so, there are some factors which are equally balanced, some which favour G.G. relocating to Langley with C.J.G. and some which favour G.G. remaining in Forest Grove with her father.

[ 101 ] Happily, this is a case in which both parents are fully capable of meeting G.G.’s basic needs and deserve credit for raising a well-adjusted child whose future looks bright. There are no safety concerns and the parents have demonstrated that they are capable of cooperating to act in G.G.’s best interests. Also, both Forest Grove and Langley are very nice communities with good schools and varied opportunities for G.G. [ 102 ] C.J.G. has moved to Langley for understandable reasons.

She has secured a favourable position with [omitted for publication], her financial situation is better and she has formed what appears to be a very good relationship with R.B. C.J.G.’s happiness will undoubtedly help her to be the best person and parent she can be which will be good for G.G. [ 103 ] On the other hand, C.J.G. has relocated unilaterally to a community which she knew was objectionable to M.D.G.

She was not transparent about her reasons for moving, did not use her best efforts to cooperate with M.D.G. to resolve any issues arising out her proposed relocation and has created a situation where, regardless of what I decide, G.G. will not have the benefit of being raised equally by her parents.

Though C.J.G.’s life will be enhanced by her move to Langley, I cannot say the same will be true for G.G. [ 104 ] While I am fully supportive of C.J.G. pursuing better work and a positive relationship with R.B. and very reluctant to separate G.G. from her mother and sisters, there are two reasons why I have concluded that C.J.G.’s proposal to relocate G.G. to Langley is not in G.G.’s best interests. The first is that G.G. has a special relationship with both of her parents and maintaining both of these relationships is the most critical factor in ensuring G.G. will continue to flourish.

Given each of the parties’ past conduct, I have greater faith in M.D.G. to support and preserve G.G.’s special relationship with her mother than I do in C.J.G. doing the same for M.D.G. The second is that M.D.G. offers G.G. greater stability. In short, there are greater risks associated with G.G. relocating to Langley with her mother than remaining in Forest Grove with her father. [ 105 ] For these reasons, I have concluded that C.J.G.’s proposal to relocate G.G. to Langley is not in G.G.’s best interests. I, therefore grant M.D.G.’s application to prohibit C.J.G.’s proposal to relocate G.G. to Langley.

Amendments to the Current Parenting Time Arrangements [ 106 ] Given that G.G. will now be living primarily with her father in Forest Grove, changes are needed to the current parenting time regime. [ 107 ] In the event I granted his application to prohibit C.J.G.’s proposal to relocate G.G. to Langley, M.D.G. proposed a very generous parenting time

schedule for C.J.G. Frankly, the proposed

schedule would involve excessive travel and, looking forward, would limit G.G.’s ability to be consistently and actively involved in her home community. [ 108 ] Balancing G.G.’s need for stability with her need to maintain her special relationship with her mother and sisters, in my view, the parenting time

schedule proposed by C.J.G. for M.D.G. provides an appropriate

schedule to make the best of a difficult situation. I will be making that order, but in reverse. [ 109 ] Given that C.J.G. has a history of exposing her children to inappropriate adult/legal issues, I will also be making conduct orders in an effort to make sure that does not occur in the future. ORDER [ 110 ] Based on all of the above, I make the following orders: 1. M.D.G.’s application to prohibit G.G.’s relocation to Langley is granted. 2. The interim parenting time arrangements ordered by me on July 28, 2016 will remain in place until August 31, 2016. 3.

Commencing September 1, 2016, the existing parenting time arrangements are varied such that G.G. will reside primarily with M.D.G. and C.J.G. will have the following parenting time with G.G.:

a) at least one long weekend per month;

b) the first half of the school Christmas break in even years and the second half of the school Christmas break in odd years;

c) half of the school Spring Break;

d) six weeks of the school summer break;

e) by telephone, Facetime, Skype or other form of electronic communication at times that are mutually agreeable to the parties; and

f) any other time the parties can agree. 4. The parties will exchange G.G. in Lytton or any other location mutually agreeable to the parties. 5. The parties will encourage G.G. to have a good relationship with the other parent and speak to G.G. about that parent and that parent’s partner only in a positive and respectful manner. 6. The parties will maintain polite and respectful communications with each other, refraining from any negative or hostile criticism, communication or argument in front of G.G. 7.

The parties will not discuss with or within the hearing distance of G.G. any inappropriate adult, court or legal matters and will not blame, criticize or disparage the other parent to or within the hearing distance of G.G.

[ 111 ] The G.’s file was transferred to Kamloops only for the purposes of the relocation trial. The file will now be returned to the 100 Mile House court registry for all other purposes. [ 112 ] I thank the parties, their witnesses and counsel for their respectful participation in the trial. I wish the parties, and especially G.G., the very best in the future. ________________________________ L.S. Marchand Provincial Court Judge