G.H. v. M.J.S. Date:, 2017 BCPC 322

Citation: G.H. v. M.J.S. Date: 20170802 2017 BCPC 322 File No: 162391 Registry: Sechelt IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: G.H. APPLICANT AND: M.J.S. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE B. CRAIG Counsel for the Applicant: Suzette Narbonne

Counsel for the Respondent: Agnes Huang Place of Hearing: Sechelt , B.C. Dates of Hearing: May 3, 4, June 27, 28, 29, and July 28, 2017 Date of Judgment: August 2, 2017 Introduction [ 1 ] G.H. and M.J.S. are the parents of five year old A. They separated in May of 2015 after a ten year marriage. To their credit, they tried to work together to settle the family issues that arose after their separation, with the help of a Family Justice Counsellor, but were unsuccessful.

They have been to court regularly since March 2016 to address these issues, issues primarily related to the division of parenting time and a no-contact order. [ 2 ] Ms. G.H. wishes to move from Gibsons to Norway with A. for two years. She has accepted a PhD position with the University of Oslo. She is required to spend two years, of a four year program, in Oslo to obtain her PhD. Ms. G.H. has been the primary caregiver for A. since her birth. She says that, given A.’s attachment to her, it would be in A.’s best interests to come to Norway with her. She has proposed regular parenting time for Mr.

M.J.S. with A. when she returns frequently to Gibsons during her two year period in Norway. [ 3 ] Mr. M.J.S. opposes the move. He recognizes the benefits of Ms. G.H.’s opportunity to obtain her PhD, and is supportive of her move to Norway. But, he argues that Ms. G.H. should not be permitted to take A. with her. He says A. should stay living with him in Gibsons, and have parenting time with her mother whenever Ms. G.H. is in town. In the alternative, Mr.

M.J.S. has suggested that A. move with her mother to Norway for the first year, and spend the second year living with him in Gibsons. [ 4 ] In addition to the order regarding relocation, the parties seek orders for parenting time; for the two years Ms. G.H. is in Norway, and thereafter, when she returns to live in Gibsons. Finally, they seek orders to address the allocation of parenting responsibilities and retroactive and ongoing child support. Issues [ 5 ] I must decide the following issues:

a) Would it be in A.’s best interest to temporarily relocate with her mother to Norway?

b) How should parenting time be divided between the parties?

c) How should parenting responsibilities be divided between the parties?

d) Should Mr. M.J.S. pay retroactive and ongoing child support to Ms. G.H.? Issue 1: Relocation Application A. Legal Framework [ 6 ] The legal requirements that must be satisfied for a parent seeking to relocate a child are set out in detail in the Family Law Act (“the Act” ). 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. [ 7 ] If the relocating parent has satisfied these requirements, the court must go on to determine whether the relocation is in the best interests of the child. If the parents share substantially equal parenting time, the relocation parent must satisfy the court that the proposed relocation is in the best interest of the child: section 69(5)(

b) of the Act . If the parents do not have substantially equal parenting time, there is a presumption that the relocation is in the best interests of the child, once the relocating guardian has satisfied the court that the proposed relocation is made in good faith, with reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the relationship with the other parent: section 69(4) of the Act and C.N.B. v. B.D.G , 2014 BCSC 780 at para. 78 . It is then up to the non-relocating parent to satisfy the court that relocation would not be in the child’s best interests. [ 8 ] Ms. G.H. and Mr.

M.J.S. disagree over whether they share substantially equal parenting time with A. Ms. G.H. says Mr. M.J.S. has only 35% of the parenting time, which she says does not satisfy the test for substantially equal parenting time: Hefter v. Hefter , 2016 BCSC 1504 at paras. 33-34 . Mr. M.J.S. says he has 40% parenting time, which amounts to substantially equal parenting time. [ 9 ] I do not believe the issue of whether the parties have substantially equal parenting time has any significance to my decision in this case. The final analysis depends on an assessment of what is in A.’s best interests.

I will proceed on the assumption that the parties share substantially equal parenting time and the presumption does not apply. Ms. G.H. must establish that it would be in A.’s best interests to move to Norway with her mother for two years. [ 10 ] Bearing the legal framework in mind, I must decide the following questions on the relocation application:

1) Is the proposed relocation made in good faith? 2) Has Ms. G.H. proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve A.’s relationships with Mr. M.J.S. and other persons who have a significant role in A.’s life? 3) Is the relocation in A.’s best interests? B. Analysis of the Relocation Application 1. Is the proposed relocation made in good faith? [ 11 ] The first question that must be addressed is whether Ms. G.H. has satisfied the Court that the relocation she proposes has been made in good faith. Good faith was described by Kent J. in Pepin v.

McCormack , 2014 BCSC 2230 as follows: Good faith is a subjectively held state of mind. It involves an assessment of whether the reasons asserted by [the relocating parent] for the proposed relocation are the real reasons for the move. If so, and if the court determines on an objective basis that relocation will likely enhance [the child's] general quality of life, then the decision to relocate will normally be found to have been made in good faith. (para. 69.) [ 12 ] A determination of good faith involves a consideration of all relevant factors.

These factors are set out in the legislation and have been addressed in the case law. Section 69(6) of the Act states:

(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; (

d) any restrictions on relocation contained in a written agreement or an order. [ 13 ] The latter two factors are not in issue in this case. I will address the first two factors in turn.

a) Reasons for the proposed relocation [ 14 ] Ms. G.H.’s reasons for the relocation must be analysed objectively and subjectively. Objectively, the court must be satisfied that her reasons for seeking to relocate are reasonable. Subjectively, I must be satisfied that the reasons behind the relocation indicate good faith. This provision was designed to prevent relocations where “the moving guardian is trying to move in order to undermine or limit the child’s relationship with the other guardian”. LJR v.

SWR, 2013 BCJ No. 1645 (B.C.S.C.) at para. 73(a) ; Family Law Act Transition Guide, Continuing Legal Education Society of B.C., August, 2012, page 3-100. [ 15 ] Ms. G.H.’s reasons for temporarily moving to Norway are eminently reasonable. She has a unique opportunity to pursue a PhD degree, while earning $72,000 per year. This is a significant increase in what Ms. G.H. is currently able to earn. Ms. G.H. arranged with the university to do half of the four year PhD program in British Columbia and the other half in Oslo. [ 16 ] Ms.

G.H.’s training and education are in international development in third world countries. She and Mr. M.J.S. worked in this field during their marriage. They travelled extensively with A. as she was growing up. A. has been to Peru (3 times), Bolivia, Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, New Zealand, Australia, Washington, D.C., Hawaii (2 times) and various places across Canada. [ 17 ] Ms. G.H. testified that after the parties separated, Mr. M.J.S. did not want her to bring A. with her on her trips to third world countries. He did not allow Ms.

G.H. to take A. with her to Paraguay or Peru, although A. had been to Peru several times before. Ms. G.H. said she tried to adapt her training in international development to community development or consulting work. She applied for six different positions in British Columbia but was not successful. She considered applying to the PhD program at universities in British Columbia, but realized that was not economically feasible. [ 18 ] I am satisfied Ms. G.H. made reasonable efforts to find alternative employment.

She has unique qualifications and experience that make finding employment in her field difficult locally. As for any potential ulterior motive behind the proposed relocation, there is no indication that the proposed move to Norway is an attempt by Ms. G.H. to undermine or limit A.’s relationship with her father. In fact, Ms. G.H. has gone to great lengths to suggest alternative proposals aimed at protecting Mr. M.J.S.’s relationship with A. [ 19 ] Ms. G.H.’s reasons for moving to Norway support a finding that the proposed move is made in good faith.

b) Would Relocation Enhance A.’s Quality of Life? [ 20 ] In determining good faith, I must also consider whether A.’s quality of life would be enhanced by living with her mother in Norway for two years. This involves a consideration of A.’s emotional well-being and the financial and educational opportunities that come with the move.

c) Emotional Well-being [ 21 ] I expect that A.’s emotional well-being would be enhanced in many ways if she moves with her mother to Norway. A. will benefit in Norway from the ongoing care of her mother. Ms. G.H. is a loving and attentive mother who is in tune with A.’s physical,

educational, and emotional needs. This was supported by the evidence of S.T. and T.B. [ 22 ] Ms. S.T. is a long-time friend of Ms. G.H. She has known A. since birth and has spent significant time with Ms. G.H. and A. together. She confirmed that Ms. G.H. was the primary care-giver for A. after she was born. Ms. S.T. described Ms. G.H. as a “thoughtful and intentionally conscious parent attuned to [A.’s] emotional, spiritual and physical needs”. She said Ms. G.H. and A. clearly adored each other and were fun and affectionate with each other when together. [ 23 ] Ms. S.T. testified that she stayed with Ms.

G.H. and Mr. M.J.S. after A. was born, when they were still living in Smithers. After the parties moved to Gibsons, Ms. S.T.stayed with them approximately twice a year before their separation. She said Mr. M.J.S. was away at times when A. was still a small baby, including on a sailing trip. When he was at home, Ms. S.T. said Mr. M.J.S. would work outside during the day and come in for dinner in the evenings. She confirmed that Mr. M.J.S. had a loving relationship with A.; he would often read her a story before she went to bed. [ 24 ] Ms. T.B. is the director of A.’s preschool. She has observed Ms.

G.H. with A. when Ms. G.H. volunteered at the preschool, and when Ms. G.H. attended to drop-off or pick up A. Ms. T.B. testified that Ms. G.H. kept in touch with the preschool about A.’s behaviour and development. She described Ms. G.H. as being open, kind, and attentive to her daughter. She said A. is devoted to her mother and talks about her regularly in class. [ 25 ] A.’s emotional well-being would also be enhanced by her mother’s emotional well-being in Norway. Ms. G.H. will have the satisfaction of working on an exciting project that is consistent with her previous training and education. I believe Ms.

G.H. will enjoy more emotional stability when she has some distance from Mr. M.J.S. The ongoing conflict between Ms. G.H. and Mr. M.J.S. has taken an emotional toll on both parents, which A. has undoubtedly felt. I believe Ms. G.H. and Mr. M.J.S. will both benefit from a period of geographical separation. In turn, A. will benefit. [ 26 ] I expect there will also be some negative impact on A.’s emotional well-being if she moves with her mother. She will miss the physical proximity of her father and will miss her regular time with him.

Although she has not spent as much time with her father as she spent with her mother, A. was loved and cared for by her father when he was in the home. Mr. M.J.S. was an attentive father during the marriage, including reading to A. before bed and attending to her when she woke in the night. [ 27 ] Since separation, Mr. M.J.S. has spent increasing periods of time with A. Scheduling parenting time for Mr. M.J.S. was complicated by his work schedule. More recently, he has rearranged his work

schedule to have Fridays and every second Thursday with A. Mr. M.J.S. has consistently advocated for more time with A. It was clear from Mr. M.J.S.’s evidence that he is an active and involved parent when he is with A. This was confirmed by the evidence of J.K., M.K., and S.G., who all spoke of Mr. M.J.S.’s devotion to his daughter. [ 28 ] For the most part, A. appears to enjoy her time with her father. There have, however, been instances where Mr. M.J.S. has demonstrated an inability to protect A.’s emotional well-being.

In one instance, during his parenting time with A. in March of 2016, A. was very upset and missing her mother. Mr. M.J.S. called Ms. G.H. She was not at home and the call went to her answering machine. On the recording captured by the answering machine, A. is heard in the background. Mr. M.J.S. tells A. that Ms. G.H. is not answering the phone. He then says: “She doesn’t want to talk to you.” A. bursts out crying and says “Mom?” Rather than reassure her, Mr. M.J.S. says “We’re going to hang up. She doesn’t want to talk to you.

She doesn’t want to talk to you.” A. continues to cry and he says “maybe she’s not home, she’s probably not home”, providing some reassurance. But he goes on to tell A. to say “Goodnight mom” in case she is there. A. is heard sobbing out a “Goodnight mama”. [ 29 ] Mr. M.J.S. was not honest when he was questioned about the details of this call in cross-examination. He agreed that three days before the call he and Ms. G.H. had consented to a court order that they not have any contact with each other. Mr.

M.J.S. initially said he was trying to call his daughter and did not recall having A. with him when he made the call. After court was stood down and he listened to the recording, he said he was facilitating a call between A. and her mother. After listening to the call, he said he was not sure if he told A. that her mother did not want to talk to her. He said he would need to hear the recording again, since he had just heard it once quickly. It was abundantly clear from the recording that Mr. M.J.S. had told A. that her mother did not want to talk to her; he said it three times over.

It was not until the recording was played again in court, and Mr. M.J.S. was pressed further in cross-examination that he finally admitted to telling A. that her mother did not want to talk to her. He agreed that, all the while, A. was crying inconsolably for her mother. [ 30 ] Two concerns arose from this evidence. First, Mr. M.J.S. did not seem able to help his daughter settle down. Instead, he made her more upset by suggesting that her mother was intentionally not answering the phone. In this instance, Mr. M.J.S. placed A. in the middle of his dispute with Ms. G.H. I believe Mr.

M.J.S. allowed his bitterness for Ms. G.H. to interfere with his ability to meet his daughter’s emotional needs. [ 31 ] The second concern I have from this evidence is that Mr. M.J.S. did not recognize any problem with his behaviour. Defiantly, he testified that he thought that what he had said on the recording was “totally appropriate”. He said the incident was a “perfect example” of the problem that came from the no-contact order that Ms. G.H. had insisted on; A. was unable to talk to her mother when she needed to be comforted by her. Mr. M.J.S. chose to put the blame on Ms.

G.H., rather than admit what was clearly inappropriate behaviour on his part. This was consistent with Mr. M.J.S.’s habit of blaming others, and failing to recognize his own wrongdoings. [ 32 ] In another, more recent instance on Father’s Day this year, Mr. M.J.S. again placed A. in the middle of his conflict with Ms. G.H. Mr. M.J.S. was to return A. to her mother’s in the evening. He said A. wanted to stay the night at his place. Mr. M.J.S. took A. to her mother’s to have her ask Ms. G.H. if she would agree. A. went to her mother’s door sobbing and exhausted. Mr.

M.J.S. should not have put his five year old daughter in this position. [ 33 ] These are but two examples. There were other instances where Mr. M.J.S. refused to take his parenting time with A. because he was too upset or frustrated with Ms. G.H. This included Christmas of 2015, in the spring of 2016, and in May of 2017. I will address this issue in more detail later in these reasons. The conclusion I draw from this evidence is that A.’s emotional well-being would be served better by living with her mother in Norway than by staying with her father in Gibsons.

d) Financial Opportunities [ 34 ] Ms. G.H.’s temporary relocation to Norway to pursue her PhD will provide her and A. with immediate and long-term financial benefit. Ms. G.H. has been unable to find steady work since the parties separated, despite her good faith efforts. She made only $14,000 last year from employment. Ms. G.H.’s starting salary in the PhD program is $72,000 per year. That salary increases incrementally each year. In addition, Ms. G.H. receives additional funding for travel. Ms. G.H. has a secure, well-paying job for four years while she works on her PhD. Once Ms.

G.H. completes her PhD, her ability to find well-paying work in her field will be significantly enhanced. [ 35 ] A. will benefit from Ms. G.H.’s increased financial security. This is a particularly important factor in light of Mr. M.J.S.’s health problems. He testified that he has a faulty valve in his heart that has made his physical health somewhat precarious. It is clearly in A.’s interests for her mother to be financially independent and secure.

e) Educational Opportunities [ 36 ] Ms. G.H. and A. will both benefit from the educational opportunities offered by spending two years in Norway. Ms. G.H. will be able to work towards a PhD in her chosen field. Mr. M.J.S. agreed that Ms. G.H. had always wanted to obtain her PhD, and he was supportive of this goal during the marriage. [ 37 ] Ms. G.H.’s PhD supervisor, K.O., testified at trial that Ms. G.H.’s education and experience made her uniquely qualified, and the ideal candidate, for what was a very competitive application process for the PhD position. Dr. O. confirmed that Ms.

G.H. could complete the four year program by spending two years in Oslo and two years in British Columbia. Ms. G.H. will be working in a supportive network of other PhD students. She will be part of a visible internationally-recognized study aimed at having a global impact on the study of climate change. She said the education and experience that will be gained by Ms. G.H. will significantly improve her employment prospects. [ 38 ] In Norway, A. will attend the university kindergarten, adjacent to the university.

Her kindergarten will be in the Norwegian language, but all of the teachers and some of the students will speak English as well. A. will receive the benefit of learning a second language while she is in Norway. Her grade one education will be in English on the International Baccalaureate program. [ 39 ] Dr. O.’s three children all attended at the school A. will be attending. She described the kindergarten as “the best kindergarten in the world”. She described the family-oriented culture of Norway.

She said it is “almost a religion for parents to pick up their children after school”; meetings and work schedules are planned to accommodate this. Dr. O. confirmed Ms. G.H.’s evidence that the university housing is very family-oriented. [ 40 ] In Norway A. will also have the experience of living in a different country, with a different culture, for two years. This is consistent with her upbringing while the parties were married, when they travelled extensively all over the world with A. A. has had more adventures in her life than most children.

I believe this experience has made her more capable than many children of adapting to the dramatic change of moving to Norway for two years. I expect she will treat this as another adventure. [ 41 ] When I take into account the emotional, financial and educational benefits, it is clear to me that A.’s quality of life would be enhanced by allowing Ms. G.H. to take her to Norway with her. [ 42 ] I am satisfied that the proposed relocation is made in good faith. 2. Has Ms. G.H. proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve A.’s relationships with Mr.

M.J.S. and other persons who have a significant role in her life? [ 43 ] The next question I must address is whether Ms. G.H. has proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve A.’s relationships with Mr. M.J.S. and other persons who have a significant role in A.’s life. The significant people in A.’s life are Mr. M.J.S. and Ms. G.H. Although there are other persons that play a role in her life, such as Mr. M.J.S.’s new partner and Ms. G.H.’s mother, I do not believe this role could be described as significant.

The significant relationship that needs to be preserved in the relocation is A.’s relationship with her father. [ 44 ] Ms. G.H. proposed three possible parenting schedules at trial:

a) a

schedule built around Mr. M.J.S.’s vacation schedule, based on statutory holidays in Canada;

b) a

schedule built around A.’s kindergarten

schedule and holidays in Oslo; and

c) a slight variation of the

schedule in (

b) that adds some extra days for Mr. M.J.S. [ 45 ] Ms. G.H. prepared her parenting proposals with the assistance of Dr. O. Dr. O. confirmed that the

schedule of travel was workable for Ms. G.H. for the two years she is required to be in Oslo. [ 46 ] Ms. G.H. testified that the she designed the schedules to preserve, as much as possible, time between A. and her father. She recognized in her testimony that the schedules may involve too much travel for A. [ 47 ] At trial and in closing submissions, I asked for Mr. M.J.S.’s proposals for parenting time, if I was to allow A.’s temporary relocation to Oslo. Mr. M.J.S. did not provide any proposal that reflected A. living with her mother in Oslo for two years. Instead, he provided two proposals that gave him primary, or equal, parenting time. In his first proposal, he set out a

schedule for Ms. G.H. to have parenting time with A. while A. remained in Gibsons living with him. In his second proposal, A. would go to Oslo for kindergarten with her mother for a year, then return to live with her father for a year in grade one. This proposal included two five to six week periods of time where A. would be with Mr. M.J.S. in Gibsons in the first year and would miss kindergarten. The focus of this proposal is on parenting time for Mr. M.J.S. It is not focused on A.’s needs.

[ 48 ] I do not believe either proposal suggested by Mr. M.J.S. is reasonable. The proposed arrangements must be reasonable and workable in preserving A.’s relationship with her father, as opposed to enhancing it: T.C. v. S.C. , 2013 BCPC 217 at para. 86 . Mr. M.J.S. seeks to enhance his relationship with A. That would come at the price of substantially reducing A.’s time with her mother. That would not be in A.’s best interests. [ 49 ] I am satisfied that Ms. G.H. has made ample provision for Mr. M.J.S.’s parenting time with A. in good faith.

However, I share the concern raised by both parents about the number of trips involved in all of the proposed schedules, and the related costs. In my view the number of trips would be disruptive to A.’s need for stability. The trips are lengthy, involving at least 9 hours of air travel, plus layover time, plus at least 2 further hours of travel from Vancouver to Gibsons, including ferry travel. For each trip A. would also have to adjust to a nine hour time change. [ 50 ] Mr. M.J.S. relied upon C.L.P. v. D.R.P , 2017 BCSC 432 to support his argument that Ms.

G.H.’s proposed arrangements are not reasonable and workable. In that case the court found that the time and cost of travel back and forth to Australia to exercise parenting time militated against a finding that the arrangements proposed by the relocating mother were reasonable or workable. I agree with the court’s comments about the difficulties that arise with a parent moving to a distant location. I note, however, that the circumstances in C.L.P. v. D.R.P. were significantly different from the circumstances before me. Furthermore, the relocation in that case was permanent. The relocation proposed by Ms.

G.H. is temporary, for less than two years. [ 51 ] The assessment of reasonable and workable arrangements must be made in the context of the location of the proposed move. In other words, I must consider whether the arrangements proposed by Ms. G.H. are reasonable and workable, given the distance between Gibsons and Norway: LJR v. SWR, [2013] B.C.J. No. 1645 (BCSC) at paragraph 68 . [ 52 ] When I raised the concern about traveling time for A. with counsel for Ms. G.H. in closing submissions, she proposed an alternate

schedule of parenting time for Mr. M.J.S. involving fewer trips for A.; she suggested that Mr. M.J.S. could have parenting time with A. for the entire Christmas and Spring Breaks and a longer period in the summers. [ 53 ] I think that a reasonable and workable arrangement for parenting time to preserve Mr. M.J.S.’s relationship with A. lies in between the options suggested by Ms. G.H. at trial and the alternative suggested in closing submissions. The

schedule should have fewer trips for A., but provide her enough time with her father to preserve their relationship. I recognize this will involve significant costs to both parents, but these costs are not prohibitive. I intend to order Ms. G.H. to pay for some of the trips and the parties to share the costs of the other trips. Mr. M.J.S. earns $73,000 per year. In his Financial Statement he disclosed assets of over a million dollars. Given his assets, and the fact that the travel costs are for a period of less than two years, I do not believe the cost is unreasonable or unworkable. [ 54 ] I am satisfied that Ms.

G.H. has met this branch of the test. 3. Is the relocation in A.’s best interests? [ 55 ] Having found that Ms. G.H.’s proposed relocation has been made in good faith and with reasonable arrangements to preserve A.’s relationship with her father, I must go on to consider whether it would be in A.’s best interests to move with her mother to Norway for two years. [ 56 ] Mr. M.J.S. argued that it would be in A.’s best interests to live with him in Gibsons while her mother moves to Norway for two years.

He has made arrangements with his employer and new partner to ensure he is able to properly care for A. during this time period. [ 57 ] Mr. M.J.S. is the Executive Director of the [omitted for publication]. By all accounts he is exceptional at his job. Mr. M.J.S. testified that his employer has offered him more flexibility with his work and travel

schedule to allow him to be more available to care for A. He recently arranged to be able to work from home every second Thursday, in addition to the Friday he had already negotiated. This was confirmed by V.R., a board member for [omitted for publication] who testified at trial. Ms. V.R. said the board was very supportive of Mr. M.J.S., and his need to spend more time with his daughter. [ 58 ] Mr. M.J.S.’s new partner S.G. also testified at trial. She and Mr. M.J.S. met in May of 2016 and have been in a relationship since. They do not presently live together, but Ms. S.G. spends much of her time staying at Mr.

M.J.S.’s home. She is ready, willing and able to assist Mr. M.J.S. with A.’s care. [ 59 ] The factors to consider in determining what is in A.’s best interests are set out in s. 37(2) of the Act . I will consider each of the relevant factors in turn. (

a) A.’s health and emotional well-being [ 60 ] A. currently enjoys good physical health. With respect to her emotional well-being, I have addressed this factor in detail already. Given A.’s attachment to her mother, I believe her emotional well-being would be better served if she moves with her mother to Norway for two years. Although I believe A. will miss the proximity of her father when she is in Norway, she will be able to spend significant periods of time with her father during her regular visits back to Gibsons. (

b) The nature and strength of the relationships between the child and significant persons in the child's life [ 61 ] I believe that A. benefits from having a close relationship with both parents. M.K. testified that A. was lucky to have two good parents. I agree. Having said that, I believe that, at this time in her life, A.’s relationship with her mother is stronger. A.’s relationship with her father has been enhanced since her parents separated. Mr. M.J.S. has made a more concerted effort to spend time with A. in the past two years than he did during the marriage. This is important for A. and can be continued with a parenting

schedule that ensures ample contact between A. and her father when she comes for regular visits to Gibsons. Mr. M.J.S.’s relationship with A. can be further protected by allowing him regular parenting time with A. when she and her mother move back to Gibsons in the summer of 2019. (

c) The history of the children’s care

[ 62 ] I do not question Mr. M.J.S.’s devotion to his daughter before the separation. Mr. M.J.S. testified that he had a mild heart attack just before Ms. G.H. became pregnant with A. He learned that he has a faulty valve in his heart. He said that after A. was born he wanted to get his house in order; he shut down his business, moved to Gibsons soon after, built his family home, and prioritized spending time with his daughter. I do not criticize Mr. M.J.S. for spending time working outside the home during the marriage, whether it was fixing the sailboat or building the family home in Gibsons.

This was time spent for the benefit of his family. I must recognize, however, that, when Mr. M.J.S. was engaged in this activity, Ms. G.H. was caring for A. [ 63 ] Mr. M.J.S. also did some travelling during the marriage that kept him away from caring for his daughter. He spent several extended weekends in Prince Rupert repairing the family’s boat after it was damaged. He sailed from Prince Rupert to Vancouver Island when A. was still a baby. In 2014, Mr. M.J.S. took a job in Vancouver that meant he had to spend more time commuting. He went on several Buddhist retreats.

Although he initially claimed he went on only one retreat per year, in cross-examination he said he did not remember how many times each year he went on a retreat. He agreed that he may have gone four times in the third year after A.’s birth, although he doubted he could have afforded this. Mr. M.J.S.’s evidence was inconsistent on this issue. It was significant to me that the reason he thought he would not have gone four times in one year was because of the cost, not because it would have taken him away from his daughter. [ 64 ] It was clear from the evidence that Ms.

G.H. was primarily responsible for the day-to-day care of A. when the parties were married. That has continued since their separation. In an email from June 16, 2015, a month after separation, Mr. M.J.S. noted that “A. is used to me being away a little more than the average kid”. In the email he stated that he would like to work toward a shared parenting regime, but recognized that this would take some time. [ 65 ] Mr. M.J.S. has gradually spent more and more time with A. since the parties separated. But A. has still been cared for by her mother more than by Mr. M.J.S. By the time of trial Mr.

M.J.S. had parenting time approximately 40% of the time. Even during his parenting time, Mr. M.J.S. was not always the one caring for A. During the week, except on Fridays, he left for work in Vancouver before A. woke up. Ms. S.G. cared for A. these mornings and took her to preschool. Mr. M.J.S. did not return home on these days until between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., depending on which ferry he was able to catch back to Gibsons. [ 66 ] At other times Mr. M.J.S. has had to travel for work. This included a recent trip to Ottawa where he left A. in Ms. S.G.’s care for three days, without notifying Ms. G.H. Mr.

M.J.S. and Ms. S.G., improperly, hid from Ms. G.H. that Mr. M.J.S. was out of town and that A. was being cared for by Ms. S.G. Mr. M.J.S. testified that he did not tell Ms. G.H. that he would be out of town because he had just obtained a court order giving him more parenting time and he did not want to give that up. That showed poor judgment, in my view. Ms. S.G. is a lovely person, but she is relatively new in A.’s life. Mr. M.J.S. does not appear to have considered what A. would have wanted - three days with Ms. S.G., or three days with her mother.

Instead, his attention was focused on his court battle. [ 67 ] Mr. M.J.S. will have to continue to travel at times throughout the year for his work. Ms. V.R. testified that some of this travel may be assigned to other employees. I accept that Mr. M.J.S. has made significant arrangements to ensure that he could properly care for A. if she were to live with him, rather than with Ms. G.H. But living full-time with Mr. M.J.S. would be a significant change for A. I do not believe this would be in A.’s best interests when the history of her care is taken into account. (

d) The children's need for stability given the child's age and stage of development [ 68 ] Clearly a move to Norway will disrupt A.’s current stability. Having said that, A. is much more travelled than most children her age. She is undergoing a change from preschool to kindergarten in any event. For the reasons set out earlier, I believe that A.’s need for stability is better served by allowing her to go with her mother than it would be in having her stay with her father. (

e) The ability of each person who is a guardian to exercise his or her responsibilities [ 69 ] For the most part both parents have shown that they are capable of exercising their responsibilities as a parent. However, at times Mr. M.J.S. has let his dispute with Ms. G.H. interfere with his ability to look after A.’s needs. At times, Mr. M.J.S. has put A. in the middle of his dispute with Ms. G.H. At other times, he has refused his scheduled time with A. out of frustration or anger with Ms. G.H. [ 70 ] In my view, Mr. M.J.S.’s anger toward Ms. G.H. is misplaced.

I did not see any indication in the evidence before me that Ms. G.H. improperly prevented Mr. M.J.S. from spending time with A. She gradually agreed to more parenting time for Mr. M.J.S. as A. became more comfortable with spending more time with her father, and as he made himself more available to spend time with A. [ 71 ] Mr. M.J.S. did not agree with the pace of the gradual transition to increased parenting time imposed by Ms. G.H. He became focused on the principle of equal parenting time for each parent.

His focus on this principle blinded him to the reality that A. was used to spending more time with her mother than with her father. His focus on the principle made him take personal offence to the fact that Ms. G.H. was not giving him equal time with his daughter. He was also offended by Ms. G.H.’s insistence on a no-contact order with him. The personal slights Mr. M.J.S. felt led to his anger and blame toward Ms. G.H. It interfered with his ability to spend time with his daughter. [ 72 ] Mr. M.J.S.’s blame of Ms. G.H. was unfounded. This was demonstrated repeatedly at trial. For example, Mr. M.J.S. blamed Ms.

G.H. for failing to notify him that A. had a hernia and needed to have surgery. Ms. G.H. testified that she did not notify Mr. M.J.S. about the hernia until it was diagnosed by a doctor because Mr. M.J.S. had accused her of being anxious in the past. It was clear from the evidence that Mr. M.J.S. was told about the hernia at least as early as September 8, 2016 and that Ms. G.H. had told the doctors to provide information to Mr. M.J.S. The only reason Mr. M.J.S. did not know more about the hernia and the operation was because he had failed to follow-up with the doctors on his own.

Five weeks after being notified of the hernia Mr. M.J.S. sent a letter to A.’s doctor complaining of not having been notified of the proposed surgery. But he had ample opportunity before that to consult with the doctor. A.’s surgery did not take place until March of 2017. [ 73 ] In another instance, Mr. M.J.S. blamed Ms. G.H. for refusing to give him make-up parenting time when he could not see A. over the 2017 Easter weekend. It was clear in cross-examination that Mr. M.J.S. was mistaken about this. Ms. G.H. had given him make-up

parenting time to cover for this period. [ 74 ] Mr. M.J.S. blamed Ms. G.H. and A.’s preschool because he said they failed to notify him about a party at the preschool and he had to learn about it from A. In cross-examination it became clear that Ms. G.H. had notified Mr. M.J.S. about the party well in advance of the date. (

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

g) 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 [ 75 ] Ms. G.H. alleges that Mr. M.J.S. has engaged in family violence which impacts on A.’s emotional well-being. She testified about several incidents in which she alleges Mr. M.J.S. engaged in physical or emotional abuse, at times involving A. Mr. M.J.S. acknowledges that he has not always acted properly since the parties separated. But he argues that his behaviour does not constitute family violence. [ 76 ] Family violence is defined in

section 1 of the Act as follows: (

a) physical abuse of a family member, including forced confinement or deprivation of the necessities of life, but not including the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or others from harm, (

b) sexual abuse of a family member, (

c) attempts to physically or sexually abuse a family member, (

d) psychological or emotional abuse of a family member, including: (

i) intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats, including threats respecting other persons, pets or property, (ii) unreasonable restrictions on, or prevention of, a family member's financial or personal autonomy, (iii) stalking or following of the family member, and (iv) intentional damage to property, and (

e) in the case of a child, direct or indirect exposure to family violence; [ 77 ] Ms. G.H. testified that, when she told Mr. M.J.S. the marriage was over in May of 2015, Mr. M.J.S. became enraged. She said Mr. M.J.S. pushed her on the couch and would not let her get up. She said he “kept slamming me on the couch” when she tried to get up. Mr. M.J.S. then smashed a number of items, including plates and her iPhone, and threw items around the kitchen. Ms. G.H. testified that she was scared and shocked by Mr. M.J.S.’s conduct. [ 78 ] Mr. M.J.S.’s version of this incident was much different.

He testified that he was “cool as a cucumber” when Ms. G.H. told him the marriage was over. He said he decided to show anger by throwing items around and bashing the iPhone because Ms. G.H. had accused him in the past of being emotionally unavailable. He said this was a calculated demonstration of emotion. He denied pushing Ms. G.H. on the couch or preventing her from leaving. He said he used a judo move to grab her by the wrists and put her on the couch. Mr. M.J.S. testified that he felt extreme remorse after the incident and apologized to Ms. G.H. in an email the next day. [ 79 ] I prefer Ms.

G.H.’s evidence about this incident. Mr. M.J.S.’s evidence about the altercation was not credible. It was inconsistent with Ms. G.H.’s evidence, inconsistent with his email the next day, and internally inconsistent in his direct evidence and cross-examination. [ 80 ] In his email to Ms. G.H. the day after the incident, Mr. M.J.S. wrote: I sincerely apologize for breaking your phone, throwing things around, and losing my temper last night and most of all I regret preventing you from leaving while I lost control of my feelings. [ 81 ] Despite knowing that this email had been filed in evidence, Mr.

M.J.S. testified that he was initially “cool as a cucumber”. In cross-examination, he denied losing his temper. He denied preventing Ms. G.H. from leaving. When the contents of the email were put to Mr. M.J.S., he blamed his inconsistencies on the context of the questions. The questions to Mr. M.J.S. were clear. His answers were not; they were misleading and dishonest. [ 82 ] I am satisfied Mr. M.J.S.’s conduct in this incident constituted family violence. [ 83 ] Ms. G.H. testified that Mr.

M.J.S. was also physically aggressive with her in July of 2015 when she said he pushed the stroller into her as she was trying to kiss A. goodbye at an exchange. She said he then grabbed her arm to pull her from the stroller, leaving a red mark on her arm. [ 84 ] Mr. M.J.S. denied pushing the stroller into Ms. G.H. He said Ms. G.H. came running up behind him and went to grab A. while he was pushing the stroller across the parking lot. He said he grabbed Ms. G.H.’s wrist to prevent her from taking A. [ 85 ] It was not clear to me from the evidence whether Mr. M.J.S. was intentionally physical with Ms.

G.H. during this incident or whether it was part of a struggle between them. What was clear from this incident was that there was conflict between the parties, and Mr. M.J.S. was not able to control his anger toward Ms. G.H. Unfortunately A. was caught in the middle.

[ 86 ] Mr. M.J.S. has had great difficulty since the separation managing his anger toward Ms. G.H. He ripped a photograph of himself and Ms. G.H. in two and placed it on the refrigerator. He said he did this for Ms. G.H. to see, and knew A. would also see it. [ 87 ] A.’s emotional well-being and stability is jeopardized when Mr. M.J.S. demonstrates his anger toward Ms. G.H. in A.’s presence. A clear example of this is seen in the recording of the message left on Ms. G.H.’s answering machine, as described earlier. In this instance, I believe Mr. M.J.S. manipulated A.’s emotions to hurt Ms. G.H.

That is a form of emotional abuse of A. and Ms. G.H. [ 88 ] Mr. M.J.S. has a history of sending confrontational emails venting his frustrations. Some were to Ms. G.H. before the no- contact order was in place (for example on March 4, 2016). Others went to Ms. S.T., for the benefit of Ms. G.H., after the no-contact order was in place, (for example September 8, 2016). Other email messages sent by Mr. M.J.S. were manipulative (for example July 25, 2016). These emails are riddled with blame toward Ms. G.H. [ 89 ] Mr. M.J.S.’s anger to Ms. G.H.’s does not seem to have abated in the two years since the separation. Ms.

G.H. testified that she offered Mr. M.J.S. to have A. on Father’s Day this year because the current court order did not allow for this. Mr. M.J.S. said he would get back to her but did not. When Ms. G.H. still had not heard from Mr. M.J.S., she had A. prepare two pieces of art for her father. She dropped this off at Mr. M.J.S.’s residence with a six-pack of beer she knew he liked. She followed up this gesture with an email to Mr. M.J.S. [ 90 ] Mr. M.J.S. responded with a condescending and emotional email to Ms. G.H. suggesting that Ms. G.H. was trying to set him up to gain an advantage in court.

I do not agree with Ms. G.H.’s description of the email as aggressive. Mr. M.J.S. appeared to be trying to explain the “ethical” position about his “surrender”. Mr. M.J.S.’s comments in the email are, however, manipulative. His suggestion that Ms. G.H. was placing him in a position similar to that in “Sophie’s Choice” seem to be designed to try to make Ms. G.H. feel guilty. Mr. M.J.S. was clearly not thinking straight. His defensiveness ruined what I took to be a good faith gesture on Ms. G.H.’s part. [ 91 ] Mr.

M.J.S. explains his conduct and his emails as coming from a feeling of frustration from what he believes is a pattern of Ms. G.H. preventing him from seeing A. He says he would not act this way if he was treated as an equal parent by Ms. G.H. and respected for his contribution to A.’s life. [ 92 ] I understand Mr. M.J.S.’s feelings of frustration after his marriage ended. But it did not appear to me that this was Ms. G.H.’s fault. Mr. M.J.S.’s frustration appeared to me to come from his lack of control over parts of his life, including when he could spend time with A., and when he could communicate with Ms. G.H.

At times, Mr. M.J.S. did his best to co-operate and work with Ms. G.H. But at other times he lashed out, and made things more difficult for Ms. G.H. and A. [ 93 ] I do not believe Mr. M.J.S.’s emails constitute family violence, but they indicate his tendency to lash out and/or manipulate when angry, without proper reflection of the consequences. [ 94 ] In assessing family violence, I am guided by

section 38 of the Act : 38 For the purposes of section 37 (2) (

g) and (h), a court must consider all of the following: (

a) the nature and seriousness of the family violence; (

b) how recently the family violence occurred; (

c) the frequency of the family violence; (

d) whether any psychological or emotional abuse constitutes, or is evidence of, a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour directed at a family member; (

e) whether the family violence was directed toward the child; (

f) whether the child was exposed to family violence that was not directed toward the child; (

g) the harm to the child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being as a result of the family violence; (

h) any steps the person responsible for the family violence has taken to prevent further family violence from occurring; (

i) any other relevant matter. [ 95 ] I consider the incidents of May 2015 (when the parties separated) and March 2016 (the telephone call with A.) to constitute family violence. They impacted the safety and security of Ms. G.H. I expect A.’s security and well-being were also impacted from the phone call, but not in the long term. These incidents were isolated and earlier in the separation when emotions were higher. I do not believe there is any real risk of family violence being repeated in the future. [ 96 ] Mr. M.J.S.’s emails show Mr. M.J.S.’s anger, and suggest a pattern of Mr. M.J.S. trying to control Ms.

G.H. A. was not involved directly in these emails, but likely sensed the conflict between her parents. It is not clear whether Mr. M.J.S.’s anger will continue. I am hopeful that he has gained a better insight into the effect of his behaviour on Ms. G.H. and A. through these proceedings, and will learn to better control his anger and frustration. (

h) 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 [ 97 ] Any separation of parents of a young child is difficult and fraught with emotion. Ms. G.H. and Mr. M.J.S. have experienced that for the past two years. They have been able to cooperate on some matters, but not on other matters, and have had to resort to the

courts. Although Mr. M.J.S. has been difficult at times, at other times he has made efforts to co-operate and resolve the conflict. [ 98 ] Ms. G.H.’s move to Norway for two years will require greater cooperation, whether A. moves with her mother or not. It is not clear to me how Mr. M.J.S. will behave in the future. He has assured the court he will cooperate fully if A. stays in Gibsons and lives with him. I am hopeful that he will also cooperate when A. moves with her mother to Norway and returns to Gibsons to stay with him. I am also hopeful that Mr.

M.J.S. will be more measured in the contents of his communications with Ms. G.H. in the future. He must understand that A. benefits from parents that are able to work together on ensuring the well-being of their child. Conclusion on Best Interests of the Children [ 99 ] When I take all of the foregoing factors into account, I find that it is in A.’s best interests to allow Ms. G.H. to take A. with her when she moves to Norway for two years. Ms. G.H. is permitted to relocate with A. to Oslo, Norway for the school years commencing August 29, 2017 and continuing until June 29, 2019. Ms.

G.H. will return with A. for the summers in this time period. [ 100 ] On A.’s return from Oslo, she will reside in Gibsons, British Columbia unless otherwise agreed to by her parents. Issue 2: Parenting Time [ 101 ] Having decided that Ms. G.H. will be permitted to take A. with her when she moves to Norway, I must go on to determining what

schedule of parenting time with her father would be in A.’s best interests. I start by recognizing that A. benefits from time spent with both parents. Both parents want to maximize their time with A. Each parent provides different benefits to her healthy development. [ 102 ] I am mindful of the fact that Mr. M.J.S. has consistently sought additional parenting time with A. since the parties separated. But, I must also recognize that Mr. M.J.S. has cancelled or refused some of the parenting time that was scheduled for him or offered to him by Ms. G.H. Christmas 2015 [ 103 ] Mr.

M.J.S. cancelled his parenting time with A. over Christmas of 2015. His explanation for this was inconsistent. He said that he and Ms. G.H. had agreed that he would have A. for the Christmas season. He said he planned to go to Saskatoon with A. to see his family and her cousins. When Ms. G.H. learned that he planned to drive to Saskatoon, she told him he should fly instead. Mr. M.J.S. testified that, by the time he learned that Ms. G.H. wanted him to fly instead, the ticket prices for flights were too expensive because it was 10-15 days before Christmas. This was an exaggeration. In cross-examination, Mr.

M.J.S. agreed that his email responding to Ms. G.H.’s concerns was on November 27, 2017. He agreed he would have learned about Ms. G.H.’s concerns before this, which was well before Christmas. [ 104 ] Mr. M.J.S. claimed that he cancelled his Christmas with A. that year because she would have to stay with him on the sail boat in the rain, which would be miserable. He agreed in cross-examination that he stayed at the family home for part of this time to do renovations. He agreed A. could have stayed with him there.

He also agreed that his family had offered to pay for the airfare, but said he was too proud to accept the offer. [ 105 ] Mr. M.J.S. acknowledged at trial that there was nothing unreasonable about Ms. G.H.’s expectation that he fly rather than drive. It appeared to me from the emails exchanged between Mr. M.J.S. and Ms. G.H. that Mr. M.J.S. refused his parenting time with A. as a protest, and to make Ms. G.H. feel guilty for insisting that he fly to Saskatoon. April 21-25, 2016 & May 15-21, 2016 [ 106 ] Mr. M.J.S. complained at trial that he went five weeks without being able to see A.

He said he was not able to see her until he went back to court to plead for more parenting time. This was a misrepresentation of what happened. Ms. G.H. filed calendars at trial setting out the parenting time

schedule from 2015 to 2017. Mr. M.J.S.’s claim that he disagreed with these records was disingenuous. Mr. M.J.S. claimed to have his own records, but did not file them at trial. He had two months between Ms. G.H.’s testimony and his own. This was ample time to gather evidence to oppose Ms. G.H.’s evidence. [ 107 ] The real reason Mr. M.J.S. missed some time with A. in this time period was by choice. Mr. M.J.S. refused his parenting time because he was protesting the no-contact order and the fact that exchanges had to occur at the residence of a third party. Mr.

M.J.S. objected to what he described as being treated as dangerous. Unfortunately, rather than demonstrate that he could be calm and civil with Ms. G.H. such that the no-contact order was unnecessary, he chose to be difficult and defiant, and not spend his allotted time with A. February 8-14, 2017 [ 108 ] In January of 2017 the parenting

schedule that had been agreed to by the parties expired. Ms. G.H., through her lawyer, took the position that, since there was no court order, under

section 48 of the Family Law Act , the

schedule should revert to the informal parenting arrangements that had been in place before the interim orders for specified parenting time. She said those arrangements had effectively given Mr. M.J.S. parenting time on alternating weekends. She offered to have this continue and agreed to extend those weekends to five days. [ 109 ] Mr. M.J.S. disagreed with this proposal. In protest, he refused to pick up A. for her time with him from February 8 to 14, 2017. Mr. M.J.S. explained his protest in a lengthy email.

He complained that the parties had not negotiated any schedule, and that he had no idea when he would see A. again. This was not true. In reality, Mr. M.J.S. knew that Ms. G.H. was offering him five days every second weekend. He just did not agree with this offer. In the email, he threatened physically removing A. from preschool. He said this was “a last resort”, would be “immature”, and “would not benefit A. nor would it teach her a thing about how parents should behave”. He suggested, however, that the option of being alienated from A. may be worse.

The end result was that A. did not see her father for these five days in February because he refused to take the time offered by Ms. G.H.

[ 110 ] In each of the instances mentioned above, A. lost time with her father so that Mr. M.J.S. could make a point to Ms. G.H. Mr. M.J.S. placed A. in the middle of his dispute with Ms. G.H., to A.’s detriment. Mr. M.J.S. attempted to justify this behaviour at trial “on principle”. He suggested that A. losing five days in February may lead to her gaining more time with her father in the future. [ 111 ] I did not understand Mr. M.J.S.’s logic in this regard. It did not make sense to me that his refusal to spend time with A. would send the message that Mr. M.J.S. deserved to be given more time with A. Mr.

M.J.S. did this repeatedly to make a point. The only point he made, in my view, is that he refused parenting time because he did not get what he wanted. This was not in A.’s best interests. It was intentional manipulation and game-playing by Mr. M.J.S. February 27 to March 2, 2017 [ 112 ] Unfortunately for A., Mr. M.J.S. continued to manipulate matters. Mr. M.J.S. had parenting time with A. from February 22-27, 2017. On February 27, he did not take A. to preschool. Ms. G.H. was to pick up A. from preschool that day. Mr. M.J.S. did not notify the preschool or Ms. G.H.

He continued to withhold A. from preschool for the next few days, without communicating with Ms. G.H. or the preschool. Ms. G.H. was forced to make an ex-parte application in court to have Mr. M.J.S. return A. to her care. It seems Mr. M.J.S. had decided to resort to the action he had described in his email a few weeks before as “immature” and not to A.’s benefit. [ 113 ] Mr. M.J.S. testified that he intentionally kept A. from her mother to provoke Ms. G.H. to bring an application in court. He gave two reasons for forcing this reaction from Ms. G.H. First, he did this out of protest to Ms.

G.H. unilaterally setting the schedule, without his consent. He said he wanted to “put the shoe on the other foot” and force Ms. G.H. to bring a court application so a better

schedule could be arranged for his parenting time. [ 114 ] Secondly, Mr. M.J.S. testified that he did not return A. to preschool or to her mother to ensure that he got a court order allowing him to be present at A.’s hernia surgery. Mr. M.J.S. said that he had no assurance that he would be able to attend A.’s hernia operation in March, because it was to be held during Ms. G.H.’s parenting time. He knew if he withheld A. from her mother, her mother would have to go to court to have A. returned. Then, he could ensure that he got Ms. G.H.’s attention regarding his presence at the surgery. Mr.

M.J.S. did not provide any evidence of any other attempts he had made to ensure he could be present for A.’s surgery. [ 115 ] When being questioned on this incident in court, Mr. M.J.S. was defiant and self-satisfied. He did not recognize for a moment the impact his behaviour may have had on A. He did not recognize that, by keeping A. from her mother, and keeping her out of preschool, he was placing A. in the middle of his dispute with Ms. G.H. He did not recognize that, if he had concerns with the parenting

schedule or his ability to attend surgery, he should have filed an application in court. Instead, he manipulated events to provoke Ms. G.H. to bring an application in court. Mr. M.J.S. showed poor judgment and a focus on gamesmanship as opposed to what was in A.’s best interests. [ 116 ] When I take Mr. M.J.S.’s conduct into account, and the factors I previously assessed addressing A.’s best interests, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to order equally shared parenting time for Mr. M.J.S., while A. is living in Norway, or after she returns to Gibson’s. If Mr.

M.J.S. is able to get past his anger toward Ms. G.H. and focus on A.’s needs, it may be in A.’s best interest to have equal time with both parents as she gets older. But that has yet to be demonstrated. [ 117 ] I make the following orders for Mr. M.J.S.’s parenting time with A.: (

a) While A. is living in Norway: 2017 September 25 at 7:00 p.m. to October 5 at 9:00 a.m. December 17 at 7:00 p.m. to January 7, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. 2018 February 18 at 7:00 p.m. to March 2 at 9:00 a.m. During A.’s summer in Gibsons : June 23 at 7:00 p.m. to July 6 at 7:00 p.m. July 15 at 7:00 p.m. to August 6 at 7:00 p.m. August 13 at 7:00 p.m. to August 20 at 9:00 a.m. September 25 at 7 p.m. to October 5 at 9:00 a.m. December 15 at 7:00 p.m. to January 6, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. 2019 February 18 at 7:00 p.m. to March 2 at 9:00 a.m. During summer after A. returns to living in Gibsons : June 29 at 7:00 p.m. to July 19 at 7:00 p.m. July 28 at 7:00 p.m. to August 13 at 7:00 p.m.

August 24 at 7:00 p.m. to September 2 at 7:00 p.m. [ 118 ] Ms. G.H. will arrange for A. to travel from Oslo to Gibsons for Mr. M.J.S.’s parenting time. Ms. G.H. will bear the cost for travel for the return trips at Christmas in 2017 and 2018, and in the summer of 2018 and 2019. The parties will share the remaining travel costs equally, including A.’s costs and the costs of a travelling companion. [ 119 ] Mr. M.J.S. will have additional parenting time with A. for an extended Easter break from March 28 at 7:00 a.m. to April 13 at 9:00 a.m. of 2018 and 2019, if he travels to Oslo.

He may have additional parenting time, if agreed to by Ms. G.H. and if he travels to Oslo to pick up and drop off A. Mr. M.J.S. will be responsible for the cost of these trips. (

b) After A. Returns from Norway: [ 120 ] I have already ordered parenting time for the summer that A. returns with her mother from Norway. Ms. G.H. asks that the parenting

schedule thereafter revert to alternating five day weekends for Mr. M.J.S. and one additional day per month. By September of 2019, A. will be seven years old. She will be used to spending longer stretches of time with her father due to the summer parenting schedule. I believe it would be in her best interests for her father to spend more time with her than has been suggested by Ms. G.H. I say this with the expectation that Mr. M.J.S. will have moved past his anger and frustration with Ms. G.H. and will be more cooperative with Ms. G.H. in ensuring A.’s well-being. If, instead, Mr.

M.J.S. continues to be difficult, and A. is caught in the middle, his parenting time may need to be reduced to protect A.’s best interests. [ 121 ] Commencing September 2, 2019, the parenting

schedule will return to the

schedule set out in Judge Malfair’s Order of March 2, 2017. Both parents testified that A. was doing well on that schedule. It should continue unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. [ 122 ] With respect to special dates and holidays after September 2, 2019, the parties will share parenting time with A. as follows:

a) Christmas break and Spring break will be split equally between the parents. If one parent wishes to take a special trip with A. over a longer period of time during the break, they will negotiate with the other parent on a case-by-case basis;

b) The parents will have alternating Easters with A.;

c) Each parent will have two continuous weeks of parenting time with A. in the summer. In odd-numbered years, Mr. M.J.S. will have first choice of his preferred dates, and in even numbered years Ms. G.H. will have first choice of her preferred dates. The parent with the first choice will provide his or her dates no later than the last day of school. The other parent will provide his or her dates within a week of receiving those dates.

d) A. will spend Mother’s Day with her mother, and Father’s Day with her father, from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

e) Each parent will have time with A. on her birthday. [ 123 ] Finally, Mr. M.J.S. will have a two week period of parenting time with A. in August this year before Ms. G.H. travels with A. to Norway. That two week period is to be at a time agreed to by Ms. G.H., taking into account A.’s travel to Norway. Issue 3: Parenting Responsibilities [ 124 ] The parties will share parental responsibilities for A. Because of the ongoing conflict, one parent should have final say if they are unable to agree on matters. That parent should be Ms. G.H. She has taken primary responsibility for A.’s care since birth.

She has proven to be the more reasonable parent in times of conflict. [ 125 ] Ms. G.H. and Mr. M.J.S. must discuss significant matters concerning A. in a reasonable manner. If they are unable to agree, they are to seek the assistance of a mutually agreed-upon third party such as a Family Justice Counsellor or professional mediator. If they are still unable to agree on a significant matter, Ms. G.H. has the final decision-making authority. Mr. M.J.S. is at liberty to apply to the court for a review if he believes the decision is not in A.’s best interests. Issue 4: Child Support [ 126 ] Mr.

M.J.S. has a guideline income of $73,795. He must pay child support to Ms. G.H. of $691 per month commencing July 1, 2017 and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter until June 30, 2019. [ 127 ] After June 30, 2019, Mr. M.J.S. will have parenting time with A. at least 40% of the time. The parties will pay child support on a set-off basis in accordance with

section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines . [ 128 ] The parties will exchange copies of their filed Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment by June 30 th of each year. Child support will be adjusted, if necessary, as of July 1 of each year. Issue 5: Retroactive Child Support [ 129 ] Ms. G.H. claims that Mr. M.J.S. did not pay her child support from the time of separation in May of 2015 up to May of 2016 when it was ordered by the Court. Mr. M.J.S. testified that he, effectively, paid child support when he gave Ms. G.H. access to a joint bank account to cover their expenses.

He did not provide any further evidence of having paid child support in the first year of separation. The parties disagreed about who paid for property taxes and other expenses since the parties separated. [ 130 ] Counsel for Mr. M.J.S. did not address the issue of retroactive child support in her closing submissions. When I take into account the dearth of evidence from Mr. M.J.S. regarding child support, and the concerns I have mentioned with his credibility at times, I prefer Ms. G.H.’s evidence that she was not paid child support from June of 2015 to May of 2016.

[ 131 ] Mr. M.J.S. must pay retroactive child support to Ms. G.H. of $6,910 ($3,690 for 2015 + $3,220 for 2016). Mr. M.J.S. must pay at least $400 per month commencing September 1, 2017 and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter until the balance is paid off. Consent Orders [ 132 ] I make the following orders with the consent of the parties:

a) The parties will pay their respective proportionate share of A.’s

section 7 special and extraordinary expenses;

b) A. will attend [omitted for publication] school commencing September of 2019, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties;

c) Paragraph 1 of the March 2, 2017 Order of Judge Malfair is cancelled;

d) A. is permitted to travel with either Ms. G.H. or Mr. M.J.S. anywhere in Canada, the European Union, Great Britain, Norway, Switzerland, the United States, Mexico, India, Peru, or Guatemala without the need to obtain the written or verbal consent of the other parent;

e) At least three weeks prior to the anticipated travel dates, or by mutual consent, the parties will exchange information respecting the trip, including a copy of any plane tickets, or details of travel plans not involving air travel, dates of the trip, details of where A. will be staying, as well as contact information and a plan for communication with the other parent during the trip;

f) The travelling party will ensure A. has proper identification documents and/or her passport, proper immunization for the destination country, and sufficient medical insurance for any trip with that party;

g) The parties are not required to advise the other of any travel with A. within the province of British Columbia;

h) When A. is in Canada, her pick up and drop off will occur at each parent’s residence or her school, or as otherwise agreed to in writing. The party whose parenting time is ending will drop A. off to the other parent. Should either parent choose to use a third party to carry out the exchange, that parent will advise the other parent of that intention, but do not require the other parent’s permission;

i) The parents will cooperate in designing a

schedule for regular Skype, telephone, or other electronic communication between A. and her parents and extended family on both sides. [ 133 ] The orders I have made in these reasons may be varied at any time with the written consent of the parents. The Honourable Judge B. Craig Provincial Court of British Columbia