L.C.M.B. v. T.W.B., 2022 BCPC 28

Citation: L.C.M.B. v. T.W.B. 2022 BCPC 28 Date: 20220217 File No: 17402 Registry: [omitted for publication] IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: T.W.B. APPLICANT AND: L.C.M.G. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.T. DOULIS Appearing on their own behalf: T.W.B. Appearing on their own behalf: L.C.M.G. Place of Hearing: [omitted for publication] , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 31, 2022 Date of Judgment: February 17, 2022

Introduction [ 1 ] L.C.M.G. is before the court seeking a protection order against T.W.B., the father of her second daughter, A.G.G. She claims he has a history of family violence against her which includes assaults, stalking, and harassment. She says this criminal conduct, which manifested years ago, has recently re-emerged and she fears for her safety and that of her two daughters.

L.C.M.G. seeks an order prohibiting T.W.B. from being able to attend at, enter, or be found at any place which she or her daughters live, work, go to school, or attend day care. [ 2 ] T.W.B. denies L.C.M.G.’s allegations of family violence, past and present. He characterizes L.C.M.G.’s application as the latest stratagem in her campaign to frustrate his efforts to have a meaningful parental relationship with their daughter.

He claims L.C.M.G. repeatedly misrepresents to the court that he has been charged with or convicted of criminal offences against her or that he is in breach of some non-existent protection order, none of which is true. T.W.B. points out that L.C.M.G.’s originating application states she wants him to pay child support and have no contact with A.G.G. Sadly, that is pretty much how events unfolded for T.W.B.

Despite having doggedly pursued a meaningful parenting relationship with A.G.G. for the past three and one-half years, T.W.B. has yet to be appointed her guardian or obtain any parenting responsibilities for her or parenting time with her. T.W.B. says the total contact time he has had with A.G.G. since her birth is less than a week. Issue: [ 3 ] The salient issue before me is whether the Court ought to grant L.C.M.G.’s application for a protection order. Nature of the litigation [ 4 ] L.C.M.G. and T.W.B. are both self-represented.

In the past, L.C.M.G. was represented by various counsel in these proceedings, and most recently by Mr. K. Thomson. Mr. Thomson ceased representing L.C.M.G. in September 2021, and since then she has been self- represented. T.W.B. was assisted by Ms. C. Hauser for about a year or so (CEIS 37, 40), for the most part, he has navigated the family law proceedings as a self-represented litigant. [ 5 ] The parties have attended court over 35 times before ten different judges.

Their court file is voluminous with 98 documents registered in the Court Electronic Information System (“CEIS”) in the [Community 1] Provincial Court Registry under family file F- 17402. T.W.B. made the vast majority of those filings. He says that he has attended the Court Registry over 200 times. Despite the number of pleadings, applications, affidavits, and court appearances, T.W.B.’s parenting time issues with A.G.G. remain largely unresolved. [ 6 ] It is difficult to fairly adjudicate a family matter without knowing the circumstances of the parties and history of their litigation.

This difficulty is exacerbated by: (

a) the lack of transcripts of previous court proceedings; (

b) the absence of written reasons for judgment; (

c) the lack of legal counsel; and (

d) the self-represented litigants’ diametrically opposing versions of the same event. In order to discern why this matter remains unresolved, I have undertaken an extensive file review, including listening to the DARS recording of most court appearances. I have constructed a chronology of events which I have set out below. Background facts and procedural history [ 7 ] The applicant, L.C.M.G., was born [omitted for publication], and is now 34 years old. For the first 25 years of her life, L.C.M.G. lived on Vancouver Island. At the end of 2014, L.C.M.G. moved from Victoria to [Community 1] with her husband, R.W.

L.C.M.G. and R.W. separated in 2015 and divorced in 2016. [ 8 ] L.C.M.G. is the mother of A.G., born [omitted for publication] (“A.G.”), now 11 years old. A.G.’s father is S.E., who resides in Victoria. [ 9 ] T.W.B., was born on [omitted for publication] , and is now 44 years old. T.W.B. resides in [Community 1], BC. [ 10 ] T.W.B. and A.R.F. are the biological parents of J.A.B., born [omitted for publication] 2008, and J.B. born [omitted for publication] 2010. T.W.B. has had parenting time with J.A.B. and J.B. two to four days per week for the past eight years.

T.W.B. and A.R.F. have a supportive and respectful relationship and have co-parented cooperatively for the past 14 years without any court intervention. [ 11 ] L.C.M.G. and T.W.B. began an off and on intimate relationship in [omitted for publication] 2016, which L.C.M.G. describes as “colourful”. They separated permanently in [omitted for publication] 2017, when L.C.M.G. was three or four months pregnant with A.G.G. On October 9, 2019, L.C.M.G. relocated to Vancouver Island where she lived with her father for a year or so.

L.C.M.G. and T.W.B. never cohabitated before or after A.G.G.’s birth. [ 12 ] L.C.M.G. is in a high school graduate with a Class 2 driver’s licence and a Level 3 First Aid certificate. She drives a chip truck for a private company and a school bus. She has repartnered and now lives with her fiancée, S., A.G., and A.G.G.

[ 13 ] On October 4, 2017, T.W.B. filed an Application to Obtain an Order for contact with a child, parenting time and parenting responsibilities (CEIS 1). On that same date he filed a Notice of Motion for an order restraining L.C.M.G. from relocating the child from the jurisdiction (CEIS 2). T.W.B. served these documents on L.C.M.G. at her residence on [omitted for publication] , [Community 1], BC, on October 4, 2017 (CEIS 3). T.W.B.’s Notice of Motion came before Judge Galbraith on October 5, 2017. Only T.W.B. appeared at the hearing of this motion.

Judge Galbraith dismissed the motion for want of jurisdiction as A.G.G. had yet to be born. [ 14 ] A.G.G. was born in [omitted for publication] on [omitted for publication] 2017. At Judge Galbraith’s direction, the Judicial Case Manager (“JCM”) scheduled a Family Case Conference (“FCC”) on December 12, 2017. L.C.M.G. did not appear on that date and Judge Galbraith adjourned the proceedings generally. [ 15 ] L.C.M.G. returned to [Community 1] in September 2018, just shy of A.G.G.’s first birthday.

L.C.M.G. and T.W.B. have been embroiled in family law litigation ever since. [ 16 ] On November 13, 2018, L.C.M.G. filed an Application to Obtain an Order (CEIS 5), seeking child support and a protection order. In her application, L.C.M.G. states: Child lives with mother 100%.

No contact with father. [ 17 ] In her originating application L.C.M.G. states she sought a protection order for “the continuation of the existing RCMP request for no contact.” [ 18 ] On December 7, 2018, T.W.B. filed a Reply and Counterclaim (CEIS 7) in which he opposes L.C.M.G.’s application for child support and a protection order, and counterclaims for guardianship, parenting time, contact with the child, allocation of parenting responsibilities, and paternity testing. [ 19 ] The parties reciprocating applications (CEIS 5, 7) came before Judge Docolas on January 23, 2019 (CEIS 8).

On that date the Court ordered a DNA test to prove parentage (CEIS 10). Ultimately the DNA test established that T.W.B. was A.G.G.’s biological father. [ 20 ] The parties attended court on February 27, 2019, March 13, 2019, and April 10, 2019. This matter was adjourned on all three occasions. On April 23, 2019, the parties appeared self-represented before Judge Galbraith for a FCC. No issues were resolved and Judge Galbraith referred the matter to the JCM to

schedule a three-day trial (CEIS 11). [ 21 ] On April 23, 2019, L.C.M.G. filed a Notice of Motion (CEIS 13) unsupported by affidavit, which she had personally served on T.W.B. on April 30, 2019 (CEIS 14, 15). Although she did not specify the relief sought, I gather it was for interim child support. This Notice of Motion came before Judge Brecknell on May 15, 2019. Both parties were represented by duty counsel.

Judge Brecknell made an interim, without prejudice consent order (CEIS 18) stating: Without making a determination concerning T.W.B.’s income, he will pay to L.C.M.G. the sum of $500 per month commencing June 1, 2019, and to continue on the 1 st day of each month thereafter until further order of the court. [ 22 ] On May 3, 2019, the JCM set down the matter for trial on the family assize scheduled for August 19 to 21, 2019, with a Trial Preparation Conference (“TPC”) on July 10, 2019 (CEIS 16, 17). On July 10, 2019, this matter came before Judge Galbraith for the TPC.

T.W.B. was self-represented and L.C.M.G. was represented by duty counsel. Judge Galbraith ordered: T.W.B. will complete, file with the Registry of this Court, and deliver to L.C.M.G. a sworn Financial Statement in Form 4 of the Provincial Court (Family) Rules , including all attachments listed on page 2 of that Form by July 24, 2019. [ 23 ] T.W.B. filed his Financial Statement on July 10, 2021 (CEIS 19), without attachments. [ 24 ] On July 10, 2021, Judge Galbraith granted L.C.M.G.’s oral application to adjourn the August 19, 20, and 21, 2019 trial dates in order to obtain legal counsel.

On July 15, 2019, the JCM rescheduled the trial to proceed on the family assize on September 30, October 1, 2, and 3, 2019, with a TPC on August 28, 2019 (CEIS 20). [ 25 ] On August 26, 2019, T.W.B. filed an updated Financial Statement with attachments (CEIS 21). On August 28, 2019, the matter came from Judge Whonnock for the TPC. T.W.B. attended self-represented and L.C.M.G. was represented by duty counsel. At that time, Judge Whonnock ordered the parties to exchange documents, witness lists, and will say statements by September 9, 2019, at 4:30 pm. [ 26 ] On or about September 5, 2019, Mr.

Thomson became L.C.M.G.’s counsel of record and filed a Change of Address indicating his law office as L.C.M.G.’s new address for service (CEIS 22). [ 27 ] On September 30, 2019, T.W.B. filed his third updated financial statement with attachments (CEIS 23). The September 30, October 1, 2, and 3, 2019 Trial (the “2019 Trial”) [ 28 ] The parties’ reciprocating applications (CEIS 5, 7 and 13) went to trial before Judge Galbraith on September 30, October 1, 2, and 3, 2019. T.W.B. attended self-represented and L.C.M.G. appeared in person and represented by Mr. Thomson.

Both parties called witnesses and made submissions. On October 3, 2019, Judge Galbraith made orders with respect to L.C.M.G.’s application for a protection order and child support, and T.W.B.’s application for contact with A.G.G. L.C.M.G.’s November 13, 2019 Application for a Protection Order (“POA 1”) [ 29 ] Judge Galbraith made a final order dismissing L.C.M.G.’s application for a protection order. In his oral reasons for judgment, Judge Galbraith stated that all L.C.M.G.’s allegations supporting the protection order dated to the time shortly after L.C.M.G. and T.W.B. separated.

L.C.M.G. claimed at that time (2016-2017) T.W.B. was stalking her - driving past her home and place of work

numerous times. T.W.B. denied these allegations. Since the alleged incidents, L.C.M.G. moved to Vancouver Island and T.W.B. spoke to the RCMP. Judge Galbraith found that after he spoke to the RCMP, other than one phone call made at the time of A.G.G.’s birth, T.W.B. made no further attempts to contact L.C.M.G. L.C.M.G. continued to live on Vancouver Island for about a year and returned to [Community 1] in the fall of 2018 where she currently resides.

At the time of making his order, Judge Galbraith found that although T.W.B. knew where L.C.M.G. lived and worked, the Court had no evidence of any actions by T.W.B. in the past year to justify a protection order. He noted there had been two occasion where the parties had bumped into each other, at a local store or park, and during those incidents, nothing untoward occurred.

Ultimately, Judge Galbraith made a final order denying L.C.M.G.’s November 13, 2019 Application (CEIS 5) for a protection order. [ 30 ] Given the history of L.C.M.G. and T.W.B.’s relationship, Judge Galbraith made a conduct order under s. 225 of the FLA requiring any communication between the parties be in writing, which may include text messages or email. Judge Galbraith said there needed to be communication between the parties because he was going to allow T.W.B. contact with A.G.G.

Judge Galbraith stressed that written communication was protection for both parents so there was no misunderstanding about what was said. L.C.M.G.’s November 13, 2019 application for child support [ 31 ] In 2019, T.W.B. left his previous employment as a truck driver in favour of self-employment as a [omitted for publication] , Judge Galbraith imputed to T.W.B. a Guideline income of $115,991 based on T.W.B.’s 2018 Notice of Assessment (CEIS 23).

Judge Galbraith made an interim order that T.W.B. pay $1,080.13 per month for the support of A.G.G., commencing January 1, 2019, and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter. T.W.B.’s application for guardianship, parenting time, contact with A.G.G. and allocation of parental responsibilities. [ 32 ] On October 3, 2019, at the completion of the trial, Judge Galbraith adjourned T.W.B.’s application for guardianship, parenting responsibility, and parenting time because T.W.B. had not yet filed the requisite affidavits and record checks under s. 51 of the Family Law Act (“FLA”) .

T.W.B. requisitioned the record checks that same day, indicating he was previously unaware of the s. 51 FLA requirements governing guardianship applications. [ 33 ] By the time this matter went to trial in the beginning of October 2019, T.W.B. had yet to meet his daughter A.G.G., who was almost two years old. Judge Galbraith found it in A.G.G.’s best interest to develop a relationship with her father. Judge Galbraith also determined it was not in A.G.G.’s best interest to be alone with T.W.B. at the outset. Accordingly, Judge Galbraith ordered the initial phase of T.W.B. and A.G.G.’s contact be supervised.

Judge Galbraith emphasized that he was not ordering supervision because A.G.G. needed to be protected from T.W.B. or that T.W.B. was in any way a threat to her. He was ordering supervision simply because A.G.G. did not yet know her father. Judge Galbraith held it would ease the transition of the parental relationship if the initial stages of her contact with T.W.B. was in the presence of someone A.G.G. knew and felt comfortable with. If such a person was not available, then T.W.B. could engage a professional supervisor. Judge Galbraith went on to say: I am ordering some degree of specified access at the outset.

I am concerned the parties’ lack of communication over the years may make coming to a mutual agreement about contact difficult. [ 34 ] L.C.M.G.’s legal counsel proposed scheduling a FCC between the transition from supervised to unsupervised access. Judge Galbraith agreed and ordered an FCC on November 19, 2019, which was a date when he was available to review how T.W.B.’s contact time with A.G.G. was progressing. [ 35 ] On October 10, 2019, Mr. Thomson submitted to the Court Registry the order he drafted with respect to Judge Galbraith’s October 3, 2019 decision.

This draft order, which was ultimately signed and entered, did not accurately reflect Judge Galbraith’s oral order. Specifically, the draft imposed a one-way obligation on T.W.B. where Judge Galbraith imposed reciprocating obligations on both parties. Moreover, the draft omitted to state that L.C.M.G.’s application for a protection order was dismissed.

Hence, the order that was ultimately entered stated: Under s. 255 [sic] of the Family Law Act T.W.B. will have no communication with L.C.M.G. except through emails, writing, or text messages. [ 36 ] I alerted Judge Galbraith to this drafting error, and he asked that I amend his October 3, 2019 Order to accord with the court’s record. Accordingly, paragraph. 6 of Judge Galbraith’s October 3, 2019 Order is amended and replaced with the following terms: 6A. L.C.M.G.’s application for a protection order filed November 13, 2018 (CEIS 5) is denied; and 6B.

L.C.M.G. and T.W.B.’s communications will be in writing, which may include text messages or email. [ 37 ] L.C.M.G. registered the October 3, 2019 Order with the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (“FMEP”) (CEIS 30). [ 38 ] On October 3, 2019, T.W.B. requisitioned record checks from the Ministry of Child and Family Development (“MCFD”) (CEIS 24), the Protection Registry (CEIS 25), , and [Community 1] RCMP. On October 7, 2019, the Court Registry received the record checks from: (

a) MCFD (CEIS 27) indicating there were no reports involving T.W.B. that required an assessment or investigation under s. 16(2) of the CFCSA ; and (

b) the Protection Registry (CEIS 28) referencing “Court File 41843-1-Expired” at the [Community 1] Provincial Court Registry (Criminal). On October 16, 2019, the [Community 1] RCMP submitted the results of T.W.B. criminal record check showing:

a. T.W.B. had one Criminal Code conviction for a common assault (contrary to s. 266 ) which occurred in [omitted for publication], BC on [omitted for publication], 1999; and b. T.W.B. was subject to a complaint under RCMP File 2017-[omitted for publication], of harassing communications which resulted in “no charge.” [ 39 ] On January 7, 2020, T.W.B. filed his Affidavit under s. 51 of the FLA in support of his application for guardianship of A.G.G. (CEIS 31). I was unable to locate “File 41843-1” in Provincial Court, be it criminal or civil or administrative.

I understand the entry “2017-34196” references L.C.M.G.’s telephone call to the [Community 1] RCMP requesting that T.W.B. not contact her. [ 40 ] On November 19, 2019, the parties attended at the FCC Judge Galbraith scheduled on October 3, 2019. Judge Galbraith was not available, and the matter came before Judge Whonnock. L.C.M.G. was represented by Mr. Thomson and T.W.B. was self-represented. Judge Whonnock adjourned the FCC to January 14, 2020. On that date the parties appeared before Judge Gray. C.J. provided the Court with a

Summary Report of Supervised Access of T.W.B. and A.G.G. (see: the [omitted for publication]’ report filed with the Court on January 14, 2020). Once more L.C.M.G. was represented by Mr. Thomson and T.W.B. was self-represented. L.C.M.G. opposed T.W.B. having unsupervised parenting time with A.G.G. Judges presiding over FCC’s typically do not make orders on substantive issues except by consent. Hence, despite Judge Galbraith’s intention that T.W.B.’s supervised visits with A.G.G. were to transition into unsupervised visits, this did not occur.

T.W.B. continued to have only supervised contact time with A.G.G., an expense he incurred in addition to child support. [ 41 ] In future court appearances, Mr. Thomson, speaking for L.C.M.G., took the position Judge Galbraith’s October 3, 2019 Order had expired with respect to T.W.B.’s contact with A.G.G. In my view, this misinterprets the October 3, 2019 Order. Judge Galbraith clearly intended that T.W.B. and A.G.G. establish a father-daughter relationship, albeit incrementally. [ 42 ] As the result of the intervening COVID-19 pandemic, this matter did not return to court until December 9, 2020.

At L.C.M.G.’s insistence, T.W.B. continued to have his visits with A.G.G. supervised by C.J., a social worker in the employ K.F.S. (CEIS 42). Sometime in late 2020, L.C.M.G. began working in [Community 2], BC, which is about a three-hour drive from [Community 1] (CEIS 38). Because she still owned her rural property on M. Road in [Community 1], L.C.M.G. returned to [Community 1] every other week to maintain her residence and fix it up for sale.

When she returned to [Community 1], L.C.M.G. brought A.G.G. so she could have supervised visits with T.W.B. [ 43 ] On December 2, 2020, T.W.B. filed a Notice of Motion (CEIS 35) returnable December 9, 2020, seeking a final order. On December 9, 2020, this matter came before Judge Galbraith who directed the JCM

schedule a four-day trial. On or about February 3, 2021, the JCM scheduled the parties’ reciprocating applications filed November 13, 2018 (CEIS 5) and December 7, 2018 (CEIS 7) on the family assize on July 5 - 8, 2021, with a TPC on June 3, 2021 (CEIS 36). [ 44 ] In the spring of 2021, T.W.B. learned that L.C.M.G. was selling her [Community 1] property and relocating to [Community 2], BC. L.C.M.G. told him that once her property sold, she would not be returning to [Community 1] anymore to attend to its upkeep.

L.C.M.G. told T.W.B. he would have to bring his supervisor to [Community 2] if he wanted to continue his visits with A.G.G. For T.W.B., this meant a ten-hour round trip and a $300-expense for his supervisor, who charged $30 per hour. [ 45 ] On March 26, 2021, T.W.B. filed a Notice of Motion seeking an order prohibiting L.C.M.G. from relocating A.G.G. to [Community 2], BC (CEIS 37), and an affidavit in support of that motion (CEIS 38).

On March 31, 2021, T.W.B. filed a further affidavit (CEIS 39) attaching a title search indicating L.C.M.G. sold her property in [Community 1] on or about March 11, 2021. [ 46 ] On April 19, 2021, T.W.B. filed a Notice of Motion (CEIS 41) returnable May 12, 2019, together with a supporting affidavit (CEIS 42) seeking an order for unsupervised visits with A.G.G.

T.W.B. attached to his affidavit a favourable report from C.J., of K.F.S., who had been supervising T.W.B.’s visits with A.G.G. since October 19, 2019. [ 47 ] T.W.B.’s March 26, 2021 and April 19 2021 (CEIS 37, 41) motions came before Judge Stanford for hearing on May 12, 2021, a busy remand day in [Community 1] Provincial Court. T.W.B. appeared self-represented and L.C.M.G. appeared in person and represented by Mr. Thomson. T.W.B. explained to the Court that he had spent $2,477.50 paying a professional supervisor in order to have visits with A.G.G.

Although neither he nor C.J. deemed supervision necessary, L.C.M.G. insisted T.W.B.’s visits need to be supervised by a professional supervisor at his expense. T.W.B. pointed out he has had unsupervised parenting time with his older daughters (J.B. and J.A.B.) for several days each week for years, without incident. [ 48 ] On May 12, 2021, Mr. Thomson represented to Judge Stanford that: a. Judge Galbraith’s October 3, 2019 Order provided T.W.B. with only a limited number of visits with A.G.G. and that order had expired; b. T.W.B. was not A.G.G.’s guardian.

Because the October 3, 2019 Order granting him contact time expired, T.W.B. had no standing in court to seek a variance of that order to include unsupervised visits; c. Because he was not a guardian T.W.B. had no standing to bring an application for an order preventing L.C.M.G. from relocating A.G.G. from the [Community 1] area; d. T.W.B. had not exercised such contact time that L.C.M.G. would permit and made no effort to maintain contact with A.G.G.; and e.

As this matter was scheduled for trial on July 5 to 8, 2021, T.W.B.’s applications should be dealt with at that time. [ 49 ] With respect to T.W.B.’s challenge to A.G.G.’s relocation (CEIS 37), Judge Stanford appeared to agree in principle that because T.W.B. had not yet been appointed A.G.G.’s guardian, he had no legal status to contest L.C.M.G.’s relocation. B ased on Mr. Thomson’s submissions, Judge Stanford advised T.W.B. that he did not have any extant court-ordered contact time that could be varied, but rather an

informal arrangement. As such, T.W.B.’s visits with A.G.G. “were at the grace of L.C.M.G.”. I note however, in his April 19, 2021 motion (CEIS 41), T.W.B. was not requesting a variance per se , but simply unsupervised contact with A.G.G. I assume that ss. 59 and s. 216 or s. 217 of the FLA would permit such an application. In any event, at the conclusion on the May 12, 2021 hearing, Judge Stanford adjourned both T.W.B.’s motions (CEIS 37, 41) to May 26, 2021, for an extended Family Management Conference (“FMC”).

The FMC was set for one hour and the presiding judge had the ability to make orders whether or not the parties consented. Mr. Thomson whole- heartedly agreed a FMC was appropriate. [ 50 ] On May 26, 2021, T.W.B. filed a further affidavit (CEIS 48) in support of his application for unsupervised visits with A.G.G. (CEIS 41). To this affidavit he exhibited C.J.’s report as well as copies of her receipts showing the dates and duration and cost of her supervision. Later that day, T.W.B.’s Notices of Motion filed March 26, 2021 (CEIS 37) and April 19 2021 (CEIS 41) came before Judge R.D. Miller for the one-hour FMC.

T.W.B. appeared in person and self-represented. L.C.M.G. did not attend court, however, Mr. Thomson appeared as her counsel and agent. Mr. Thomson immediately sought an adjournment and submitted to the Court: a. that because he was not a guardian, T.W.B. had no standing to bring either of his two motions then before the court (CEIS 37, 41); b. T.W.B.’s application prohibiting relocation was mute because L.C.M.G. had relocate back to [Community 1]; c. T.W.B. was over $20,000 in arrears in child support; d.

Although L.C.M.G. had relocated to [Community 2] for 8 or 9 months during the winter, she transported A.G.G. back to [Community 1] in order for T.W.B. to have his visits with her; and e. As the trial was scheduled to commence on July 5 – 8, 2021, with a TPC on June 3, 2021, T.W.B.’s motions should be adjourned to those dates. [ 51 ] Mr. Thompson made no mention of the fact that: (

a) L.C.M.G. was returning to [Community 1] each week to maintain her property in any event; (

b) T.W.B.’s visits with A.G.G. in [Community 1] ended when L.C.M.G. sold her property; (

c) L.C.M.G. required T.W.B.’s visits with A.G.G. be supervised by a professional supervisor, at his sole expense; and (

d) after she sold her property in March 2021, L.C.M.G. insisted T.W.B. bring his paid supervisor to [Community 2] to exercise his contact time with A.G.G. [ 52 ] T.W.B. objected to the adjournment request. He said he had filed his application for guardianship over two years ago, and sought an order for contact with A.G.G. pending the conclusion of the trial. Judge Miller determined that given L.C.M.G.’s absence and the impending trial dates, an interim hearing on those issues was not a reasonable use of court time in the circumstances.

Judge Miller adjourned T.W.B.’s application to June 3, 2021, the date of the TPC. Thus, instead of an hour the FMC took less than seven minutes, and much of that time was taken up with Mr. Thomson’s submissions in support of L.C.M.G.’s oral application for an adjournment. [ 53 ] On June 3, 2021, in anticipation of the TPC, T.W.B. filed with the court: a. an affidavit (CEIS 50) attaching: (

i) T.W.B.’s medical records; (ii) photographs from A.G.G.’s visits, her bedroom and his workspace; (iii) a report and receipts from [omitted for publication]; (iv) a character reference letter from Les and Sherry Johnston; and (

v) a letter from T.W.B.’s counsellor, J.M. of H.G.H.; and b. an affidavit attaching his 2020 Income Tax Return (CEIS 51); and c. an updated Financial Statement (CEIS 52) and a Trial Readiness Statement (CEIS 53). [ 54 ] On June 3, 2021, these matters (CEIS 5, 7, 37, 41) came before Judge Mengering for a TPC.

Judge Mengering confirmed the trial dates and ordered: L.C.M.G. shall complete, file with the Registry of this court, and deliver to T.W.B. a sworn Financial Statement in Form 4 of the Provincial Court (Family) Rules , including all attachments set out on page two of Form 4, by June 18, 2021. [ 55 ] On June 10, 2021, the JCM scheduled a second TPC on June 28, 2021 (CEIS 54, 55). [ 56 ] On June 25, 2021, T.W.B. filed an affidavit in support of his application to vary the October 3, 2019 Order with respect to the quantum of child support.

To this affidavit T.W.B. attached his 2020 Notice of Assessment (CEIS 57). [ 57 ] On June 28, 2021, Judge Brecknell presided over a TPC for the July 2021 family assize. T.W.B. appeared self-represented and L.C.M.G. did not attend in person, however, Mr. Thomson appeared as her counsel and agent. The parties reciprocating applications (CEIS 5, 7) were adjourned to July 5, 2021, the first day of trial. On July 5, 2021, Judge Brecknell commenced the assize with a different matter, and adjourned the trial of this matter to July 8, 2021, at 1:00 pm for a TPC. On July 8, 2021, Judge Brecknell adjourned the

matter to the JCM to reschedule the trial. [ 58 ] On July 19, 2021, T.W.B. filed an Application about a Family Matter (CEIS 59) seeking guardianship of and unsupervised contact with A.G.G., who he had not seen since May 2021. In support of that application T.W.B. filed an affidavit attaching a letter and receipts from C.J. of K.F.S. (CEIS 60). T.W.B. also filed an Application for Case Management Order Without Notice of Attendance (CEIS 61). On July 21, 2021, Judge Stanford issued a desk order refusing T.W.B.’s application to proceed without notice to T.W.B., however, allowed him to proceed with short leave.

Judge Stanford ordered that T.W.B. serve L.C.M.G. with the application and a copy of her order (CEIS 62). [ 59 ] On August 5, 2019, L.C.M.G. filed a Reply (CEIS 65) to T.W.B.’s July 19, 2021 Application About a Family Law Matter in which she disagrees with T.W.B.’s July 19, 2021 Application for guardianship of and contact with A.G.G. [ 60 ] In her Reply, L.C.M.G. says that T.W.B. has not been paying court-order child support and goes on to state: I travelled from [Community 2] to [Community 1] every second weekend until February 2021 to facilitate T.W.B. having contact with the child at my expense which includes transportation costs, meals and lodging.

Additionally, I and A.G.G. were spending significant time away from our home every second weekend which included approximately 6 hours of travelling time. In February I advised T.W.B. that future contacts with A.G.G. would have to be in [Community 2] and he would have to be responsible for his costs in contact with A.G.G. [. . .] T.W.B. chose not to bear the costs of having contact with A.G.G. and it was his choice to terminate the contact he had with A.G.G.

I have been doing everything I could to facilitate T.W.B.’s failure to provide support for A.G.G. and his “me” first attitude has been the main obstacle in his having contact with A.G.G. [. . .] T.W.B. has always placed his own self interests before the interests of A.G.G. Additionally, there are issues in respect to family violence. The reason that T.W.B. did not presumptively become a guardian at the time of A.G.G.’s birth was as a result of family violence and my having to flee to prevent further family violence. T.W.B. will not accept that I do not want to have any further relationship with him.

If T.W.B. is granted guardianship, he will use that status to continue to insinuate himself into my life. I have not prevented T.W.B. having contact with A.G.G., in fact, I have been facilitating his contacts with A.G.G. It is my intention to continue to support T.W.B. being involv[ed] in A.G.G.’s life.

However, an order granting T.W.B. guardianship of A.G.G. would only allow T.W.B. to use that status to control my life. [ 61 ] On August 6, 2021, the JCM scheduled a FMC of T.W.B.’s July 19, 2021 Application (CEIS 59) and L.C.M.G.’s August 5, 2021 Reply (CEIS 65) on September 8, 2021 (CEIS 66, 67). [ 62 ] On September 8, 2021, the JCM rescheduled the trial of L.C.M.G.’s November 13, 2018 Application (CEIS 5) and T.W.B.’s December 7, 2018 Application (CEIS 7) on the November 1-4, 2021 family assize (CEIS 70), with a TPC on October 7, 2021 (CEIS 68). [ 63 ] T.W.B.’s July 19, 2021 Application (CEIS 59), and L.C.M.G.’s August 5, 2021 Reply (CEIS 65) came before me for a 30-minute FMC on September 8, 2021, a designated case conference day that included 21 matters.

On that day T.W.B. appeared in person, and L.C.M.G. was present and represented by Mr. Thomson. All participants appeared remotely. T.W.B. was seeking interim contact with A.G.G. pending the completion of the trial, now

schedule for November 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2021, with a TPC on October 7, 2021. Mr. Thomson advised the court that L.C.M.G. had returned to live in [Community 1], but did not say when that occurred. Mr. Thomson reiterated L.C.M.G.’s sacrifice in time and money transporting A.G.G. from [Community 2] to [Community 1] every second weekend to facilitate T.W.B.’s visits with their daughter. Mr. Thomson submitted that in doing so, L.C.M.G.’s costs far exceeded anything T.W.B. was paying in child support. When the burden became prohibitive, L.C.M.G. asked T.W.B. to contribute to the cost and T.W.B. refused.

This is when T.W.B.’s contact with A.G.G. broke off and T.W.B. stopped trying to work something out with L.C.M.G. [ 64 ] T.W.B. advised the Court he had ongoing court-ordered contact with A.G.G. L.C.M.G. refused T.W.B. any visits with A.G.G. unless they were professionally supervised at his expense. When L.C.M.G. moved to [Community 2] in late 2020, T.W.B. was able to continue his supervised visits because L.C.M.G. returned to [Community 1] with A.G.G. every other weekend to look after her property and ready it for sale.

When she sold her property, L.C.M.G. told T.W.B. she would not be returning to [Community 1], and that he would have to bring his supervisor at his own expense to [Community 2] to have visits with A.G.G. [ 65 ] At the FMC L.C.M.G. steadfastly maintained T.W.B.’s contact time with A.G.G. had to be supervised. Mr. Thomson represented to the court the supervision was necessary because of family violence issues. He says T.W.B. was not a guardian because L.C.M.G. was forced to flee [Community 1] before the birth of the child.

I again pause to note that L.C.M.G. and T.W.B. separated in May 2017, when L.C.M.G. was three or four months pregnant. L.C.M.G. relocated to Vancouver Island on October 9, 2017. Given T.W.B. and L.C.M.G. never lived together, T.W.B. would not have been a presumptive guardian under s. 39 of the FLA . [ 66 ] At the FMC, Mr.

Thompson represented that during the 2019 Trial, “the Court found there were definite issues of harassment in respect of L.C.M.G.” L.C.M.G. said the reason for T.W.B.’s supervised visits was due to “a no contact order” between her and T.W.B. [ 67 ] T.W.B. argued that no family violence has ever been proven. He has no criminal charges for family violence or history of MCFD involvement. He pointed out that Judge Galbraith dealt with L.C.M.G.’s allegations in the 2019 Trial and made no finding of family violence. The only conduct order ever made in these proceedings was with respect to written communications.

The only reason for the supervised visits was because at the time of the October 3, 2019 Order, A.G.G. was almost two years old, and T.W.B. had yet to meet

her. Judge Galbraith ordered supervised contact until A.G.G. got to know her father. There was no intention T.W.B.’s visits with A.G.G. be supervised indefinitely or at L.C.M.G.’s discretion. [ 68 ] L.C.M.G. took the intractable position that T.W.B.’s visits with A.G.G. had to be supervised until she decided otherwise, and proposed his contact time be reduced to half of what it had been previously. In the face of such intransigence, compromise was impossible short of T.W.B.’s total capitulation. As the 30 minutes allotted for the FMC had run out, I directed the JCM to

schedule a one and one-half hour interim hearing on T.W.B.’s July 19, 2021 Application (CEIS 59) for interim contact pending trial and L.C.M.G.’s Reply (CEIS 65). On September 8, 2021, the JCM scheduled the hearing for September 24, 2021 (CEIS 71). [ 69 ] On September 24, 2021, T.W.B. and L.C.M.G. appeared self-represented before Judge Thomas for a hearing on T.W.B. July 19, 2021 Application (CEIS 59), and L.C.M.G.’s August 5, 2021 Reply (CEIS 65). As L.C.M.G. was unexpectedly left without legal counsel, Judge Thomas could not proceed with the hearing.

Instead, Judge Thomas engaged the parties in a Family Settlement Conference (“FSC”). At its conclusion, Judge Thomas made the following interim consent order (CEIS 72): Upon the court being advised that the name and birth date of each child is as follows: A.G.G. DOB [omitted for publication] 2017. a. T.W.B. will have supervised visits with A.G.G. for two consecutive Sundays at 11 am for a maximum of four hours commencing Sunday, September 26, 2021; b.

Subsequent to these first two visits T.W.B. will have unsupervised visit with A.G.G. on Sundays commencing at 11 am for a maximum of four hours and any other time as agreed between the parties in writing or until further order of the court; c. T.W.B. will have telephone communication or electronic communicating with the child A.G.G. on Tuesday and Thursday from 6:00 pm to 630 pm or any other time as agreed between the parties; d. The exchange of the child A.G.G. will take place in the presence of a third person and in a public place unless otherwise agreed to in advance in writing by the parties; and e.

The parties will make their best effort to attend mediation. [ 70 ] Judge Thomas directed the JCM to

schedule a further FSC on November 16, 2021, to conduct a review of T.W.B.’s contact time. [ 71 ] On October 6, 2021, T.W.B. requisitioned updated record checks from MCFD (CEIS 75), the Protection Registry (CEIS 74), and [Community 1] RCMP. That same day the Court Registry received the record check results from MCFD (CEIS 76) indicating there were no reports involving T.W.B. that required an assessment or investigation under s.16(2) of the CFCSA. On October 7, 2021, the Court Registry received the record check results from the Protection Registry referencing “Court File 41843-1-Expired” (CEIS 77).

On October 16, 2021, the [Community 1] RCMP submitted the results of T.W.B.’s criminal record check showing the same results as in the October 16, 2019 record check, namely, one Criminal Code conviction for a common assault (contrary to s. 266 ) which occurred in [omitted for publication], BC on [omitted for publication], 1999, and a reference to police file 2017-34196 of harassing communications which resulted in “no charge.” On November 15, 2021, T.W.B. filed an updated Affidavit under s. 51 of the FLA in support of his guardianship application (CEIS 78). [ 72 ] On October 7, 2021, this matter came before Judge Mengering for a TPC.

Judge Mengering granted L.C.M.G.’s application to adjourn the November 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2021, trial dates. At that time Judge Mengering ordered: (

a) Mr. Thomson be removed as L.C.M.G.’s counsel of record; (

b) the trial be rescheduled for four days; and (

c) the FSC scheduled on November 16, 2021, proceed. [ 73 ] On October 27, 2021, the matter came before Judge Galbraith to determine if L.C.M.G. had obtained legal counsel. She had not, and Judge Galbraith adjourned the matter to the November 16, 2021 FSC to afford L.C.M.G. more time to retain legal counsel. [ 74 ] On November 16, 2021, T.W.B. and L.C.M.G. attended self-represented before Judge Brecknell for a FSC. No agreement was reached and no order was made. The matter was referred to the JCM to

schedule a four-day trial and pre-trial conference. [ 75 ] In November 25, 2021, the JCM rescheduled the trial to proceed on January 4, 5, 6, and 7, 2022 family assize, with a TPC on December 15, 2021 (CEIS 79, 80). [ 76 ] On December 15, 2021, the matter (CEIS 5, 7, 59, 65) came before Judge Galbraith for a TPC. Both parties appeared self- represented. At that time Judge Galbraith directed the issues to be heard at trial are: (

a) child support; (

b) guardianship; (

c) parenting responsibilities; and (

d) parenting time. During the TPC, T.W.B. said L.C.M.G. had denied his past four Sunday visits, offering a different excuse each time. Judge Galbraith cautioned L.C.M.G. that absent a good reason to do otherwise, she must comply with September 24, 2021 Order. Judge Galbraith suggested T.W.B. seek legal advice on enforcement. Judge Galbraith advised L.C.M.G. that both the Court Registry and T.W.B. required her address for service and directed her to file a Change of Address. Judge Galbraith adjourned the matter to 2:00 pm on January 4, 2022.

He warned T.W.B. and L.C.M.G. that because he had a continuation of another trial on the January 2022 assize, their trial was unlikely to proceed. [ 77 ] On January 4, 2022, the parties attended Court self-represented by MS Teams. Judge Galbraith adjourned the January 4, 5, 6, and 7, 2022 trial dates as the result of the Office of the Chief Judge cancelling in-person trials for the month of January 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Judge Galbraith directed a FMC on February 23, 2022, with respect to T.W.B.’s Application about Enforcement. [ 78 ] On January 7, 2022, the JCM rescheduled the trial date to the May 2-5, 2022 assize, with a TPC on February 9, 2022 (CEIS 87). The matters proceeding to trial include: (

a) L.C.M.G.’s Application to Obtain an Order filed November 13, 2018 (CEIS 5); (

b) T.W.B.’s Reply with Counterclaim Application filed December 7, 2018 (CEIS 7);

(

c) T.W.B.’s Application about a Family Law Claim (CEIS 59) filed July 19, 2021; (

d) L.C.M.G.’s August 5, 2021 Reply (CEIS 65), and (

e) T.W.B.’s Application About Enforcement (CEIS 82). [ 79 ] On January 24, 2022, L.C.M.G. filed her Application about a Protection Order (CEIS 89) and Judge Thomas refused to permit it to proceed without notice to T.W.B. (CEIS 92). [ 80 ] On January 31, 2022, T.W.B. filed a certificate showing he completed the parenting after separation course (CEIS 94) and an affidavit in support of his application for unsupervised parenting time with A.G.G. (CEIS 93). T.W.B. attached to his affidavit, pages of text messages between himself and L.C.M.G. beginning on September 24, 2021.

He says the text messages show his visits with A.G.G. going fine when he had them and that he and L.C.M.G. were able to communicate reasonably effectively and civilly. For a while, L.C.M.G. even extended his visits with A.G.G. [ 81 ] On February 9, 2022, the TPC was adjourned by the court to February 15, 2022, to fix a new date for the TPC. On February 15, 2022, the JCM scheduled a TPC on March 30, 2022, at 2:00 pm. [ 82 ] In

summary, this matter has been scheduled for trial on: (

a) August 19, 20, and 21, 2019, which was adjourned by L.C.M.G.; (

b) September 30, October 1, 2, and 3, 2019, which proceeded before Judge Galbraith; (

c) July 5, 6, 7 and 8, 2021; which was adjourned by the Court; (

d) November 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2021, which was adjourned by L.C.M.G.; and (

e) January 4, 5, 6, and 7, 2022; which was adjourned by the Court. In a nutshell there have been six trial dates, three of which were adjourned by the court, two by L.C.M.G. and one that proceeded as scheduled. The trial is now scheduled to proceed on the May 2022 assize, its seventh trial date, along with a number of other files. APPLICATION FOR PROTECTON ORDER [ 83 ] On January 31 2022, L.C.M.G.’s Application about a Protection Order (CEIS 89) came before me for trial. At the end of the day on January 31, 2022, I reserved my decision.

On February 2, 2022, I dismissed the application with written reasons for judgment to follow (CEIS 95, 96). These are my reasons for judgment. [ 84 ] L.C.M.G. has filed two applications for a protection order against T.W.B. The first application formed part of her original Application to Obtain an Order filed November 13, 2018 (CEIS 5), which I will refer to as “POA 1”. POA 1 was heard by Judge Galbraith at the 2019 Trial. [ 85 ] L.C.M.G. filed a second Application about a Protection Order on January 24, 2022, (CEIS 89), which I will refer to as “POA 2”.

In POA 2, L.C.M.G. sets out in full the parties respective (

a) birthdates; (

b) residential addresses; (

c) email addresses; and (

d) telephone numbers. POA 2 came before for trial on January 31, 2022 (the “2022 Trial”). [ 86 ] In paragraph 4 of POA 2, L.C.M.G. states she is seeking to change an existing protection order and appended Judge Galbraith’s October 3, 2019 Order as the order she sought changed. [ 87 ] In paragraph 4 of

Schedule II of POA 2 (Change to an Existing Protection Order) L.C.M.G. asks that Judge Galbraith’s “conduct order be changed to a protection order.” L.C.M.G. asked that POA 2 be heard without notice to T.W.B. because: T.W.B. has threatened me and has recently (yesterday) obtained my address. [ 88 ] POA 2 came before Judge Thomas for an ex parte hearing on January 24, 2022. L.C.M.G. told Judge Thomas: a. she was concerned that T.W.B. had learned her address the previous day; b. her address was “protected” in the Court Registry; c.

T.W.B. called the RCMP to conduct a wellness check on January 23, 2022, and the RCMP accidently disclosed her home address to him; d. On December 12, 2021, T.W.B. showed up to pickup A.G.G. without a driver’s licence. When L.C.M.G. refused to permit A.G.G. to go with him, T.W.B. threatened to find out where she lived and come after her; e. T.W.B. was orchestrating a witch hunt against her on Facebook; and f. There had been alot of abusive things that happened during the course of L.C.M.G.’s relationship with T.W.B. and that T.W.B. already has assault charges against him.

When Judge Thomas questioned her about the assault charge, L.C.M.G. admitted it did not involve her and happened “a few years ago”. Scope of protection order sought

[ 89 ] In paragraph 3 of her Affidavit, which forms part of POA 2, L.C.M.G. says she seeks a protection order for herself, A.G.G. and A.G., prohibiting T.W.B., from attending at their residence, school, place of employment, or childcare facility. [ 90 ] In paragraph 4 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. does not indicate that T.W.B. may need to communicate with her or the children for any reason, including with respect to (

a) consensual dispute resolution; (

b) parenting arrangements; or (

c) an ongoing court action.

This omission, together with the omnibus restriction against T.W.B. attending at A.G.G.’s residence, school or child care facility, would essentially relegate T.W.B. as a bit player in A.G.G.’s life, if that. [ 91 ] In paragraph 5 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. indicates she has concerns T.W.B. will cause harm with or to use guns, explosives or other kind of firearm because, “T.W.B. has firearms at his residence and parents’ residence.” In paragraph 6, L.C.M.G., states, she believes that T.W.B. “owns or has access to guns, explosive or other kind of firearm.” [ 92 ] There is no evidence or even an allegation that T.W.B. has used any firearm to intimidate, threaten, or harm any person. [ 93 ] In paragraph 7 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. says she has concerns T.W.B. would cause her harm with or threaten to use a weapon that is not a gun or explosive.

Specifically, L.C.M.G. states, “Party has history of slamming me in vehicle doors.” In paragraph 8, L.C.M.G. says she believes T.W.B. owns a weapon that is not a gun or explosive, specifically, a hunting knife. [ 94 ] There is no evidence or even an allegation that T.W.B. has used a hunting knife or any other object as a weapon to intimidate, threaten or harm any person. T.W.B. denies having ever “slammed” L.C.M.G. into a vehicle door. [ 95 ] In paragraph 9 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. confirms that she does not share a residence with T.W.B.

At the hearing of this matter L.C.M.G. confirmed she lives with her finance, “S.”, A.G.G. and A.G. [ 96 ] In paragraph 16 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. says she has concerns about T.W.B.’s mental health, stating, “He currently or previously attended AA and counselling.” [ 97 ] It is unclear to me how attending AA or counselling is detrimental to a person’s mental health. There is no evidence that T.W.B. suffers from any ongoing mental illness or substance misuse. [ 98 ] T.W.B. testified that he had stopped drinking alcohol in September of 2016, and has been completely sober now for five years.

He has never attended AA meetings. He has been attending counselling with H.G.H. over the past three years of his own volition. There is no order requiring him to do so.

T.W.B. says he just wanted to talk to someone about some issues that troubled him. (See: T.W.B.’s Affidavit of June 3, 2021, CEIS 50) attaching the report from H.G.H. (at p. 36). [ 99 ] In paragraph 17 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. lists the circumstances she says may increase the risk of family violence: - Substance abuse, T.W.B. attends AA and counselling - Has been found guilt of stalking me - Previous assault charges not related to me - Animal abuse (my dogs) - Current conduct order [ 100 ] At the 2022 Trial L.C.M.G. testified that when they were still together, T.W.B., at various times while drinking, pushed her to the ground, slammed her into a vehicle door, and on one occasion followed her to her daughter’s school.

She says she observed T.W.B. grab her dog by the neck and punch it in the face, ignoring her pleas to stop. All these incidents occurred in 2016-2017 during the currency of their relationship. She says post-separation she suspects T.W.B. let out one of her horses from its pen after serving her with his Application to Obtain an Order filed October 4, 2017 (CEIS 1). She says this incident occurred just prior to her moving to Vancouver Island on October 9, 2017. [ 101 ] At the 2022 Trial, L.C.M.G. read into the record letters of support from her mother, father, cousin, and close friend, E.B.

L.C.M.G.’s father, L.G., and E.B. testified in support of L.C.M.G.’s POA 1 at the 2019 Trial. T.W.B. said he had not seen the support letters before, but was present when L.C.M.G. read their contents to the Judge during the 2019 Trial. L.C.M.G. agreed that all allegations set out in the letters had been raised in the 2019 Trial. The letters were a potpourri of largely inadmissible evidence, including, hearsay, oath-helping, rumour, and opinion. The letters did include some eye witness evidence which may have been admissible had the authors attended and testified at the 2022 Trial, which they did not.

Parenthetically, I note L.C.M.G.’s oral evidence at the 2022 Trial of the alleged violence to her dog differs somewhat from the description of the same event in one of letters she read out in Court. [ 102 ] The court record indicates L.C.M.G. led extensive evidence during the 2019 Trial in support of her POA 1, which Judge Galbraith ultimately denied. T.W.B. says that at no time during the 2019 Trial did L.C.M.G. allege that he pushed her or shoved her or slammed her into a vehicle.

T.W.B. submits these are recent embellishment on a fabricated complaint that has already been tried and dismissed. [ 103 ] At the January 31, 2022 hearing, T.W.B. testified: a. As set out above, T.W.B. stopped drinking five and one-half years ago. He has never attended AA, but has attended counselling of his own volition for his own purposes; b. T.W.B. has never been subject of an investigation by MCFD or a party to child protection proceedings: This is corroborated by Exhibits “A” (MCFD Record Check) to his Guardianship Affidavits filed January 7, 2020 (CEIS 31) and November 15, 2021 (CEIS 78); c.

There is no protection order registered against T.W.B. This is corroborated by Exhibits “B” to T.W.B.’s Guardianship Affidavits

(CEIS 31 and 78); d. T.W.B.’s only Criminal Code conviction is for a common assault (contrary to s. 266 ) which occurred in [omitted for publication], BC on [omitted for publication], 1999. T.W.B. explained the incident giving rise to this charge began as a consensual fight with another male, which unfortunately T.W.B. won. T.W.B. was only 19 years old at the time; e. T.W.B. has coached girls’ soccer for many years. In order to do so he has passed multiple criminal record checks.

The only complaint made to the police against T.W.B. was that made by L.C.M.G. in 2017 RCMP File [omitted for publication], which was never charged. T.W.B.’s evidence is corroborated by the criminal record checks attached as Exhibits “C” to his Guardianship Affidavits (CEIS 31 and 78); f. L.C.M.G.’s POA 1 (CEIS 5) was fully canvassed in the 2019 Trial. All of the evidence and arguments L.C.M.G. set out in POA 2 (CEIS 89) that predate the October 3, 2019 Order were either made or should have been made at the 2019 Trial.

T.W.B. called evidence opposing the protection order sought and ultimately, Judge Galbraith denied it; g. At the 2019 Trial T.W.B. denied committing any form of family violence against her or A.G. or A.G.G. or anybody, or any acts of animal cruelty. He continues to deny L.C.M.G.’s allegations, be they past, present, or recently contrived; h. T.W.B. has had parenting time with his two children J.B. and J.A.B., from two to four days per week for the past eight years.

There have never been any issues as to his ability to parent; there have never been any complaints to MCFD; there have never been any allegations of family violence. T.W.B.’s former spouse and mother of J.B. and J.A.B. is A.R.F. She testified at the 2019 Trial that she had known T.W.B. for 16 years. They had been a couple for nine of those years. A.R.F. said T.W.B. was a great dad. He was never abusive or aggressive to her or to the children, or any animals. A.R.F. and T.W.B. cooperate with each other and co-parent well. Their children enjoy spending time with their dad.

T.W.B. and A.R.F. have an amicable relationship and have never had to engage the court to resolve their issues; i. T.W.B. has never been cruel to animals. A while back he adopted a dog from the Society for the Cruelty to Animals (“SPCA”). The Society routinely conducts background checks to ensure the prospective owner will provide a good home for the orphaned animal. If T.W.B. had a reputation for animal cruelty, the SPCA would not place a dog in his care. None of T.W.B.’s family members or customers of his home-based [omitted for publication] business have had any negative interactions with T.W.B.’s dog; j.

T.W.B.’s contact time with A.G.G. was supervised for almost two years by C.J. of K.F.S. On March 20, 2021, she reported that T.W.B. and A.G.G. had 78 hours of visitation from October 2019 to March 2020, with no visits from April 2020 to July 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions. C.J. observed that visits continue to progress positively and show a bonded family unit (CEIS 05, pp. 3404j); and k. T.W.B. also provided a character reference from L.J. and S.J. who are T.W.B.’s friends and employers.

L.J. and S.J. praise T.W.B.’s parenting, and describe him as “a very dedicated and caring man . . . “(CEIS 50, pp. 38-39). [ 104 ] In paragraph 18, L.C.M.G. indicated there is “an existing court order, agreement or plan protecting one of the parties, the child, or restraining contact between the parties, including a protection order, an order, agreement or plan involving child protection services, or a peace bond, restraining order, bail conditions or other criminal order.” L.C.M.G. believes the October 3, 2019 Order belongs to this species of documents because it includes a conduct order requiring the parties to communicate in writing.

L.C.M.G. says she interprets the October 3, 2019 Order as prohibiting T.W.B. from coming to or driving by her residence or workplace. In my view such an

interpretation would strain the plain meaning of that order beyond its breaking point. [ 105 ] In paragraph 19 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. states T.W.B. has failed to obey a court order by: Driving past my previous residence after found guilty of stalking. [ 106 ] During the 2022 Trial, L.C.M.G. says that that T.W.B. drove past her house in September 2020, after Judge Galbraith made the October 3, 2019 Order. L.C.M.G. was still living at [omitted for publication] in [Community 1], BC, and she and her daughters were outside in the yard. L.C.M.G. observed T.W.B. driving on M. Road.

She says when T.W.B. approached her residence, he slowed his vehicle and pulled over. L.C.M.G., who was standing in the driveway, began recording him. When T.W.B. saw her, he sped off and stopped further up the road, waited there for 15 minutes, then left. T.W.B. never stopped his car at her residence nor got out of his vehicle. L.C.M.G. said she did not see any children in his vehicle.

Despite this is one of the recent incidents she relies upon in support of her POA 2, L.C.M.G. did not provide the Court with a copy of the recording or pictures she says she took that day. [ 107 ] T.W.B. testified at the 2022 Trial that this incident had already been spoken to in court (on September 24, 2021). First of all, T.W.B. has never been “found guilty of stalking” as his criminal record check confirms. Second, [omitted for publication] is a public road and there is no order prohibiting him from driving on that road.

As to the incident itself, T.W.B. explained that his friend, D.M., resides at the end of [omitted for publication]. T.W.B.’s daughter, J.B., is best friends with D.M.’s daughter, M.M. On the day of the “incident”, T.W.B. drove J.B. to D.M.’s residence to have a sleepover with M.M. To do so T.W.B. had to drive past L.C.M.G.’s residence. This whole incident took about 15 minutes. On his return, T.W.B. saw L.C.M.G. outside taking pictures of him. T.W.B. did not stop at L.C.M.G.’s residence nor get out of his vehicle nor make contact whatsoever with L.C.M.G.

He simply drove past her residence going to and returning from dropping J.B. off at M.M.’s residence. He did not specifically deny slowing down or pulling over. [ 108 ] In paragraph 20 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. states she has ongoing concerns T.W.B. may not obey a court order because he, “threatened to come to my residence.” [ 109 ] At the January 31, 2022 hearing L.C.M.G. explains that on December 12, 2021, she refused to permit A.G.G. to have her Sunday visit with T.W.B., because he was driving without a licence.

L.C.M.G. says in response to her denying him contact time with A.G.G., T.W.B. threatened to “find out where she lived and come after her.” [ 110 ] T.W.B. agrees L.C.M.G. refused to allow A.G.G. to go with him for her Sunday visit, as she had for the past three Sundays. He

acknowledges she told him it was because he didn’t have a licence but adamantly denies threatening to come to her residence or to come after her. [ 111 ] In paragraph 21 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. states she has reported her safety concerns to the police. Specifically, she states: Police have an ongoing file, T.W.B.’s criminal record mentions an incident from 2017. [ 112 ] T.W.B. points out there is no ongoing police file.

The 2017 “incident” was L.C.M.G. contacting the RCMP, who investigated her complaint and no charges were laid: (See: T.W.B.’s Guardianship Affidavits filed January 7, 2020 (CEIS 30) and November 15, 2021 (CEIS 78) attaching Record Check Results from MCFD, the Protection Registry, and [Community 1] RCMP.) T.W.B. said that in 2017 a RCMP officer came to his residence late at night and advised him L.C.M.G. said she did not want any further contact with him.

In his October 3, 2019 decision, Judge Galbraith acknowledged that T.W.B.’s had complied with L.C.M.G.’s request. [ 113 ] In paragraph 22 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. indicates she has not reported her safety concerns to MCFD, however, offers no explanations to why she has not done so given she is seeking a protection order on behalf of the children as well as herself. [ 114 ] T.W.B. points out that there are no complaints to or investigations by MCFD against him as the MCFD record check confirms (CEIS 76). [ 115 ] In paragraph 23 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. says she fears. “T.W.B. aproaching her children at school.” L.C.M.G. goes on to state, “T.W.B. previously followed me to my child’s school.” This allegation of T.W.B. following her to A.G.’s school, is one L.C.M.G. made at the 2019 Trial of an incident she said occurred in 2016.

T.W.B. reiterates that Judge Galbraith already adjudicated these issues and denied L.C.M.G.’s application for a protection order over two years ago. Moreover, L.C.M.G. has not identified what danger T.W.B. presents to either of her daughters. [ 116 ] At paragraph 24 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. states she has no concerns for the protected parties that she had not described in her affidavit. However, at the 2022 Trial, L.C.M.G. complains T.W.B. posted something on his Facebook about “a witch hunt” against her. She says there were a “whole bunch” of unflattering messages about her posted on T.W.B.’s Facebook page.

When asked how she obtained these messages, L.C.M.G. admitted she was not T.W.B.’s Facebook friend. She said a friend forwarded to her a copy of the offensive page. L.C.M.G. refused to identify the sender because she “did not know if that would be safe to do say”. She did not produce the impugned Facebook page into evidence at the 2022 Trial. She did not suggest Mr. T.W.B.’s authored of these messages.

Most recent incident of family violent alleged [ 117 ] At paragraph 25 of her Affidavit, L.C.M.G. describes two recent incidents of family violence as follows: Dec 12 threats, T.W.B. showed up to meet up for child visit without a licence. I refused to allow child in uninsured vehicle. T.W.B. threatened myself. T.W.B. called RCMP for a “wellness” check obtaining my address from RCMP on January 23 rd , after asking me for my address and being unable to obtain it from registry (protected).

The December 12, 2021 Incident [ 118 ] In the 2022 Trial L.C.M.G. described the incidence of family violence she says occurred on December 12, 2021. She says that FMEP had arranged for ICBC to cancel T.W.B.’s driver’s licence because he was in arrears in child support. FMEP advised L.C.M.G. they had taken this step. L.C.M.G. subsequently agreed to T.W.B.’s request for a Sunday visit with A.G.G. L.C.M.G. and T.W.B. generally transitioned A.G.G. between households at [omitted for publication] Store in [Community 1].

On December 12, 2021, she arrived at [omitted for publication] Store with her partner, S., and A.G.G. S. was driving and L.C.M.G. was in the passenger seat. Cognizant that T.W.B. no longer had a driver’s licence, L.C.M.G. said she hoped he would show up with someone else at the wheel. As she approached, L.C.M.G. saw T.W.B. was driving. She rolled down the window and said to him, “A.G.G. cannot go with you because you don’t have a licence.” L.C.M.G. claims T.W.B. told her she was being unfair and that “he was going to find out my address and he was going to come after me.” [ 119 ] L.C.M.G. left with A.G.G.

She said she took T.W.B.’s words as a threat he would come into her house and “shove her around again.” She says this had not happened previously as T.W.B. did not know her address. L.C.M.G. testified T.W.B. “hasn’t put his hands on me since our relationship ended.” She confirmed this was sometime in 2016. [ 120 ] On December 24, 2021, T.W.B. filed an Affidavit (CEIS 83) responding to L.C.M.G.’s allegation he threatened her on December 12, 2021. He also testified to the incident in the 2022 Trial. T.W.B. says that on Saturday, December 11, 2021, he texted L.C.M.G. to arrange for a Sunday visit with A.G.G.

He was pleasantly surprised that she replied because for the past three weeks she effectively denied him his Sunday visits with A.G.G. through unresponsiveness. This time, L.C.M.G. agreed T.W.B. could have a visit with A.G.G. from 9 am to 4 pm on Sunday, December 12, 2021. T.W.B. went to [the transition spot]. L.C.M.G. rolled up in her vehicle and rolled down her window. A.G.G. was with her in the vehicle. L.C.M.G.’s vehicle never came to a complete stop. L.C.M.G. told T.W.B. he could not take A.G.G. because he didn’t have a licence.

T.W.B. replied, “I don’t know what you are talking about.” L.C.M.G.’s vehicle took off heading west towards B. Lake. [ 121 ] T.W.B. drove to town and made a quick stop at Safeway. At 9:30, he was pulled over by the RCMP at the R.H. Store. It seemed to T.W.B. the RCMP were waiting for him to show up. The officer informed T.W.B. he no longer had a driver’s licence. T.W.B. was unaware of the fact, because it was not February 20, 2021, that he received FMEP’s December 8, 2021 letter in the mail. FMEP advised him it had instructed ICBC to cancel his driver’s licence immediately.

T.W.B. says he received no email or telephone call from FMEP notifying him that his licence was about to be cancelled. [ 122 ] The locale where T.W.B. was pulled over was less than a minute drive from his residence at the top of [omitted for publication]. While he was interacting with the RCMP, T.W.B. observed L.C.M.G. drive by. This was 30 minutes after their encounter at [the transition spot] and 20 kilometres in the opposite direction in which L.C.M.G. was travelling when she left [the transition spot]. T.W.B.

asserts that the only reason L.C.M.G. agreed to facilitate the December 12, 2021 visit with A.G.G. was because she knew FMEP had cancelled his licence. When she saw T.W.B. drive up, that was her excuse to deny him parenting time and she called the RCMP to report that he was driving without a licence. In his December 24, 2021 affidavit (CEIS 83) T.W.B. states: I feel this is harassment, a complete set up, and that I was followed. All in an attempt to make me look bad for something I had no idea about.

She is now using this as an excuse to keep my daughter away from me and will likely use it in our trial to attempt to deny me access and guardianship. [ 123 ] T.W.B.’s fears were not entirely unfounded. On January 4, 2022, T.W.B. and L.C.M.G. appeared before Judge Galbraith. It was supposed to be the first day of their trial with respect to the following pleadings: a. L.C.M.G.’s Application to Obtain an Order filed November 13, 2018 (CEIS 5); b. T.W.B.’s Reply with Counterclaim Application about a Family Law Matter Claim filed December 7, 2018 (CEIS 7); c.

T.W.B.’s Application about a Family Law Matter (CEIS 59) filed July 19, 2021, in which he renewed his application for guardianship of and contact with A.G.G.; and d. L.C.M.G.’s Reply to an Application About a Family Law Matter (CEIS 65) filed August 5, 2021, in which she disagrees with T.W.B.’s July 19, 2021 Application for guardianship of and contact with A.G.G. [ 124 ] Also scheduled for hearing on January 4, 2021, was T.W.B.’s Application about Enforcement filed December 20, 2021 (CEIS 82). In his application T.W.B. states L.C.M.G. denial of his visits with A.G.G. has been ongoing since the beginning.

T.W.B. states: a. He was unable to meet A.G.G. until she was two years old; b. He spent $2,411 on unnecessary supervision waiting to get back into Court and get a “proper order”; c. L.C.M.G. denied him contact with A.G.G. for around six months in 2020 using COVID-19 as an excuse; d. L.C.M.G. denied him contact with A.G.G. for another six months in the summer of 2021 with other excuses; e. T.W.B. finally got a “proper order” for contact on September 24, 2021, which provided for Sunday visits as well as telephone calls and electronic communication; f.

L.C.M.G. denied nearly half the contact with A.G.G. he was granted under Judge Thomas’ September 24, 2021 Order; and g. L.C.M.G. complied with Judge Thomas’ September 24, 2021 Order until November 14, 2021. Thereafter she stopped facilitating his visits with A.G.G. and has not reinstated them. [ 125 ] At that January 4, 2022 court appearance, T.W.B. raised the issue of his Application about Enforcement (CEIS 82) and L.C.M.G.’s ongoing non-compliance with the Judge Thomas’ September 24, 2021 Order (CEIS 72).

L.C.M.G. told Judge Galbraith that she was withholding A.G.G. because T.W.B. tried to pick her up when he didn’t have a driver’s licence. T.W.B. agreed he didn’t have a licence on December 12, 2021. Although FMEP had informed L.C.M.G. of this fact on or about February 8, 2021, T.W.B. did not receive FMEP’s notification letter until December 20, 2021. T.W.B. emailed L.C.M.G. a copy of his licence when it was returned. L.C.M.G. claimed the picture of T.W.B.’s licence had not been scanned properly and thus, illegible. I pause to note that it was L.C.M.G. who insisted T.W.B. serve her documents via email.

Judge Galbraith asked T.W.B. if he could provide L.C.M.G. with a legible copy of his licence and he agreed he would do that. On January 31, 2022, L.C.M.G. represented to the Court that Judge Galbraith required T.W.B. provide her a copy of his driver’s licence before he resumed visitations with A.G.G. Judge Galbraith made no such order. In fact, Judge Galbraith suggested to L.C.M.G. she get seek legal advice before withholding A.G.G. from the court-ordered visits. In any event, it makes no sense for the Court to make an order prohibiting T.W.B. from having visits with A.G.G., even if he did not have a licence.

T.W.B.’s visits with A.G.G. were not contingent upon him having a driver’s licence. Presumably, he could still exercise contact time provided he did not drive A.G.G. about until he regained his licence. L.C.M.G.’s residential address [ 126 ] L.C.M.G. also complains that on December 20, 2021, T.W.B. sent her a text saying he needed her actual address to effect personal service. This is the date T.W.B. filed his Application about Enforcement (CEIS 82). L.C.M.G. testified that her address was not available to the public in the Court Registry and T.W.B. was to send her documents by email.

When asked by the Court if she considered T.W.B.’s attempts to find out where his daughter was living constituted stalking, L.C.M.G. said “yes”. When asked if she thought T.W.B. had a right to know where his daughter lived, L.C.M.G. responded, “not when he is a threat to me, I don’t feel safe.” [ 127 ] L.C.M.G. says that on January 23, 2022, T.W.B. called the RCMP asking them to conduct a wellness check on her and A.G.G. She says the RCMP accidently gave T.W.B. her residential address.

This concerned L.C.M.G. because T.W.B. had shown up at her residence in the past and was found guilty of stalking her. [ 128 ] L.C.M.G. does not allege that T.W.B. did anything as a result of acquiring her residential address, but she was concerned he would come to her home as he had before. She claims that whenever T.W.B. knew her address he would drive past her house.

The last time he did so, was in September 2020, when she lived on [omitted for publication]. [ 129 ] L.C.M.G. has repeatedly represented to this Court that her address is protected by the Court Registry and not available to the public or to be disclosed to T.W.B.

[ 130 ] Mr. Thomson stopped appearing in court on L.C.M.G.’s behalf after September 8, 2021. On October 7, 2021, Judge Mengering removed Mr. Thomson as L.C.M.G.’s Counsel of Record. T.W.B. says since then he had repeatedly ask L.C.M.G. where he should send her court documents as Mr. Thomson’s law office remained her address for delivery on file at the Court Registry. L.C.M.G. told T.W.B. to send her documents to her by email, which is how he served her with all his court documents after September 2021: see CEIS 84, 85 and 86. [ 131 ] L.C.M.G. never did file an updated Change of Address with the Court Registry.

The Registry only became aware of her new address on January 24, 2022, when L.C.M.G. filed an Application about a Protection order (CEIS 89) setting out her new residential address, email, and telephone number. It is undisputed this is document L.C.M.G. served on T.W.B., even though she never filed a Certificate of Service attesting to her compliance with Judge Thomas’ January 24, 2022 Order. [ 132 ] T.W.B. denies he learned of L.C.M.G.’s new residential address from the RCMP. T.W.B. says he called the RCMP to see if they could enforce his contact time with A.G.G. under the September 24, 2021 Order (CEIS 72).

He explained that L.C.M.G. had not responded to his requests for a Sunday visit with A.G.G. for the past three weeks. The RCMP said they could not enforce the order without a police assist provision. The Officer asked T.W.B. if he was concerned for the child’s wellbeing, and T.W.B. responded he was concerned. The Officer offered to conduct a wellness check on L.C.M.G. and A.G.G.

The Officer did not disclose L.C.M.G.’s residential address. [ 133 ] T.W.B. said ultimately he learned L.C.M.G.’s new home address when L.C.M.G. served him with a copy of her Application about a Protection Order (CEIS 89) on January 25, 2022. His evidence in this regard is corroborated by the fact that at the January 4, 2022 TPC T.W.B. once again complained to Judge Galbraith that he did not have a proper address to serve L.C.M.G. court documents.

When T.W.B. asked her for an address for service, she texted T.W.B. her email address. [ 134 ] At my request the Court Registry reviewed the court file thoroughly and there is no request by L.C.M.G. or a judicial order or direction requiring L.C.M.G.’s residential address be kept confidential from T.W.B. The process which the Court Registry undertakes to protect the address of a litigant is fairly regimented. The Court Registry does not release the address of a party to members of the public who may be curious about the proceedings.

T.W.B. is the applicant in this litigation and is entitled to know L.C.M.G.’s address for service. The only current address the Court has for L.C.M.G. is that which she herself declared in her Application about a Protection Order. If she does not want her residential address disclosed to T.W.B., then she can provide the Court Registry with a valid third party address for service. T.W.B.’s positon [ 135 ] Although he does not describe it as such, T.W.B. argues L.C.M.G.’s application for a protection order is an abuse of process.

It an oblique attempt to undermine his application for guardianship and meaningful parenting time with A.G.G. Before Judge Galbraith on January 4, 2022, before Judge Thomas on January 24, 2022, and again before me on January 31, 2022, L.C.M.G. attempted to persuade the Court that T.W.B. had criminal charges and court orders against him for family violence, where none exist. [ 136 ] T.W.B. is understandably frustrated. Despite his three and one-half year struggle to have his applications for parenting arrangements determined, they have gone unheard.

He has filed multiple pleadings, motions, affidavits, financial statements, record checks, certificates of service, supervision reports, medical reports, and letters of support. He has filed his certificate of parenting after separation and trial readiness reports. His filings have far outnumbered L.C.M.G.’s. She has not filed any affidavits in response to T.W.B.’s notices of motions, nor has she filed any financial statements, notwithstanding she has been ordered to do so on April 23, 2019, and June 3, 2021. L.C.M.G. had not filed a Change of Address for Service after Mr.

Thomson was removed as her counsel of record, despite the Court’s direction to do so. L.C.M.G. has breach orders without repercussions. Whereas L.C.M.G. managed to get into court and have her applications for child support and a protection order heard in an expeditious manner, Mr. T.W.B.s applications were adjourned over and over and over. [ 137 ] T.W.B. has not had any contact time with A.G.G. since November 14, 2021. He says that despite the September 24, 2021 Order, L.C.M.G. unilaterally withholds A.G.G. from him.

L.C.M.G.’s default strategy is to simply refuse to respond to T.W.B.’s text messages, thus frustrating any opportunity to arrange transitioning A.G.G. between households. Although T.W.B. is entitled to phone calls or electronic communication, he says this too has been problematic. He claims the cellular service to L.C.M.G.’s new home is sporadic and unreliable. L.C.M.G. refuses to cooperate with T.W.B. having electronic communication with A.G.G.

L.C.M.G., however, maintains the cell service is satisfactory, and T.W.B. has not called to speak to A.G.G. since November 4, 2021. [ 138 ] T.W.B. says L.C.M.G.’s emails and interaction with him attest to that fact that she is not afraid of him. When I asked L.C.M.G. if she was fearful when she walked down her driveway in September 2020 to photograph T.W.B.’s vehicle, she said “no”. She explained she obtaining proof T.W.B. was breaching the conduct order.

When I pointed out to her there was no such order, L.C.M.G. said she interpreted the October 3, 2019 Order to mean T.W.B. was prohibited from driving by her house or place of work. She said she believed this the correct

interpretation because of what the Judge said when pronouncing it. I listened to Judge Galbraith’s reasons for judgment and I cannot find anything to support L.C.M.G.’s expansive

interpretation of his order. To the contrary, Judge Galbraith clearly stated his conduct order was reciprocal on both parties given their history and it would protect both parties from misunderstandings as to what was communicated. Legislative framework for a protection order [ 139 ]

Part 9 of the FLA empowers the Court to make a protection order. Under section 183(1)(a), the person applying for a protection order must be an “at-risk family member”.

Section 182 defines an “at-risk family member” as “a person whose safety and security is or is likely to be at risk from family violence carried out by a family member.” [ 140 ]

Section 1 defines “family member” with respect to a person to include the parent or guardian of the person's child or the person’s child.

Section 1 defines "family violence” to include, with or without an intent to harm a family member, (

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. [ 141 ] Sections. 183(2) gives the court jurisdiction to make a protection order if the court determines that family violence is likely to occur against an at risk family member. Seciton183(3) provides that a protection order may include one or more of the following: (

a) a provision restraining the family member from (

i) directly or indirectly communicating with or contacting the at-risk family member or a specified person, (ii) attending at, nearing or entering a place regularly attended by the at-risk family member, including the residence, property, business, school or place of employment of the at-risk family member, even if the family member owns the place, or has a right to possess the place, (iii) following the at-risk family member, (iv) possessing a weapon, a firearm or a specified object, or (

v) possessing a licence, registration certificate, authorization or other document relating to a weapon or firearm; (

b) limits on the family member in communicating with or contacting the at-risk family membe

[…]