F.E. v. S.E.V. Date:, 2016 BCPC 108

Citation: F.E. v. S.E.V. Date: 20160331 2016 BCPC 0108 File No: 20115 Registry: Victoria IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: F.E. APPLICANT AND: S.E.V. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE A. BROOKS Counsel for the Applicant: Dyan E. Davison

Counsel for the Respondent: Juhi Shukla Place of Hearing: Victoria, B.C. Date of Hearing: March 2, 3, 7, 8, 2016 Date of Judgment: March 31, 2016 [1] F.E. [i] applies to become the guardian of her son C.R. (D.O.B. [omitted for publication]). She does so, primarily, in order toreunite C.R. with his sister H.E. (D.O.B. [omitted for publication]) who resides with F.E. S.E.V. opposes that application, taking theposition that she ought to remain as C.R.’s guardian and he to continue residing with her.

Although the issue in this application may bestated with simplicity, the analysis of that issue requires a review of the prior court orders up to the present and the findings of fact to bemade given the importance of credibility concerns. Once these essential preliminary issues are addressed, then the difficult question ofthe best interests of C.R. can be analyzed. [2] Prior to turning to the review of the court orders in this matter, an objection was raised by counsel for S.E.V. to the hearing ofthis application.

While I dealt with the matter in brief oral reasons at the commencement of this hearing, I thought it prudent to set outmy reasoning. COMPLIANCE WITH THE FAMILY LAW ACT AND RULE 18.1 [3] Given that the application is for a guardianship order, it is submitted by the respondent that there has been non-compliancewith the requirements for such an application.

Section 51 of the Family Law Act (FLA) deals with guardianship orders. Section 51(2)provides that an applicant “must provide evidence to the court, in accordance with the Supreme Court Family Rules or the ProvincialCourt (Family) Rules…”.

Section 18.1 of the Provincial Court (Family) Rules states: When an order is sought appointing a person as the guardian of one or more children, the applicant must (

a) complete and file with the court the original and 3 copies of an affidavit in Form 34, attaching the exhibits referred to in the affidavit,that complies with subrule (4) and serve a copy of that filed affidavit on the other parties and on any other person who may be affectedby the orders sought, and (

b) provide to the judge any other evidence the judge considers necessary. [4] The Form 34 Affidavit requires specific information as to the basis of the application. Included in the required information isthat the applicant set out a plan of care for the child(ren), knowledge as to family violence, disclosure as to criminal charges andinvolvement in proceedings under other Acts including the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Also required are attachments ofrecord checks of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Protection Order Registry and a criminal record check. [5] A form 34 Affidavit was not submitted. There is a criminal record check (negative). There is not a Ministry record check,however, the parties submitted a joint book of documents which contained all the documents they wished to rely on from the Ministryfiles.

At the commencement of the third day of trial a Protection Order Registry check (negative) was delivered to the Court. [6] S.E.V. submits that the use of the word “must” makes the form 34 Affidavit mandatory and that the information provided isinsufficient. [7] This dilemma has been dealt with in previous cases. Two cases have held that the Affidavit is not necessary. In both D. v. D.,2013 BCPC 135 and J.D.B. v. D.H., 2014 BCPC 111 , 2014 BCPC 0111 it was held that the evidence at the hearingitself could satisfy the Affidavit requirement. Rule 20(2)(

c) was relied on to come to that conclusion. It provides that, “A judge may, atany time, permit any other means of proof instead of that required by these rules.” [8] Two cases were relied on by counsel for S.E.V. where the lack of an Affidavit proved fatal: L.A.M.G. v. C.S., 2014 BCPC 172, 2014 BCPC 0172 and S.M. v. N.E., 2015 BCPC 392 , 2015 BCPC 0392. However, neither case casts doubt on D. v.D. or J.D.B. v. D.H. L.A.M.G. is a case where the necessary evidence was not led at the hearing.

In S.M., the discretion available underthe Rule was not exercised in favour of the Applicant. [9] I am satisfied that a guardianship application can, by virtue of Rule 20(2)(c), proceed in the absence of the form 34 Affidavit inappropriate circumstances. I am also satisfied that these are appropriate circumstances. I so conclude as the objection was raised at thecommencement of the trial (set for two days) where all documents were prepared and ready to be tendered. Counsel were in attendancewith witnesses ready to take the stand. No suggestion of prejudice could be reasonably alleged or maintained.

To require the Affidavitwould have been a formalism, inconsistent with the purpose of the Rules. I note that the necessary evidence has been heard during thistrial. [10] Having said that, I am mindful of what was said in R.W. v. J.S.D., 2015 BCSC 1218. There it was noted that the rationale forthe information required in the Form 34 Affidavit is the protection of the best interests of the child. To only provide that information atthe hearing itself may impair the proper presentation and consideration of the best interests of the child.

Where there is counsel for theapplicant, the failure to file the Affidavit is inexcusable. I agree entirely with Ball J. in R.W. where he says (at para. 28), “Best practicegoing forward supports the use of Form 34 unless there are extenuating reasons why the ‘easy to complete’ Form 34 could not becompleted.” (emphasis added) [11] Being satisfied that this application is properly before this Court, I turn to the prior orders in this case. Those orders provideinsight into the history of care of C.R. and a backdrop to a consideration of what are his current best interests.

PRIOR COURT ORDERS RELATING TO C.R. [ 12 ] On March 29, 2012 Judge Kay ordered that the Director of Child, Family and Community Services supervise the care of H.E. and C.R. as provided by F.E. and the father, M.R. The order also required that F.E. and M.R. take certain steps regarding their parenting including attending for mental health assessments. F.E. was to only allow the father to have supervised access to the children as approved by the Director.

At this time C.R. would have been just over fifteen months old. [ 13 ] On April 17, 2012 C.R. and H.E. were apprehended by the Ministry as a result of a breach of Judge Kay’s order. On April 24, 2012 Judge Chaperon ordered that the children be in the custody of the Director until further order is made. Reasonable access was granted to both parents.

There followed three orders extending the temporary custody orders each with an access order to the parents. [ 14 ] On February 28, 2013 Judge Smith ordered an extension of the temporary custody order, however, on this occasion the reasonable access was only given to F.E. M.R. had removed himself from the care of his children. For all intents and purposes he has not been engaged since. [ 15 ] As the matter progressed toward a continuing custody hearing, there were other alternatives being explored.

In particular, F.E.’s mother, F.S., was considering having H.E. come to live with her and C.R. going to live with her brother and his common law spouse, S.E.V. To that end, commencing in March 2013, S.E.V. started to meet with C.R. and the foster parent with a view to C.R. coming to live with her and her family. Eventually, C.R. moved in with S.E.V. and her family on August 29, 2013.

An order under s. 54.01 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA) to authorize those living arrangements was being considered. [ 16 ] Preparatory to the s. 54.01 order, Judge Harvey made an order on September 12, 2013 under s. 57(3) of the CFCSA . The terms of that order are very important as they struggle with satisfying the best interests of these two very young children. Unfortunately, the terms also ‘set the table’ for the problems that require resolution in this hearing. [ 17 ] Judge Harvey ordered that the siblings would be separated.

Up to this point and for the first two and a half years of C.R.’s life he had lived with his sister. H.E. would now reside with F.S. in Sidney on certain terms and conditions. Those terms included providing access for F.E. to her daughter H.E. on a weekly basis for up to four hours with allowance made for visits on special occasions such as Christmas and Easter. In addition, an access opportunity was to be provided each month for H.E. to be with C.R. and their mother. As well, F.S. was to provide a weekly email update to F.E. regarding H.E.

The order further provided that C.R. was to reside with S.E.V. in Sooke on terms which mirrored those regarding H.E. The purpose of these terms is clear: in the context of providing a safe environment for the two children, their relationship to each other and to their mother was to be continued. The access was to be generous within the clear boundaries set out. [ 18 ] On March 20, 2014 and just over six months since Judge Harvey’s order [ii] , Judge Higinbotham ordered, pursuant to s. 54.05 of the Act that C.R. be placed in S.E.V.’s permanent care.

By virtue of s. 54.2 that order established S.E.V. as a guardian of C.R. A term of access for C.R. to his mother was included in the order, a step described by Luc van Hanuse, the social worker assigned to the case at the time, as “very rare”. Time with F.E. was changed to say that she “shall have access to the child every second Sunday as arranged by S.E.V. and F.E.”. [ 19 ] The significance of this order to the current consideration of the best interests of C.R. cannot be overstated.

Accordingly, a review of the context for this order is of value in determining how to consider the best interests of C.R. [ 20 ] Mr. van Hanuse testified to the planning for these two children in its early stages. There were, at that time, two options available for these two children. Those two options did not include a return of both children to F.E. given the challenges she faced in parenting. At a later stage in these reasons, I will address those challenges and what F.E. has done about them.

One option, Mr. van Hanuse testified, was to pursue a continuing custody order which would result in the children going together to a foster home for adoption. That home could be in another jurisdiction. The second option was to pursue the s. 54.01 application. The latter had the advantage of moving C.R. toward a permanent home albeit one which could be reconsidered under the terms of the Family Law Act . The disadvantage was that the children were in separate homes; however, it was felt that an access term could maintain the sibling and maternal relationships.

The second option was pursued albeit with a significant concern as to how this option may work out. In that regard Mr. van Hanuse wrote in mid-2014 of his expectations: “It is rare and with great caution that the Director separates siblings. In this case, the two caregivers live in the same area (CRD-Victoria) and are committed to maintaining a family bond with all parties involved.” [ 21 ] In pursuing the second option, the best interests of C.R. were recognized at that time to include the importance of his relationship with his sister and with his mother.

It was expected that the “family bond” would serve to maintain those relationships. These relationships and their significance to C.R.’s best interests will be revisited in the analysis below. [ 22 ] At this point, however, it is important to note the differing perceptions of the s.54.01 order. To S.E.V. the order provided a ‘forever’ home for C.R. To her, the obligation of access contained in the September order now became a matter of her discretion. For her, this order created a very different relationship with F.E. For F.E. the order created a very different framework from that perceived by S.E.V.

Most importantly, F.E. understood that S.E.V.’s home was not a permanent home and that C.R. would be reunited with his mother sooner rather than later. I mention these different perceptions of the March 2014 order as they contribute to what happened thereafter. Their actions reflected what each party took as the order’s intention and what they themselves wanted to achieve. As will be seen, I am satisfied that those actions did not protect C.R.’s best interests. [ 23 ] After the s. 54.01 order of March 2014, H.E. continued to live with F.S.

However, F.S. gradually increased the time that H.E. spent with her mother and, in approximately July 2014, H.E. returned to live with F.E. H.E. continues to live with F.E. some twenty one months later. [ 24 ] The last order to which reference must be made is Judge Smith’s dated March 27, 2015. It deals solely with the issue of access. The prior orders had made it clear that access to his mother and sister has been important to the best interests of C.R. Indeed, the response of the parties to these access orders will form an important part of the discussion below of C.R.’s best interests. Access as set

out in the previous orders of September 12, 2013 and March 20, 2014 was problematic. As a result of an incident between the mothers of the parties in September 2014, the access situation deteriorated even further. Application was filed in September 2014 for access to be specified. On March 27, 2015 Judge Smith ordered a significant increase in the access which had been occurring up to that time. He ordered that access be every second Sunday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

There was provision for make-up time should a visit be missed but no flexibility for the day of the week of a scheduled visit to be changed. [ 25 ] Seen from C.R.’s perspective, these orders show that he spent his first fifteen months of his life with his mother. He then spent approximately sixteen months with a foster parent. All of this time was spent with his sister H.E. He has spent the last two and a half years - half his life - living with S.E.V. and apart from his sister and mother. [ 26 ] It now remains to analyze the evidence heard and the facts to be found on this application.

In this particular case, that analysis must begin with the issue of credibility. CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES [ 27 ] The applicant and the respondent, and the family members who testified in support, offered very different recollections of events which had occurred in the care of C.R. The only fact on which each side seemed to be in agreement was that the relationship with the other side was ‘poisoned’. Counsel, in their thorough and helpful submissions, made extensive references to which evidence ought to be accepted and which was not credible.

Their emphasis was well placed because, for reasons which shall become apparent, the decision as to credibility requires particular attention in this case. S. E. V. [ 28 ] In cross-examination, S.E.V. admitted that she had lied under oath. It had become obvious that that was the case several questions before she finally made the admission. What remains of her credibility in light of her blatant disregard for the oath that she took on entering the witness stand? [ 29 ] I appreciate that the witness stand is an uncomfortable and foreign place for most people.

Being cross examined by a skilled professional can create an unbearable pressure. Therefore, in fairness, it is important to examine what exactly was said and what happened to determine the impact of S.E.V.’s mendacity on her credibility. [ 30 ] S.E.V. testified in chief that the family, including C.R., went on a holiday to Ontario in August of 2015. The vacation would mean that two of F.E.’s visits as set out Judge Smith’s order would not occur. F.E. was given approximately one week’s notice of that unilateral decision, a decision which was directly contrary to a court order.

S.E.V. was led through this decision in examination in chief in order to emphasize that she arranged access to C.R. with his mother as soon as they got back. She stated, “As soon as we got back we planned a make-up visit. . .” . She was asked by her counsel, “When did you get back?” to which she answered, “September 4 th ”. [ 31 ] On eight occasions in cross-examination she agreed that she went on the trip to Ontario. On several more occasions she did not directly say that she went to Ontario but answered questions in a way that certainly gave that impression and were actively misleading.

She even went so far to talk about all the stops she and her parents had made. In detail worthy of a travelogue, she talked about stopping at a nice lake, the Calgary zoo, Peachland, Summerland and a lion safari in Ontario. She was then confronted with documentation which showed that she was in fact at home in Sooke. Five times she was asked to admit that she had lied in saying she went to Ontario and each time she either avoided answering the question or outright denied that she had lied.

Only when there was no option but for her to do so did she admit that she had lied. [ 32 ] I review this sorry display to make it clear that this was not a single lie that slipped out. Without the pressure of cross- examination she lied on two occasions under questioning from her own lawyer. On cross-examination she lied again and again. Nor was it on a peripheral matter. Her care and attention to C.R. was very much in issue in this hearing.

Holding herself out as a mother ever vigilant about the care of C.R., she in fact had let four and a half year old C.R. go with her mother and father on a month long car holiday while she stayed home. [ 33 ] S.E.V. had created this deceit at the time of the holiday in August 2015. To carry it off she had to lie to F.E. before and after the trip. She reluctantly admitted that she had done so in her cross-examination. [ 34 ] Surprisingly she was then re-examined. It did not help.

She came across as someone who was more worried about her own feelings in having a confrontation with F.E. than in having honest communication to the benefit of C.R. [ 35 ] In

summary, S.E.V. was untruthful when asked simple questions by her own lawyer. She lied repeatedly in cross examination. She only stopped doing so when she had no other option. She did not seem to appreciate the significance of lying, in August 2015 or now. The behaviour of S.E.V. on the stand was so destructive of her own credibility that I am unable to place any weight on her evidence. S.V. [ 36 ] The mother of S.E.V., S.V., testified to her observations of the care of C.R. She also testified about the trip to Ontario. Her references to the “family vacation” left the clear impression that S.E.V. was with them.

In that respect, her evidence was objectively misleading. Given the deception practiced on F.E. at the time of going on the trip and on the return, a deception which must have been known to S.V., I infer that she knew that her evidence was misleading. Those who knowingly mislead a Court are little different from those who deliberately lie to the Court. They are separated only by the precision of the questions they are asked. For that reason, where S.V.’s evidence conflicts with any other evidence, I prefer that other evidence. F.E. [ 37 ] Detailed submissions were made on the credibility of the evidence of F.E.

It was submitted that she was a person prone to

embellish her evidence. In support of that, note was made of her email correspondence recounting certain events. F.E. admitted in cross examination that she “embellished” the facts in those emails. Reference was made to police reports from early 2012 which considered F.E. to be untruthful in her complaints regarding M.R. More recently, F.E. testified that she did not speak with C.R. about him coming to live with her. The social worker, Mr. van Hanuse, has satisfied himself that F.E. did have these conversations with C.R.

Indeed, Mr. van Hanuse testified to his own concerns with inaccurate information he received from F.E. Mr. van Hanuse’s concerns included F.E.’s overly positive description of events, descriptions which did not match the events themselves. [ 38 ] Counsel for S.E.V. submitted that F.E.’s evidence lacked credibility due to the concerns outlined above. I cannot take those concerns as far as that. Even taken cumulatively the concerns reveal a person whose self-interest and personal issues impact her ability to recount events. I cannot conclude that she sets out to deceive.

Indeed she is the one who, without hesitation, agreed that she had embellished information in the past. However, I do intend to take these concerns so far as to scrutinize very carefully the information which she provides. I do not necessarily accept her as an accurate historian. F. S. [ 39 ] F.E.’s mother, F.S. testified. Counsel for S.E.V. submitted that F.S.’s evidence suffered serious frailties of credibility. In particular, reliance was placed on the tone and content of F.S.’s emails. It was determined at one point by a social worker that information coming from F.S. ought to be viewed skeptically.

Mr. van Hanuse testified that a decision to treat information in that manner was not made lightly. Implicit was the submission that if the Ministry treated F.S.’s evidence skeptically, I ought to do the same. [ 40 ] I am unable to directly apply the Ministry approach to F.S.’s evidence on the stand. F.S. was cross-examined thoroughly on her past emails. Her answers exhibited a candour which assisted her credibility. For example, she testified that H.E. had said that she does not want a brother, a statement contrary to the position F.S. was supporting on behalf of her daughter.

Her willingness to testify to facts contrary to the outcome she sought also assisted her credibility. Her demeanour on the stand was of a person who recognized what a difficult situation this was for the entire family and for two young, precious children. While her evidence may reflect her own particular perspective, recognition of that fact only requires that her evidence be compared to other evidence to ensure its reliability. Generally speaking, I found her evidence to be credible. [ 41 ] In

summary, the evidence of the respondent and her mother simply cannot be relied upon. The evidence of the applicant and her mother, while not without flaw, is clearly the evidence to be preferred. Having said that, I am aware that the above conclusions as to credibility are only an early step in the analysis. I do not, for example, infer that the lack of the credibility of the respondent and her mother, in and of itself, adds to the case for the applicant. It remains necessary to turn to the next topic, namely, to determine if the evidence that I accept is persuasive as to the best interests of C.R. BEST INTERESTS OF C.R. [ 42 ]

Section 37 of the Family Law Act states that all of the needs and circumstances of the child must be considered. There follows a list of ten considerations. I have borne all those considerations in mind. I do not, however, intend to structure the analysis of C.R.’s best interests into those ten considerations. Rather, I intend to structure the analysis in accordance with the particular issues raised for this unique young boy and the dynamic of the family which gives those needs their context. [ 43 ] In the past, C.R.’s best interests have been considered in the context of the options available for his care.

I have already referred to the two options seen as available in 2013. That practical approach is one that is still appropriate. Obviously the option chosen in 2013 was to separate the siblings and rely on the parties to create the “family bond” that would mitigate the negative impact of that separation. It is important to now review how this option has played out in the last two and a half years. Only by doing so can a clearer view of C.R.’s best interests be obtained. Are C.R.’s best interests being met currently? [ 44 ] As has been noted, C.R. has resided in Sooke since August 2013.

He resides there with S.E.V., S.E.V.’s common law partner, T.E. (F.S.’s brother) and S.E.V.’s mother and father. T.E. has two children from a previous relationship who he has access with on weekends when he is in town. T.E. works in Alberta. The property they reside on is described as a farm. There are chickens, horses and dogs. Until February of this year, S.E.V. stayed at home. Now she is training to work in a grocery store. The work won’t be full time but is expected to involve a fair amount of weekend work.

I infer that most of C.R.’s weekends will be spent with S.E.V.’s parents except those when T.E. is home. [ 45 ] Letters of friends of S.E.V.’s were admitted into evidence. Those letters described S.E.V. as a caring and patient parent. A pediatric nurse, who has seen C.R. since he was in care with F.E., spoke highly of S.E.V.’s attention to C.R.’s health. The materials include all the receipts for C.R.’s swimming lessons. The quality of S.E.V.’s parenting was not challenged on behalf of F.E.

Indeed it was acknowledged that S.E.V. has provided a very good home for C.R. at a time that C.R. was very much in need of a safe environment. [ 46 ] It goes without saying, however, that C.R.’s best interests are much broader than whether the conditions on the farm are positive for him and those around him care for him. That is not just a statement of common sense. It is also a recognition of the particular circumstances of his care and the thought and effort that went into the September 2013 and March 2014 orders.

From those orders it can clearly be concluded that those best interests also include C.R.’s access to his mother and his sister. It is to that aspect of his best interests that I now turn. 1. Access of C.R. to F.E. [ 47 ] F.E. has had access to C.R. after he was removed. As the early court orders which have been reviewed make clear, a key issue was F.E.’s relationship with the father, M.R. After M.R. was no longer involved, F.E. was having access which was described as ‘generous’. However, her ability at that time was below community standards and her access time was reduced in the spring of 2013. a.

Under the September 2013 Order

[ 48 ] To repeat, this order separated H.E. and C.R. for the first time in their lives. H.E. moved to Sidney and C.R. moved to Sooke. The access for F.E. was on a weekly basis for four hours with different arrangements to be made for special occasions. F.E. was to keep up to date with C.R.’s progress by receiving emails on a weekly basis from S.E.V. There was to be additional access each month for H.E. to spend time with C.R. The purpose of this order was clear. It was to provide C.R. with a safe environment with a member of the extended E. family. At the same time, access for C.R. with F.E. was given a priority.

The importance of the relationship of H.E. and C.R. was also recognized in this order. It follows that if the access part of the order worked as it should, then C.R. would maintain his relationship with his sister and his mother. Those relationships of love and connection would support his best interests. [ 49 ] The access order did not work. It is no exaggeration to say that neither of the access orders in place have ever worked in the two and a half years that C.R. has been with S.E.V. There is no question that in 2013 and 2014 F.E. played an important role in the access order not working.

She was unreliable in being available and often failed to communicate her unavailability. Even recognizing that she did not drive and that C.R. was in Sooke, her effort to exercise access appears from the emails to be lackadaisical. Those same emails also show her to be an ill-tempered person with very poor communication skills. No doubt S.E.V. felt fortified in her impatience with F.E. by emails she was receiving from F.S. in 2013. Even F.E.’s own mother was commenting on F.E.’s poor parenting skills while expressing the hope that she never apply to have C.R. return to her.

The cooperation of S.E.V. and F.S. was part of the “horrible” relationship that existed between F.S. and her daughter at that time. [ 50 ] However, looking only at F.E.’s behaviour does not provide a complete picture of why access has failed and continues to fail. A closer look at the actual events surrounding access sheds light on the viability of the access orders. Bearing in mind that the access terms of the order were there to promote the best interests of C.R., the question becomes, what effort was made to fulfill those best interests?

To answer that question it is necessary to review the two and a half years of access. Of significance are the changes in that access over those years. [ 51 ] At the time of the September 2013 order F.E. was looking for work. As she didn’t drive she relied on F.S. to assist her in seeing H.E. F.S. worked Monday to Friday. Weekends were therefore a very important part of F.E.’s access to C.R. In order to make the access order work, time on the weekends had to be managed carefully.

In an email on September 30, 2013 (eighteen days after the court order) S.E.V. wrote that “sometimes I am free on weekends, but most times I am busy.” At this time S.E.V. had the flexibility in her time of not working outside the home. [ 52 ] Part of what kept the V. household busy was T.E.’s access to his children who reside in Duncan. S.V. testified that some of F.E.’s access on weekends did not happen due to having C.R. present for T.E.’s access to his children. S.E.V. confirmed that occurred with one visit in October 2013. F.E. testified that she did travel by bus out to Sooke to see C.R.

However, overall she said her contact with C.R. was well below what was contained in the order. [ 53 ] In spite of this S.E.V. was to write in 2015 that, “You and I and my mom had a fairly good system going in the beginning. It’s when other people got involved that things deteriated [sic] between us”. S.E.V. is accurate when she recalls that her mother and F.E. did not have any difficulties: that was her mother’s evidence as well. Her recollection is not accurate as it relates to ‘other people’. The ‘other people’ referred to is clearly F.S.

The emails from that time show that F.S. and S.E.V. were attempting to arrange visits between the children. The tone of those emails was positive as they attempted to struggle through the practical obstacles. That tone did not last. By the first half of the following year the emails were antagonistic. With F.E. there had been an antagonism much earlier. That antagonism created a pattern of access visits not occurring. [ 54 ] S.E.V. was asked in cross-examination whether she provided access on the special occasions as set out in the order. My note indicates that she said she believed that she did some.

She said that she did not remember that she refused any. F.E. testified that S.E.V. did refuse to provide access on special occasions. F.E. testified that she did not see C.R. on the Christmas, or birthday special occasions envisaged by the order. For reasons set out above with regard to credibility I accept that evidence of F.E. S.E.V. was asked if she provided the weekly email updates to F.E. required by the order. She testified that she provided verbal ones. I don’t believe her evidence on that point. In addition to reasons already referred to, it is clear from the emails that she and F.E. did not get along.

It is not credible to state that with that level of animosity there were conversations reviewing the week gone past. The result is that the updates mandated for in the order, which were the sole responsibility of S.E.V., were not provided. [ 55 ] The problems with access arose for the Ministry in the context of moving from the September order to a s. 54.01 order. In an email dated January 24, 2014 the problems with access were summarized by social worker Karen Daigle. On a positive note, she stated that there was still significant contact between H.E. and C.R.

There was to be an access provision ‘entrenched’ within the s. 54.01 order. On that basis, she recommended proceeding with the s. 54.01 application. The email closes with an expectation regarding access that seems ironic from the perspective of the present: “It is likely an agreed upon access plan will mitigate this issue”. [ 56 ] As has been noted, the access order was part of the s. 54.01 order. To repeat Mr. van Hanuse’s evidence, that additional term was “very rarely” done.

The elaborate access arrangements set out in the September order were pared down to access “every second Sunday as arranged by S.E.V. and F.E.”. The simplicity of the order did not improve the access that actually occurred. b. Under the March 2014 Order [ 57 ] Following the pattern from the September order, many of the weekend visits immediately after March 2014 were for six hours. However, the circumstances of the weekend access changed. Up to the March order S.E.V. had offered to drive on many occasions where access was offered or occurred.

With the March order she felt she had ‘permanent custody’ and therefore she would only drive one way. F.E. was still not driving and was working full time Monday to Friday. S.E.V.’s position created a hurdle to access with no corresponding benefit to C.R. S.E.V. began in May 2014 to offer visits to F.E. that were after work from 5:00 to 7:00 or 7:30. One of the offers was for Wednesday May 24 th in Sooke. F.E. gets off work at 4:30. It would not be physically possible to make it to Sooke for 5:00. This would be known to S.E.V. [ 58 ] At this time F.E. was having more and more time with H.E.

In July of 2014 H.E. came to live with F.E. full time so F.E. had to pick H.E. up after work. The offers of access after work were not realistic. S.E.V. maintaining as she did in her evidence, that F.E.

turned down visits in those circumstances reflects on S.E.V. and not F.E. [ 59 ] The next event impacting access is in a parking lot at an exchange on September 14, 2014. I do not intend to make a determination of who did precisely what. There were heated words between S.V. and F.S. which turned physical. Whatever the children heard or saw, it was more than they should have. What is important is what happens next. S.E.V. determined that from that time on, “in the best interests of C.R.”, his access to his mother would only be for two hours.

S.E.V. was asked in cross-examination how a reduction to two hours with his mother was responsive to a problem that happened at an exchange that did not involve the mother. Surely, it was suggested, all that need be specified was the exchange itself. S.E.V. added that C.R. was coming home saying bad things had been said about her and her mother and that was why the number of hours had to be reduced. This was an answer that she did not provide when asked for an explanation by F.E. on September 24, 2014. That answer does not ring true.

It does not explain why at this precise time she decides to act on what C.R. has been saying. It does not explain why a reduction in hours with his mother is the only answer to this problem. The reduction in hours does, however, match S.E.V.’s view that C.R. was in his forever home and that his mother’s access was an interference. This view is also contrary to C.R.’s best interests. [ 60 ] My conclusion in this regard is reinforced by what happened with C.R.’s school work and photos. Just prior to the parking lot incident F.E. asked for copies of pictures that S.E.V. had taken of C.R.

To the time of trial, some eighteen months later, F.E. has not received those pictures. In 2015, despite pleading requests, S.E.V. provided none of C.R.’s school work to F.E. [ 61 ] I conclude from this series of events that S.E.V. has wanted F.E. out of C.R.’s life as much as possible and the parking lot incident was an opportunity to achieve that aim. [ 62 ] Once S.E.V. had set F.E.’s access at two hours, an application was filed to increase that access. Up to the hearing of the application, six months later, S.E.V. relented but only to an extremely limited extent.

F.E. asked for a visit on a weekend in late October from 10:00 to 3:00 as she had friends in town who would like to see C.R. S.E.V. refused but was willing to move the time during the day. For C.R.’s birthday in December, S.E.V. permitted a four hour visit with his mother. To S.E.V.’s credit, the amount of time for the visits increased to 3.5 hours by the time of Judge Smith’s order. [ 63 ] On March 27, 2015, Judge Smith ordered that contact time shall be every second Sunday for six hours. If F.E. misses a visit it shall be made up on a weekend for 6 hours.

This is now the third order dealing with access to C.R. as between S.E.V. and F.E. This clarity did not improve access. [ 64 ] F.E. sent an email on May 16 th , 2015 (approximately seven weeks after Judge Smith’s order) reminding S.E.V. she has a visit the following day, a Sunday. S.E.V. emailed back saying she had written to F.E. on May 8 to say that she was going out of town that day. Monday, May 18 th was offered. F.E.’s response was not produced but S.E.V. writes back, “And I am following the court order.

The judge said that if we were away we would contact you and set up an alternate date, which I did, and you never responded to. There is no visit tomorrow, may[sic] 17 th ”. [ 65 ] It is important to pause for a moment and be clear on what is happening. Judge Smith set a very clear order. It overturned what S.E.V. had been doing in restricting access the past six months. There can be no legitimate misunderstanding of Judge Smith’s order. Yet S.E.V. writes to F.E. saying that the order says something which it clearly does not say. The order says the visits are to be on Sunday.

S.E.V. has no unilateral right to change them. Her behaviour in these circumstances speaks volumes to her unwillingness to abide by any court order that does not please her. [ 66 ] In this regard, it is worthwhile to review again the August holiday in Ontario. One element of that trip was that F.E. was advised, with one week’s notice, that she would not see C.R. for the month of August. It bears emphasis that this flouting of Judge Smith’s order occurred without any discussion with F.E. about how this time without his mother could be managed to achieve the best result for C.R. This was not just

an act of discourtesy, this was more behaviour without regard to the best interests of C.R. [ 67 ] S.E.V. repeats her behaviour in October when she sends an email on Tuesday October 6 th telling F.E. that, “We won’t be around for a visit on Sunday because of Thanksgiving, so would Saturday work for you?” This too is an action contrary to Judge Smith’s order which mandated visits on Sundays. [ 68 ] Using hindsight it is not difficult to see why the s.54.01 order was not going to work. The opportunities for misunderstanding were legion.

S.E.V. saw the order as a way to have a permanent ‘forever’ living arrangement with C.R. F.E. saw the order as temporary to be reviewed in a year’s time. The access order was made more difficult by parties who did not live near each other and one had no car, a full time job and was raising another small child. A strong pre-existing relationship between the parties may have been able to overcome these obstacles. Unfortunately that did not exist either. All of these considerations are not to assign blame to anyone for how the s.54.01 order has played out.

They are only to recognize that the best interests of C.R. cannot be achieved by this order or one close to it. [ 69 ] What is of note is that, despite these setbacks, F.E.’s emails to S.E.V. change dramatically. If one looks at the argumentative, accusatory emails from 2013 and then flips to those of late in 2015, it is hard to believe they are written by the same person. Yet she is dealing with exactly the same problem. Her emails now are respectful and conciliatory. Her handling of the order of the unilateral August holiday denial at the last minute was exceptional.

More will be said on the changes of F.E. when referring to her parenting capacity, a topic to which I now turn. 2. Parenting capacity of F.E. [ 70 ] S.E.V. argues that F.E. does not have the parenting capacity to protect the best interests of C.R. It was this lack of capacity which led the Ministry to exclude a return of the children to F.E. as one of the options in 2013. In effect, S.E.V. submits that the concerns identified by the Ministry still operate to exclude guardianship in F.E. as an option now.

Reliance is placed on concerns S.E.V. herself has observed in the care of C.R. and on the concerns identified by the Ministry during their involvement in this matter. There is little question that F.E. has improved in her abilities since the Ministry became involved. The question, therefore, becomes what is the

quality of that improvement. Is it sufficient to protect and nurture the best interests of C.R.? [ 71 ] In order to answer the question of F.E.’s current parenting capacity it is necessary to review the evidence of her progress. [ 72 ] At the time of the apprehension in April 2012, F.E. was in a relationship with M.R. That relationship was extremely negative for both F.E. and the children. The relationship appears to have ended in 2012.

Its circumstances were serious enough that Mr. van Hanuse suggested the possibility F.E. suffers some degree of post-traumatic stress disorder as a result. [ 73 ] The Director started from the position that this matter was going to proceed to a continuing custody hearing, thereby removing F.E. as a guardian of the children. The evidence is clear that her difficulty with anxiety was, and is, the key challenge to her parenting abilities. While these proceedings were ongoing, F.E. was taking several counselling programs.

She described one program as giving her coping techniques for her anxiety that helped her tremendously. [ 74 ] Even with this programming, Mr. van Hanuse, in a letter dated April 24, 2013, states that a continuing care order would be sought. He states that he recognizes that F.E. has “many good parenting skills” but does not have the parenting capacity to care for two children. He refers to mental health challenges which could include anxiety, trauma and depression.

He goes on to set out steps F.E. ought to take to be considered for primary custody again: -full time job for six months consecutive; -complete financial independence; -successful visitation times for six months; -healthy friendships, healthy relationships; -good personal physical health; -treatment for mental health issues. [ 75 ] More will be said of these issues below; however, it is important to note that F.E. has fulfilled the first two steps. While she does not have successful visitation with C.R., H.E. has been in her care for twenty one months without protection concerns.

A number of character letters were filed establishing that F.E. has some healthy friendships. The issue of healthy relationships remains outstanding. There is no suggestion of physical health issues. Finally, the question of mental health is a complicated one and will be discussed below. F.E. has been prescribed anti-anxiety medications which she feels are very helpful to her. Prior to further discussion of mental health issues, more of F.E.’s progress needs to be reviewed.

At this stage all that need be noted is that F.E. has accomplished much that was set out for her at this early stage. [ 76 ] Her progress was clearly sufficient to alter the course of the Director. The continuing custody application filed in May 2013, with its necessary finality, was abandoned. Instead the permanent care order was pursued, an order which always had the option of an application such as this one. [ 77 ] In the spring of 2014, Mr. van Hanuse wrote a letter to F.E. summarizing the issues that she must deal with to achieve sufficient parenting capacity.

He described her anxiety and mental health as her most significant risk factor. For that he referred her to Citizens Counselling and to Cascadia for counselling. The second issue he identified was her parenting practices. For that he referred her to Burnside Gorge Community Outreach program. The third and final issue he identified as conflict with her family including F.S., S.E.V. and others. For that he referred her to ‘parenting after separation’.

He then advised that he will be monitoring her progress closely to determine if H.E. may be returned to her care. [ 78 ] F.E. completed all the programs Mr. van Hanuse referred to above. H.E. returned to live with her mother in June 2014. In a file transfer

summary dated July 31, 2014, Mr. van Hanuse stated that the reasons for that transition were: “1. Mother is on meds, in therapy and managing her anxiety; 2. Mother has obtained and maintained employment for over 6 months; 3. Mother has Cridge housing; 4. Mother has secured after school care for H.E. in Sept.; 5. Mother continues to engage well with Burnside Gorge FDW and Cridge FDW”. [ 79 ] A number of recommendations are included at the end of the report. They are much more of a ‘maintenance’ variety than those in the past which required so much work of F.E.

In that same document, he goes on to say that he made unannounced visits to F.E. and she was “engaging in typical and healthy household activities”. He ended by noting that F.E.’s friction with her mother will “take considerable social worker attention”. I infer that it was his view that the strained relationship of mother and daughter was an impediment to the parenting capacity of F.E. [ 80 ] As events developed, that friction did not take any social worker attention as F.S. and F.E. repaired their relationship on their own.

In September of 2014, while H.E. was attending her Brownie’s meetings, F.S. and F.E. went for coffee to discuss their relationship. They did so every week for months. They are now, and have been for approximately a year, at the position that F.S. is fully supportive of her daughter. It is important to pause and state the significance of that step. First, it exhibits a tremendous skill to be able to talk through such a tattered relationship and make it whole again. Even if one is willing, the communication and listening that is necessary should not be underestimated.

Second, F.E. now has a support in her care for H.E. that is so much stronger than it ever has been in the past. The concern identified by Mr. van Hanuse in his file transfer

summary is now a thing of the past. These are significant

gains. [ 81 ] In the spring of 2015, F.E. asked that the Ministry conduct a reassessment of the s. 54.01 order. The Ministry agreed and Mr. van Hanuse began gathering information. His report is dated June 29, 2015. It begins with the disclaimer that the assessment is “quite limited because of the narrow mandate that the Director has.” He goes on to say that F.E. has steadily improved since 2013 and that the return of H.E. has been successful. He later describes the progress as “remarkable and commendable’”.

Then he turns to the issue of C.R. and concludes that he does not believe that F.E. is able to care for two children. This is based on how much support she has needed to maintain her level of functioning, a level he describes as good enough for one child only by a ‘slim margin’. He also notes that her access to C.R. has been marred by inappropriate comments that he is coming to live with his mother and that her discipline and feeding skills are inadequate. [ 82 ] This reassessment is a very important document as it provides recent and detailed information about F.E.’s parenting capacity.

While a critical analysis of this report is essential, I do not wish any of my comments to be taken as a criticism of Mr. van Hanuse. I am completely satisfied that he attempted to investigate, collect and communicate information as clearly and objectively as he could bearing in mind his ‘narrow mandate’. [ 83 ] What is in issue is whether his conclusion about the abilities of F.E. still accords with the best interests of C.R. It is to that which I now turn. [ 84 ] The first consideration is what has happened since Mr. van Hanuse’s reassessment. Another nine months have elapsed.

In those nine months F.E. has maintained her employment and continued to care for H.E. No protection concerns have been raised regarding that care. I have H.E.’s report card and it is a positive one. There is a letter dated January 29, 2016 from H.E.’s participation in an out-of-school care program. The letter is positive about F.E. and H.E. H.E.’s doctor has written a letter dated January 4, 2016 supporting the care F.E. is taking of H.E. The positive changes that F.E. has made are continuing and becoming entrenched with the passage of time.

As they do, the concerns about her parenting capacity also recede. [ 85 ] Second, there is now information before me which Mr. van Hanuse did not have the advantage of. I have nine letters attesting to F.E.’s skill and effort as a parent to H.E. These letters are from parents of H.E.’s friends and others who have seen F.E.’s parenting. The letters serve to show that F.E. is exhibiting her abilities as a parent and is forming the healthy relationships Mr. van Hanuse recommended in April 2013. [ 86 ] Third, Mr. van Hanuse also did not have the information regarding the positive relationship of F.S. and F.E.

What he had considered as a difficult issue that must be monitored in mid-2014 has now become a significant asset. I understood Mr. van Hanuse to acknowledge that F.S.’s support is a very important factor in assessing F.E.’s capacity. [ 87 ] Fourth, Mr. van Hanuse stated that he was most concerned that F.E. did not have the skill set to handle conflict. I took this to be a significant concern of Mr. van Hanuse’s. The conflict between F.E. and her mother had been extreme: she had sided with S.E.V. against her own daughter. The emails bear witness to that.

Yet the conflict was resolved in a positive way by their efforts. I conclude that F.E. played a key role in that positive resolution. I do so as a result of reading the recent emails between herself and S.E.V. In those emails F.E. is calm, respectful and goal oriented. Her ability to communicate in that way to handle conflict is an important skill set. [ 88 ] Fifth, was information Mr. van Hanuse received at this hearing. He testified that he was not aware that for six months the access visits had been restricted to as little as two hours every two weeks.

Given those difficult circumstances, he testified that he was not surprised that F.E. was exhibiting a lack of discipline in dealing with C.R. Therefore that concern for F.E. is much less significant than originally thought. At the same time, that evidence adds another layer of concern to the unilateral decision of S.E.V. to restrict access to C.R. [ 89 ] There remains one general issue to analyze regarding Mr. van Hanuse’s reassessment. In the report and in his evidence, he placed significant weight on the history of F.E.

Specifically, with the vulnerability assessment, he testified that that measure was based a ‘great deal’ on history. There is no question that any sensible assessment scrutinizes the history very carefully. The way a parent has acted in the past can be a predictor of how they will behave in the future. But history ought not to blind us to change either. To do so is to ignore that a new history is being created. To do so is to undervalue the quality and prospect for positive change. For F.E. it must be recognized that her life was disordered at the time the children were apprehended.

It was originally thought that these children had to be taken from her permanently. Over the course of approximately two years she made enough progress that she had her daughter returned to her. That achievement is only surpassed by what she has done since then, obtaining employment and establishing herself in many of the ways the Ministry set out for her as goals early on in April 2013. The change is seen most clearly in reading how she communicates. She has gone from a difficult, rude and disorganized person to one who can communicate respectfully and candidly.

With respect, that change is now part of her history too. [ 90 ] What remains of the reassessment are two issues. First is F.E.’s mental health. Second, is whether her capacity extends to take on two children, one being an extremely active five year old boy. Consideration of each of these two issues requires some measure of weighing the risks and the benefits. [ 91 ] The mental health issue is an extremely troubling one. The evidence in that regard does not contain the detail that one would like to have.

F.E. testified that her medications and programming about coping mechanisms have ended anxiety as an issue for her. I cannot accept that that is the case. The evidence of angry outbursts supports the inference that she still has difficulty managing her mental health. Also concerning is that it appears that she is looking to medication as the only support that she requires. I cannot accept that that is an accurate assessment of her situation. In

summary, there are concerns about her mental health and unknowns about her ability to cope in the future. [ 92 ] Having referred to those concerns, it remains the case that F.E. has made great progress. Why should it be inferred that no further progress can be made? An unknown can be an opportunity for advancement as much as a pitfall for regression. In the totality of the circumstances, the concerns for her mental health cannot be used to negate the progress she has made and for which she may be capable in the future. It is her responsibility to make sure she continues that progress.

[ 93 ] The addition of an active five year old boy adds a physical and mental element to the challenge ahead. There is no question that C.R. adds a challenge of great significance. With that challenge comes risk. Yet the benefits of his relationship with his sister and his mother are so important that the risk pales in comparison. F.E. has the benefit of her mother. That support will be of great benefit. [ 94 ] As a result, I am of the view that the two concerns identified in the reassessment are still significant issues.

However, I do not conclude that they overshadow all the other considerations that go into C.R.’s best interests. I conclude that her parenting capacity is not inconsistent with the application being made. [ 95 ] In considering C.R.’s best interests, it remains to review his relationship with others and particularly with H.E. 3. C.R.’s relationship with Others [ 96 ]

Section 37 makes it clear that the circle of relationships around a child are to be given attention when assessing that child’s best interests. It is in those relationships that a child learns and grows and is nurtured and is loved. It is in his observation that he has the same relationships as other children have that he feels that he fits in. It is necessary to look at those relationships for C.R. [ 97 ] S.E.V. testified that C.R. has developed friends at his school and with her and T.E.’s extended family. These relationships are important and ought not to be forgotten.

However, the relationship which stands out from all the rest is his relationship with his sister H.E. [ 98 ] C.R. has spent the first half of his life with H.E. It was the move from the foster home to S.E.V.’s that separated the two of them. Since that time there has been contact between the two of them. That contact has been enough that there is still a strong bond between them, based on the comments contained in emails in Exhibit 2 and the photographs entered. Yet the bond has suffered. S.E.V. testified that H.E. was always welcome at the farm.

That was somewhat surprising given that in two and a half years H.E. has never been there. C.R. has never gotten to show her his dog, his room or his toys. That situation speaks volumes to the impact of the current order on their relationship. [ 99 ] It was not intended to work out this way. Mr. van Hanuse’s expectations, quoted earlier, are worthy of repeating. He said, “It is rare and with great caution that the Director separates siblings.

In this case, the two caregivers live in the same area (CRD-Victoria) and are committed to maintaining a family bond with all parties involved.” This quotation reflects a number of expectations. First, is a recognition that this sibling relationship is very important to maintain. Second, is the expectation that the current living and access arrangements would maintain that bond. These expectations have not been fulfilled. There can be no suggestion that there is any commitment to maintain the family bond so that the children can overcome the impact of their separation.

The only evidence on which the family agreed was that the relationship was ‘poisoned.’ The history of access summarized above is entirely inconsistent with any such commitment. The separation of these siblings is an experiment that has failed. [ 100 ] In answer to this unintended consequence, S.E.V. submits that the bond between the two children is not strong now. Accordingly, the extreme step of changing guardianship ought not to be taken.

The evidentiary basis for that submission is that C.R. has stated that he doesn’t want to go to his mother’s home and he is afraid that if he does, his mother will keep him there. S.E.V. also places particular reliance on information gathered by Mr. van Hanuse when he was preparing his reassessment. He asked H.E. what she wished for and H.E. wished for toys and not for C.R. to be returned. He took that to mean that C.R. was not important to her world and the sibling bond had been broken. With the greatest respect, I disagree with that conclusion.

First, that conclusion would mean that H.E. has completely discounted the experience of the first two and a half years of C.R.’s life, a time they spent together. Second, that would mean that F.S.’s evidence that H.E. talks about C.R. extensively is completely fabricated. I do not conclude that. F.S.’s evidence was corroborated by letters tendered by F.E. Perhaps most importantly it must be remembered how emotionally tumultuous life has been for these children. They have had to sort out emotions for a lot of people in their lives. They have had to do so while receiving mixed and contradictory signals.

F.S. testified at the end of her examination in chief that H.E. had also said that she doesn’t want a brother. F.S. then said that “she [H.E.] doesn’t know what to do with those emotions”. That observation reflects, in my view, a more nuanced and accurate rationale for why H.E. referred to gifts and not her brother. Her brother is very much a part of her emotional life. She is just not sure how to say so. [ 101 ] From C.R.’s perspective, his relationship with his sister has been weakened. That was not supposed to have occurred. The s.54.01 order was crafted to maintain the relationships. It has not.

The way the order has operated has created the very negative situation which is now used to justify its continuation. These children deserve better than that. [ 102 ] I am sure that C.R. loves his home in Sooke and his life there. A great effort has been made to make a home for him there. Yet he cannot be blamed for not understanding what he is missing. Considering his best interests requires attention to what he is missing. His relationship with his sister is one he would have for a lifetime. He would continually learn from it.

He would not have to look at other children with siblings and wonder, ‘why not me?’ He would know that his mother loves him and wants to be with him because she is right there. These are benefits that deserve their proper priority in his best interests. [ 103 ] In

summary, the s. 54.01 order was expected to maintain C.R.’s relationship with his sister. It has not. Instead it has created a situation which can only be considered as extremely negative to C.R.’s best interests: a chasm in his relationship with his sister. That is only one aspect of a current situation which cannot continue. GUARDIANSHIP [ 104 ] I have concluded that F.E.’s application for guardianship should succeed and S.E.V.’s guardianship should be cancelled. I appreciate that the latter decision ought to be made only in extraordinary circumstances.

The ongoing negative consequences for C.R. outlined above create those extraordinary circumstances. [ 105 ] What remains is: how is the guardianship order to be structured in order to preserve C.R.’s best interests in the transition? The Guardianship Order

[ 106 ] Counsel for F.E. submitted that the ideal transition for C.R. would be one that was gradual. However, she submitted, the poisoned relationship was such that that was not a possibility and the transition would have to be done in one step. [ 107 ] I do not agree. That submission focuses on what divides these individuals, not what they have in common. The V. family, F.E. and F.S. share the love of two precious children. They are united in wanting the very best for those children at all times and in all situations. I cannot conceive that S.E.V. would want anything but the best for C.R.

To refuse to participate in an orderly transition for C.R. would show a coldness toward C.R. for which I do not believe S.E.V. is capable. Nor do I accept that F.E. and F.S. would not respect the love which the V. family have for C.R. [ 108 ] I intend to impose a gradual transition for C.R. Such a transition would give C.R. the clear message that he is surrounded by love from those around him. In doing so, I am not intending to impose the final word. If there are considerations or concerns that must be accommodated and which require variation of what I have ordered, then I will hear those submissions.

At this stage, the entire focus is not on the convenience of others but on what is best for C.R. [ 109 ] Therefore, I order that commencing the weekend of April 8, C.R. is to spend from Saturday at 10:00 a.m. to Sunday at 4 p.m. with F.E. That is to continue for each weekend in April. Commencing the first weekend in May, C.R. is to spend from Saturday May 7th at 10:00 a.m. to the following Saturday at 10:00 a.m. with F.E. This week on/week off

schedule will continue for the month of May. On June 4 th when S.E.V. delivers C.R. to F.E., C.R. will commence residing full time with F.E. [ 110 ] I will remain seized of any applications during the transition phase of C.R.’s move and of any contact applications which S.E.V. may wish to make regarding C.R. In light of F.E.’s expression during her evidence that she agreed that S.E.V. should still see C.R., I trust that such a contact application is likely to be unnecessary. A. Brooks Provincial Court Judge [i] Ms. E. is now known as Ms. H.

I have kept her name as in the style of cause to avoid confusion. [ii] No argument was made as to the validity of the order on the basis of s. 54.01(5)(c). Accordingly these reasons do not address that issue.