2013 NBQB 261, 2013 NBQB 261

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK FAMILY DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONCTON Neutral citation: 2013 NBQB 261 File: FDM-717-2012 BETWEEN LYNE LEBLANC, Applicant -and- MARK BOUCHER, Respondent DECISION BEFORE: Madam Justice Colette d'Entremont AT: Moncton, New Brunswick DATE OF HEARING: July 2, 3, 4, 5, 22, 29 and 30, 2013 D ATE OF DECISION: August 20, 2013 APPEARANCES: Céline Robichaud-Fournier for the Applicant Jennifer L. Hébert for the Respondent Justice d'Entremont Introduction [ 1 ] In this application, the mother, Lyne LeBlanc, seeks an order for primary custody and specified access.

She also seeks an order allowing her to move to Alberta with the children. Finally, she asks the Court to determine child support. [ 2 ] In response, the father, Mark Boucher, seeks an order for sole custody of the two children, specified access and child support. Mr. Boucher opposes the children's relocation to Alberta. In addition, if the mother remains in New Brunswick, he suggests shared custody.

[ 3 ] The proceeding is governed by the Divorce Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) Facts [ 4 ] The parties were married on May 14, 1999, and separated in September 2004.The divorce was granted on July 2, 2013, on the first day of this hearing. [ 5 ] The parties have two children, Joslain, a boy, born May 6, 2000, and Karyssa, a girl, born October 25, 2001. [ 6 ] Following their separation, the parties entered into a separation agreement dated June 7, 2005.

According to the agreement, the parents have joint custody of the children, who live primarily with the mother and have visitation rights with the father every other weekend. In addition, holidays are shared and the father has the option of having more days with the children during his vacation. Furthermore, according to the agreement, Mr. Boucher is obligated to pay monthly child support in the amount of $423 to Ms. LeBlanc. The amount of support is based on an annual income of $35,837. [ 7 ] Visits with the father occurred every other weekend.

Generally, over a period of twenty-eight days, the children stayed overnight with their father for four days. However, as the children grew, their father's role in their life has increased. For the past four years, during the school year, the children have visited the father and had dinner with him on Mondays and Tuesdays after school. Because the children had dinner with the father, the monthly child support was reduced to $400. [ 8 ] The children actively participate in sports. For example, as they grew up, Joslain and Karyssa were part of many hockey and soccer teams. Often, Mr.

Boucher was the coach or assistant coach for the children's teams. In addition, the father was often responsible for transporting the children to practices and games. For example, when the children played hockey at 7:00 or 8:00 a.m. on Saturday or Sunday, it was Mr. Boucher who took the children to the rink, even on weekends when the children were in the mother's custody. On the other hand, Ms. LeBlanc indicates that she also drove the children to practices and games. Karyssa participated in volleyball at her school, swimming, gymnastics, trampoline and soccer.

Sometimes, the parent who had custody of a child who was participating in a sporting event was responsible for transportation. However, it was the father who made the children's participation in sports a priority. [ 9 ] Because of his involvement in the children’s sporting activities, Mr. Boucher saw them much more often than every other weekend. Sometimes, Mr. Boucher also saw the children during religious studies. Depending on his schedule, Mr. Boucher saw them three to four times per week. After the activities, the children would go to their mother's to sleep. [ 10 ] Ms.

LeBlanc has been a teacher for about twenty years with the same school district. Ms. LeBlanc earns $73,000 per year. She took leave without pay for the 2013-2014 school year. She teaches at the same Shediac elementary school the children attend. Thus, she regularly discusses her children’s performance and behaviour with their teachers. Also, Ms. LeBlanc also helps the children with their homework. For her, the children's education is important. When the children are with the father after school on Mondays and Tuesdays, he always asks them if they have homework. [ 11 ] Ms.

LeBlanc is also primarily responsible for making appointments with doctors, physiotherapists and other professionals, as well as transporting the children to these appointments. As for Mr. Boucher, he was responsible for transporting the children to some appointments with health professionals.

He indicates that he picks up medications for Joslain from the pharmacy. [ 12 ] When it comes to education, Joslain is enrolled in Grade 8 for the school year starting in September 2013 and Karyssa will be in Grade 7. [ 13 ] Joslain was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder when he was in Grade 4 and takes medication regularly. Even with the medication, accommodations have been made for him during the school day. In addition, the mother explains that she often needs to encourage and remind him to do certain things during the day.

According to the father, Joslain needs routine, stability and structure to function well. Also, he enthusiastically discusses plans made with his Grade 8 friends. He mentions the year-end trip, winter carnival activities and the graduation party.

[ 14 ] Mr. Boucher has worked for a pharmaceutical company in Moncton for about twenty years. His shift used to be from 10:30 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., i.e., the night shift. He has been working from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. since January 2012. Once he started working days, he asked Ms. LeBlanc for shared custody, which she refused. His annual income is around $41,600. Witnesses described Mr. Boucher as the one who plays outside with the children and who participates in activities with them. [ 15 ] Each parent has a new partner. Ms. LeBlanc has been living with Kevin Vautour for five years. Mr.

Boucher has been living with Lise Bourque since 2006. Each couple has experienced periods of separation but eventually reconciled. The new partners testified at trial. Mr. Vautour has two sons who live with their mother in Miramichi. According to Ms. Bourque, she shares custody of her son, Jérémie, with the child's father. Joslain and Karyssa get along well with Jérémie and consider him to be their half-brother. The children are fond of Ms. Bourque's cooking. [ 16 ] For a few years, Mr. Vautour had difficulty finding a good job.

He was even laid off from a mill in Miramichi and a federal pension centre in Shediac. He applied for many positions in New Brunswick, but was unsuccessful. However, in early February 2013, he started working as an energetics engineer with Suncor in Fort McMurray, Alberta. [ 17 ] In 2013, Mr. Vautour estimates he will earn an annual income between $170,000 and $200,000, which is higher than his previous salaries in New Brunswick. In addition, the company requires him to reside in Fort McMurray. To that end, Suncor offers attractive benefits if his spouse and children relocate to Alberta with him.

However, in order to be eligible for these benefits, the relocation must occur within six months following the position's commencement. Mr. Vautour has come back to New Brunswick twice since starting his job with Suncor. In Alberta, he works twelve hours per day for six consecutive days and then has six days off. [ 18 ] Ms. LeBlanc wants to live with Mr. Vautour and the children in Alberta. She explains that she has taken leave without pay from the school district where she teaches. She has gotten a teaching job in Fort McMurray. Her annual income will be $83,000. Ms.

LeBlanc indicated that the children could attend MacTavish School in the fall. Ms. LeBlanc argues that she wants to improve her financial situation by going to Alberta. It is noted that the city of Fort McMurray is a twelve-hour flight from the Greater Moncton airport. [ 19 ] Ms. LeBlanc is seeking permission to move the children permanently to Alberta. She suggests that the children visit their father in New Brunswick during school holidays, i.e., the Christmas, summer and spring breaks. Ms. LeBlanc also suggests that the children and their father would communicate by telephone, e-mail and Skype. Mr.

Boucher argues that it is difficult to raise children via telephone or Skype. Ms. LeBlanc indicates that she is prepared to pay for airfare. [ 20 ] Ms. LeBlanc's house in Shediac is listed on the real estate market for approximately $220,000. According to her research, the same house in Fort McMurray would cost about $700,000. She notes that there, she would have two tenants living in the basement of her home each paying $800 to $1,000 a month. Her monthly mortgage payment is currently about $700 but would be at least $3,000 in Alberta. [ 21 ] For his part, Mr. Boucher opposes the children's relocation.

Currently, from his home in Shediac, New Brunswick, he is only a three-minute drive to Ms. LeBlanc's home. The father indicates that he sees the children often during the week. Mr. Boucher argues that if the children relocate, his relationship with them will suffer because he will see them significantly less. [ 22 ] Mr. Boucher also argues that the children have lived their entire lives in the Francophone community of Shediac and that all of their immediate family members live close to this New Brunswick town. The children have always attended a French school. The school identified by Ms.

LeBlanc is an immersion school and not a school where French is the language of instruction. [ 23 ] Over the past few years, Ms. LeBlanc has had significant difficulty with her thyroid gland and Graves disease. She experienced hyperthyroidism and then hypothyroidism. It seems that she has had significant difficulty regulating her thyroid function even with medication, resulting in periods of depression. When she became ill, she asked Mr. Boucher to take the children so that she would have a break.

According to her, he always refused to take additional time, and the children's maternal grandparents had to take care of them. Mr. Boucher denies refusing to take the children. [ 24 ] According to Ms. LeBlanc, the children are excited to go a new province and have new life experiences. The relocation was described to the children as being for ten months, i.e., one school year. However, at the time of the trial, Ms. LeBlanc's relocation plan was now long-term. According to the evidence, the children were never told that the relocation is not for ten months but rather permanent.

[ 25 ] Ms. LeBlanc is reproached for drinking alcohol to excess. She admits that she does drink, but only socially. She admits that on weekends she may drink between six and seven beers over an evening. Often when Mr. Boucher would go to pick up the children from Ms. LeBlanc, she and her spouse would be smoking in the garage and having a glass of wine or a beer. Once in December 2011 or 2012, Mr. Boucher went to Ms. LeBlanc's home to return the children. According to the father, Ms. LeBlanc and her spouse were drunk. Therefore, Mr.

Boucher kept the children with him overnight. [ 26 ] The two children actively participate in sports. During the 2012-2013 school year, Karyssa had soccer at 9:00 a.m. and Joslain had soccer at 10:00 a.m. on Sunday mornings at the Sportsdome in Moncton. The parent who had the children over the weekend was responsible for their transportation. Joslain also played soccer on Monday and Wednesday evenings. The father or a neighbour took Joslain to the practice or match. Also, on Friday evenings, Joslain played soccer and Karyssa swam.

By agreement between the parents, the parent who had physical custody was responsible for transportation. [ 27 ] With respect to Joslain, he is on the provincial and elite soccer teams. His dream is to play on a FIFA soccer team. Karyssa, on the other hand, is described as very social. She meets up with friends often, especially Ms. Bourque's niece, Chloé. [ 28 ] According to Mr. Boucher's calendar, he sees the children about twenty days per month.

This translates to Friday, Saturday and Sunday every weekend, Monday and Tuesday evenings for dinner during the school year and during sporting activities, which occur about four times per week. In addition, according to Mr. Boucher's calendar, he has the children for about six overnights per month. In April 2013, Mr. Boucher had the children for ten nights because Ms. LeBlanc took leave without pay to go to Cuba with her spouse. Psychologist [ 29 ] René Caissie, a psychologist, met with the children to determine their wishes and preferences. He prepared a report dated July 1, 2013. Mr.

Caissie's testimony was consistent with his report. The salient points of his report are the following: [ 30 ] His observations and the outcome of his clinical interview with Karyssa are found at page 5 of the psychological report and read as follows: [Translation] With respect to her parents’ relationship, she describes it as tense. Sensing that there are frequent disagreements between them, she does not like the situation to the extent of wanting them to stop arguing and to be able to get along one day. When she needs to confide in someone, she usually does so with her mother.

When she is with her mother, she likes to do all kinds of activities, while she mainly participates in sports with her father. She indicates loving both her parents in addition to having developed a stable relationship with her mother's new spouse, Kevin. She also reports having a good relationship with her brother, with whom she can participate in sports. With respect to the current litigation, she seems to understand the reason for it. She confirms that her mother wants to take her two children to Alberta to join her spouse. They could go there for a year and then assess if they like it.

However, her father refuses to allow his children to leave. As a result, she is worried that her father may be upset with her if she leaves with her mother. Faced with a possible relocation, she sees it in a positive light and would even want to move if there were no drawbacks. She lists several advantages, such as new life experiences, being reunited with her step-father, activities (outings, shopping, etc.) and visiting new places. When it comes to disadvantages, she mentions missing her father, friends and extended family. [ 31 ] On page 6 of the report, Mr.

Caissie describes the outcome of his observations and clinical interview with Joslain: [Translation] With respect to his parents' relationship, she [ sic ] describes it as neither good nor bad. He notes that they don't always get along, but has never witnessed any true conflict. Their separation was painful, and he wants his parents to get back together. He trusts both of his parents and is comfortable confiding in both of them. He describes his mother as a positive person (nice, funny, a good cook), but wishes that she would quit smoking.

She is involved in every aspect of his life, such as his studies and sports. With respect to his father, he likes him mainly because he participates in many sporting activities with him. He confirms loving both his parents and having developed a stable relationship with his mother's new spouse, Kevin. He also reports having a good relationship with his sister, with whom he can participate in sports. With respect to the current litigation, he appears to understand the reason for it. He understands that his mother wants to move to Alberta for a year to join her spouse.

The relocation is viewed positively for many reasons, such as a new house, making new friends, reuniting with his step-father, new activities (skiing, NHL hockey games, West Edmonton Mall). He also shares some disadvantages, such as missing his father, missing soccer and missing his cultural trip at school next year and missing his

friends. However, the only true reason he would not want to leave is his father, and he becomes emotional while discussing it. He feels conflicted in this situation because he is under the impression that if he left, his father would not want to speak to them, which would really hurt him. As his mother reported, he feels he is the loser in this situation, regardless of the outcome. [ 32 ] The psychologist's final opinion is found on page 7 of his report: [Translation] This situation is quite complicated. Regardless of the outcome, one or more family members will suffer, but inevitably the children.

Both children feel that they are responsible for the decision, although they were not asked to make it. They feel implicit pressure to choose between their parents, especially Joslain. Both children are prepared for the new adventure of moving to Alberta with Ms. LeBlanc's spouse, with whom they have a good relationship. However, they sense the conflict between their parents and want it to stop. This conflict is making them feel pressured to take on responsibility for the decision that is ultimately made. Issues [ 33 ] The issues in dispute in this proceeding are the following: (

a) Which parent should have custody of the children and should the children be allowed to move to Alberta? (

b) In light of the answer to this first question, the next question is: what are the child support obligations? Applicable Law [ 34 ] The claims are governed by

section 16 of the Divorce Act , as follows: 16.

(1) A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody of and access to, any or all children of the marriage. …

(8) In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child. …

(10) In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact. In addition, the term “best interests of the child” is defined in

section 1 of the Family Services Act , 1983, SNB. c. F-2.2: “best interests of the child” means the best interests of the child under the circumstances taking into consideration (

a) the mental, emotional and physical health of the child and his need for appropriate care or treatment, or both; (

b) the views and preferences of the child, where such views and preferences can be reasonably ascertained; (

c) the effect upon the child of any disruption of the child’s sense of continuity; (

d) the love, affection and ties that exist between the child and each person to whom the child’s custody is entrusted, each person to whom access to the child is granted and, where appropriate, each sibling of the child and, where appropriate, each grandparent of the child; (

e) the merits of any plan proposed by the Minister under which he would be caring for the child, in comparison with the merits of the child returning to or remaining with his parents;

(

f) the need to provide a secure environment that would permit the child to become a useful and productive member of societythrough the achievement of his full potential according to his individual capacity; and (

g) the child’s cultural and religious heritage; [35] In Gordon v. Goertz, (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, the Supreme Court of Canada describes a two-part analysisfor determining custody and relocation of a child with a parent. Madam Justice McLachlin, who was not yet chief justice, summarizedthe law in paragraphs 49 and 50: 49 The law can be summarized as follows: 1. The parent applying for a change in the custody or access order must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating amaterial change in the circumstances affecting the child. 2.

If the threshold is met, the judge on the application must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of thechild, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child's needs and the ability of the respective parents tosatisfy them. 3. This inquiry is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order and evidence of the new circumstances. 4. The inquiry does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the custodial parent, although the custodial parent's views areentitled to great respect. 5. Each case turns on its own unique circumstances.

The only issue is the best interest of the child in the particular circumstancesof the case. 6. The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests and rights of the parents. 7. More particularly the judge should consider, inter alia: (

a) the existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent; (

b) the existing access arrangement and the relationship between the child and the access parent; (

c) the desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents;

d) the views of the child; (

e) the custodial parent’s reason for moving, only in the exceptional case where it is relevant to that parent’s ability to meet theneeds of the child; (

f) disruption to the child of a change in custody; (

g) disruption to the child consequent on removal from family, schools, and the community he or she has come to know. 50 In the end, the importance of the child remaining with the parent to whose custody it has become accustomed in thenew location must be weighed against the continuance of full contact with the child's access parent, its extended family and itscommunity. The ultimate question in every case is this: what is in the best interests of the child in all the circumstances, old aswell as new? [36] The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick decision entitled L.D.D. v.

J.A.D. [2010] NBCA 302, specifies the analysis to be used inthe context of a combined child relocation and initial custody application. According to our Court of Appeal, the first part of the analysisin Gordon v. Goertz requiring a material change in circumstances is not required in initial custody applications. [37] In P.R.H. v. M.E.L. [2009] NBCA 85, our province's Court of Appeal describes the general trends in cases related to mobility: 18 The general trend of the jurisprudence since Gordon v.

Goertz has been to grant approval for a proposed move, so long as itis proposed in good faith and is not intended to frustrate the access parent’s relationship with the child. However, the relocatingparent must generally also be willing to accommodate the interests of both the child and the access parent. This will generally

require a restructuring of access, with the relocating parent possibly incurring the increased costs of access in the new arrangement, sometimes by way of an alteration of the child support obligations. However, this general trend is most evident in cases where there is a clear primary caregiver for the child or children. A proposed move is less likely to be approved where caregiving and physical custody have been equally shared between parents. Furthermore, no such trend is evident in cases where the proposed move would result in a separation of siblings who have, prior to that point, lived together.

The court-imposed separation of siblings remains exceptional. Application of this analysis to this case [ 38 ] In the matter before us, there was no previous order in force. The parties entered into a separation agreement eight years ago when the children were four and five years old. Custody and access was such that the children lived primarily with Ms. LeBlanc and Mr. Boucher had visitation rights to the children. The matter before us is an initial custody application rather than an application to vary a final order.

As a result, the Court must determine the issue of custody at the same time as the proposed relocation by the mother to Alberta. The Court must determine the best interests of the children taking into account the circumstances relevant to their needs and the ability of each parent to meet those needs. [ 39 ] As the children grew up, the father's role increased. More specifically, when the children participated in sports, from age five to the present, the father was primarily responsible for their transportation because he frequently coached their teams. The result is that the children live with Ms. LeBlanc. Mr.

Boucher has generous visitation rights to the children. During the school year, he sees the children every other weekend and Mondays and Tuesdays after school until after dinner. The evidence also shows that Mr. Boucher sees the children about twenty times per month. This

schedule closely resembles shared custody. Under the Federal Child Support Guidelines (SOR / 97-175), shared custody is defined as having access rights to a child 40% of the time. In addition, the evidence does not support Ms. LeBlanc's argument that she is the psychological parent. I believe that she was the psychological parent in the past, but she was no longer so at the time of the trial. [ 40 ] According to the witnesses, the relationship between Ms. LeBlanc and the children is good. The relationship between Mr. Boucher and the children is also good.

Each parent has the ability to meet the needs of the children. [ 41 ] The children say that they are ready to go to Alberta for a school year so that they can have a new experience. The fact that this relocation might be permanent was not explained to them. Joslain and Karyssa love their parents, who love them in return. In addition, the children appear to like their parents' spouses, whom they see regularly. [ 42 ] The reasons listed by Ms.

LeBlanc to justify the relocation to Fort McMurray are that her spouse has found a new job in this Albertan city and that, according to the mother, her spouse and the children will stand to benefit financially. [ 43 ] Relocating the children to Alberta would result in a significant reduction in contact between the children and their father. If the children move to Alberta, they will have to travel twelve hours by plane to see Mr.

Boucher, whereas they currently live three minutes away from him. [ 44 ] With respect to the criterion regarding the effect on the children's stability in relation to their family, the schools and neighbourhood they know, we note that the children have spent their entire childhood in the Shediac area. Because they are thirteen and eleven and a half years old, the children have relationships with the schools and other children in their neighbourhood. The children have attachments to school friends, sports teams and the neighbourhood in which they live.

In the case before us, I understand that the people who have taken care of the children are the mother, father, and their spouses. The grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins on both sides of the family live near Shediac. The children have never been to Fort McMurray and have no particular attachments there. [ 45 ] In my opinion, I must determine if the children's interests will be served by granting primary custody to Ms. LeBlanc in Alberta with limited visitation rights to the father, or by granting it to Mr.

Boucher in Shediac with limited visitation rights to the mother. [ 46 ] The basic issue is what is in the best interests of the children taking into account their past and current circumstances. [ 47 ] The children reside primarily with their mother. However, during a normal period of thirty days, Mr. Boucher has visitation rights every other weekend from Friday evening to Sunday evening. During the school year, he has the children Mondays and Tuesdays

after school until after dinner time. In addition, he drives to and participates in sports activities such as soccer with one or the other child. According to the evidence, the children see Mr. Boucher about twenty out of thirty days. [ 48 ] On the other hand, according to the calendar presented, the children sleep at the mother’s house almost every night, except for an average of six nights in a period of thirty days. [ 49 ] I am of the opinion that when the children were very young, Ms. LeBlanc provided for the children's essential needs and was the children's primary parent.

However, as the children grew up, Mr. Boucher became very active in sports with the children and the mother's role diminished. The mother minimizes the role of sports. However, the father indicates that when the children are in sports, “they are not in the street.” [ 50 ] What the children know is their routine in a Francophone community where they attend a French school. All of their immediate family members are in New Brunswick. Ms. LeBlanc suggests relocating them to a large Anglophone city and placing them in an immersion school. [ 51 ] I note that Joslain has ADHD.

Usually, these children perform better in a structured environment where a routine is followed. The move to Alberta would be a big change. As for Karyssa, she is described as social with many friends. [ 52 ] The father suggests that the children should not be allowed to move to Alberta and that they remain in New Brunswick. In the event the mother decides not to go to Alberta, Mr.

Boucher suggests shared custody. [ 53 ] Having considered the aforementioned paragraphs, including the visitation calendar, the children's ages, stability, continuity, French-speaking community and French-language school, I find that it is in the best interests of the children to remain under joint custody and to live primarily with Mr. Boucher in Shediac, a place that is familiar to them. Permission to move to Fort McMurray with the mother is denied. If Ms. LeBlanc chooses to remain in Shediac, the parents will have shared custody. [ 54 ] If Ms.

LeBlanc chooses to live in Alberta, taking into account the distance between Fort McMurray and Shediac, as well as the age of the children, Ms. LeBlanc will have visitation rights to the children in Alberta during the summer, a period of ten days at Christmas, with Christmas Day to be alternated between the parties, and every year during the spring break. In addition, if Ms. LeBlanc is in the Shediac area, she may visit the children after providing reasonable notice.

For example, when she comes back to attend a wedding in September 2013, or if she decides to take days off without pay over long weekends, she may have access to the children. If both parties have the required equipment, the children and their mother may communicate via Skype or FaceTime. Ms. LeBlanc may communicate with the children by telephone or e-mail. Child Support [ 55 ] Taking into account the distance between Shediac and Fort McMurray, Alberta, and the costs associated with exercising visitation rights, the costs for the children's airfare will reduce the child support for every dollar spent.

For example, Ms. LeBlanc expects to earn $83,000 a year in Alberta. Under the Federal Child Support Guidelines for Alberta , she must pay $1,187 per month commencing September 1, 2013. If she spends $1,200 per plane ticket for each child, the child support will be reduced by $2,400. If Ms. LeBlanc chooses to live in Shediac, custody will be shared. While acknowledging the principles set out in Leonelli-Contino v. Contino , [2003] S.C.C. 557, the child support will be the difference between the two amounts determined according to the New Brunswick Guidelines . For example, Ms.

LeBlanc's income in New Brunswick is $73,000, which means a monthly child support payment of $1,038. Mr. Boucher's income is $41,000, which means a monthly payment of $582. Ms. LeBlanc will pay $456 to the father. Disposition [ 56 ] I order the following: (

a) The children will not relocate to Fort McMurray, Alberta, with Ms. LeBlanc. (

b) If Ms. LeBlanc chooses to move to Alberta, Mr. Boucher will have sole custody of the children, namely Joslain, born May 6, 2000, and Karyssa, born October 25, 2001. (

c) If Ms. LeBlanc moves to Alberta, her visitation rights will be as follows:

(

i) six weeks during summer; (ii) a period of ten consecutive days during the Christmas holidays, with the parties alternating Christmas Day; (iii) spring break every year, according to the calendar of the school district of the school attended by the children; (iv) reasonable periods on notice in the town of Shediac when Ms. LeBlanc is there; and (

v) any other period as agreed by the parties. (

d) In the event that Ms. LeBlanc relocates to Alberta without the children, taking into account the cost of airfare, the child support required under the Alberta Guidelines will be reduced by every dollar spent on the children's airfare. (

e) In the event that Ms. LeBlanc chooses to remain in New Brunswick, custody will be shared, with the children residing one week with each parent. The child support will be the difference between the two amounts required under the Guidelines . (

f) Because Mr. Boucher was more successful in this matter, he is entitled to costs of $2,000. This amount includes disbursements and applicable taxes. SIGNED at Moncton, New Brunswick, on August 20, 2013. Colette d’Entremont Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Family Division