E.L.G. v. J.R.G., 2018 BCPC 215

Citation: E.L.G. v. J.R.G. 2018 BCPC 215 Date: 20180824 File No: 23065 Registry: Fort St. John IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: E.L.G. APPLICANT AND: J.R.G. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE M.J. BRECKNELL Re: Parental Responsibilities and Parenting Time Appearing on their own behalf: E.G . Appearing on their own behalf: J.G . Place of Hearing: Fort St. John , B.C. Dates of Hearing: June 26, 27, 28, and 29, 2018 Dates of Written Submissions: July 9, August 1 and 3, 2018 Date of Oral Submissions: August 14, 2018

Date of Judgment: August 24, 2018 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] J.R.G. comes from a large, extended and long residing farming family in the [omitted for publication] area near Fort St. John, British Columbia. In the course of this proceeding many people with the last name of G. have been referred to or provided evidence to the Court. In order to separate those persons from the main proponents in this litigation the Court will refer to E.L.G. as E., and J.R.G. as J., since that is the way they are described in various affidavits and other documents, and to both of them as the Parties.

The Court means no disrespect to the Parties by referring to them by their first name.

It is done to easily identify them from other members of the extended G. family. [ 2 ] J.E.M.G. born [omitted for publication] (J.G.) and K.H.G. born [omitted for publication] (K.G.) (collectively the Children) are the focus of protracted legal proceedings both in the Provincial Court of British Columbia and the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which have been ongoing for over two years. [ 3 ] Since the beginning of the litigation the Parties advise that they have spent over $200,000.00 litigating on practically every issue that can arise from a marital relationship.

The money spent on these expensive court battles would have greatly benefited the Children for such things as their further education, extracurricular activities or educational and recreational vacations had it been utilized for those purposes as opposed to the course chosen by the Parties up to this point. [ 4 ] The latest round in this litigation marathon occupied this Court’s time for four days in late June 2018.

At the beginning of the trial, the Parties were told that in all matters concerning the Children, the Court, in making any orders, would consider only the best interests of the Children as described in

Section 37 of the Family Law Act ( FLA ) and by applying the relevant considerations set out in that

section and the case law. [ 5 ] Despite the Court’s direction it became clear as the trial progressed that E. and J. each seemed bent on “winning” and on “defeating” the other with seemingly only passing regard to the provisions of

Section 37 of the FLA and in the face of many admonishments by the Court. [ 6 ] E. advised that she believed the issues to be decided included:

a) Parental responsibilities for the Children as described in

Section 41 of the FLA which should be mostly shared equally between the Parties;

b) Parenting time with the Children as described in

Section 42 of the FLA which should be approximately equal but with the Children residing with her and attending school in [omitted for publication], British Columbia, or Fort St. John, British Columbia;

c) her parenting time to include some weekends and an equitable allocation of the various vacation times throughout the year;

d) Conduct Orders directed to J.’s behaviour as described in Sections 222 through 228 of the FLA. [ 7 ] J. advised the Court that he believed the issues to be decided included:

a) Parental responsibilities for the Children as described in

Section 41 of the FLA which should primarily be his responsibility with a few responsibilities being shared with E.;

b) Parenting time with the Children as described in

Section 42 of the FLA which should be fully with him with supervised contact between the Children and E., until she addresses her alcoholism issues to his satisfaction and the satisfaction of the Court.

After that, a more equal division of parenting time could be considered, including various vacation times, but with the Children residing with him in [omitted for publication], British Columbia and attending the nearby [omitted for publication] School ([omitted for publication] School). [ 8 ] Both of the Parties agreed that they were not seeking any orders with regard to any issues other than what they described to the Court. Those other issues are being addressed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

They also agreed that they are not seeking any orders with regard to E.’s son from a previous relationship, F.L.T. born [omitted for publication] (F.), as he is now an adult. GEOGRAPHIC ISSUES [ 9 ] The Parties reside in two communities relatively close to, but in different directions from, Fort St. John and some driving distance from each other. They were unable to agree on what the driving distance and time would be from their residence to the other Party’s residence, from their residence or the other Party’s residence to important locations in Fort St.

John, or from their residence or the other Party’s residence to various school bus stops that might serve the Children’s busing needs from each Party’s residence to each of the schools they propose the Children attend. [ 10 ] During the course of the trial each of the Parties resorted to various mapping software applications to convince the Court that their estimates of distance and time were the correct ones. [ 11 ] The Court has considered various documents in arriving at a distance and time estimates for the issues to be determined relevant to the Children’s transportation needs and their best interests. [ 12 ] J. resides on a farm located at [omitted for publication], British Columbia.

The home on the farm was the family residence of the Parties until separation. [Omitted for publication] is a farming hamlet which has some [omitted for publication] related businesses and a general store in the immediate area. [ 13 ] Prior to the separation the Children attended [omitted for publication] School located at [omitted for publication], British Columbia. It is described on the School District. [omitted for publication] website as having approximately [omitted for publication]

students between the grades of [omitted for publication]. [ 14 ] E. resides at [omitted for publication], British Columbia. The District of [omitted for publication] is a small town located outside of the City of Fort St. John on the [omitted for publication]. Although it is a small community it has a large industrial base including oil and gas refining facilities, a power plant and logging enterprises. It also has some small businesses but largely serves as a bedroom community for nearby Fort St.

John. [ 15 ] Since the separation the Children have attended [omitted for publication] Elementary School ([omitted for publication] School) located at [omitted for publication] in [omitted for publication]. It is described on the School District [omitted for publication] website is having approximately [omitted for publication] students between the grades of [omitted for publication]. [ 16 ] During the trial there was an issue raised concerning J.G. possibly attending [omitted for publication] Middle School ([omitted for publication]) located at [omitted for publication] in Fort St. John.

It is described on the School District [omitted for publication] website as having approximately [omitted for publication] students between Grades [omitted for publication]. It offers a [omitted for publication] program and a Band program. [ 17 ] According to J., if the Children are attending [omitted for publication] School but living with E. half the time, she would have to get them to the bus stop at the top of [omitted for publication] by 7:15 AM or the [omitted for publication] by 7:30 AM each morning.

The Children would be ready to be picked up at the [omitted for publication] at 3:15 PM or the top of [omitted for publication] at 3:45 PM. [ 18 ] Based on the Google Maps software the various distances and driving times (in good travel conditions with roads in good repair and with light traffic) are determined by the Court to be as follows:

a) J.’s home to [omitted for publication] School is 6.6 km / 7 minutes;

b) J.’s home to [omitted for publication] is 53 km / 43 minutes;

c) J.’s home to [omitted for publication] School is 70 km / 56 minutes;

d) J.’s home to E.’s home is 71 km / 57 minutes;

e) E.’s home to [omitted for publication] School is 1.3 km / 3 minutes;

f) E.’s home to [omitted for publication] is 18 km / 16 minutes;

g) E.’s home to [omitted for publication] School is 65 km / 51 minutes;

h) E.’s home to [omitted for publication] is 43 km / 38 minutes;

i) E.’s home to [omitted for publication] is 64 km / 50 minutes; j) [Omitted for publication] to [omitted for publication] Store is 28 km / 22 minutes. k) [Omitted for publication] School to [omitted for publication] Store is 43 km / 34 minutes

l) E.’s employment to [omitted for publication] Store 26 km / 21 minutes [ 19 ] If the Children were to be transported by school bus from one location to another, the travel time would be increased depending on the number of stops the bus would have to make for other passengers. [ 20 ] Driving times will also be affected by such variables as road, weather and traffic conditions, wildlife, and seasonal darkness in the morning and afternoon. [ 21 ] In light of the Court’s determinations on driving times and distances, the evidence of the Parties on those topics will not be repeated in the Evidence portion of this decision.

PERSONAL HISTORIES [ 22 ] E. was born on [omitted for publication] in Nova Scotia and moved to British Columbia in 1998. She is presently employed at a [omitted for publication] company as a [omitted for publication] but she will soon be temporarily promoted to [omitted for publication] to cover a maternity leave. [ 23 ] J. was born on [omitted for publication]. He comes from a farming family. He is presently employed at an [omitted for publication] services company. [ 24 ] The Parties met at a Christmas party in 2000, began a common-law relationship in 2001 and were married on September 14, 2002.

F. resided with the Parties throughout most of his growing up years although he attended school in Saskatchewan for one year. The Children were born during the course of the marriage. [ 25 ] During the marriage the Parties operated both a [omitted for publication] farming operation and an [omitted for publication] business known as [omitted for publication]. [ 26 ] For most of the marriage E. was employed in the [omitted for publication] industry in Fort St. John but for a period of about three years she was a stay at home parent.

[ 27 ] The Parties separated on January 4, 2016, although they continued to share the family residence until April 14, 2016. LITIGATION HISTORY [ 28 ] Due to the numerous filings by both of the Parties the Court considers it necessary to undertake a detailed review of the pleadings in the Provincial Court and a

summary review what occurred in Supreme Court in order to fully capture the nature of the litigation and the Parties perceptions of and attitudes toward each other. [ 29 ] On March 21, 2016, E. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking orders for guardianship, spousal support and child support for the Children and F.. That Application was never served on J.. [ 30 ] On April 15, 2016, J. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking orders for guardianship and prohibiting E. from leaving Fort St.

John with the Children. [ 31 ] On April 18, 2016, E. filed a Reply disagreeing with the orders sought by J. and advising the Court that the Children were residing and attending school in [omitted for publication]. By counterclaim E. sought orders for guardianship and child support [ 32 ] On April 19, 2016, E. filed a Notice of Motion seeking a review of a filed order and affidavit evidence. [ 33 ] On April 19, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in her name in which she related that since January 4, 2016, she and the Children had been residing in the basement of the residence until April 14, 2016.

On that evening J. packed all of her possessions and put them at the door to the residence. The previous night he had returned home drunk and assaulted her. She had consulted counsel in 2014, and had received counselling through her church after a violent incident but returned to live with J. She was no longer able to tolerate 14 years of emotional, mental and physical abuse. For 12 years she resided with J. in [omitted for publication] and worked fulltime in Fort St. John while at the same time attended to the Children’s activities.

She was the primary caregiver of the Children, was responsible for the maintenance of the residence, and was responsible for paying the family bills and tending to the financial records of their businesses. She taught the Children to walk, talk, swim and skate and she volunteered at the Children’s sporting activities.

She believed J. was capable of hurting her, she was frightened for herself and the Children but she was prepared for J. to have time with the Children once he stabilized his behaviour. [ 34 ] On April 22, 2016, E. filed a Notice of Motion seeking a Protection Order. [ 35 ] On April 22, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in her name in which she related that she asked J. to stay away from her and the Children for a period of time, that he hacked her phone and wiped out its content. She went to the RCMP and they asked him to stay away from her.

Subsequently he had appeared at her residence advising that he had no papers requiring him to stay away. She called the RCMP because she was frightened of him, and he called the RCMP alleging that she caring for the Children while drunk which was not true. [ 36 ] On April 22, 2016, the Court granted an Ex Parte Protection Order prohibiting J. from having contact with E.H. or E. except indirectly through J.G.C., from attending E.’s place of work or anyplace she might reasonably be expected to be and from attending the Children’s school except on one occasion for a concert.

J. was granted leave to apply to set aside the Protection Order and it was to expire on May 17, 2016. [ 37 ] On April 27, 2016, J. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking orders for guardianship, allocation of parental responsibilities and a Protection Order. [ 38 ] On April 27, 2016, J. filed a Notice of Motion seeking a Protection Order against E., E.H., J.D.H. and his companies and employees to have no direct contact with J., G., or, M.G., that they not attend J.’s residence or any properties owned by him, G. or M.G., that they not attend [omitted for publication] School, that E. surrender to the Court the Children’s passports, that the Children not be taken outside of the [omitted for publication] Regional District and that E. refrain from conducting any business on behalf of [omitted for publication]. [ 39 ] On April 27, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in his name in which he related his reasons for seeking a Protection Order alleging that E. was harassing him and his parents and for further Protection Orders against J.H., and E.H. on the basis that J.H. had used his employees to take items from J.’s residence.

He stated the Children should be returned to their home so that they could re-attend [omitted for publication] School, that E. had a drinking problem that might affect the Children and he had banking records to show her frequent alcohol purchases. [ 40 ] On April 28, 2016, E. filed a Notice of Family Claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking orders for divorce, child custody, child support, spousal support, division of property and debt including extensive real property, [omitted for publication], [omitted for publication], banking and investment accounts, [omitted for publication] and costs of the litigation. [ 41 ] On May 5, 2016, J. filed a Reply disagreeing with the orders sought by E. for guardianship, child support, spousal support and a Protection Order.

By counterclaim, J. sought orders for guardianship, allocation of parental responsibilities, parenting time, child support, spousal support, changes in or suspension or termination of an earlier order dated April 22, 2016, a Protection Order, other orders including that E. not remove the Children from Fort St. John, that she provide the Children’s passports to J., that the Children be returned to [omitted for publication] School immediately, that the Children’s primary residence be with J., that a report be prepared pursuant to

Section 211 of the FLA , a Protection Order on the basis that E. was an alcoholic and regularly abused J. and the Children, that E. is not a guardian of the Children and that J. is the sole guardian with all of the parental responsibilities respecting the Children, that E. not have unsupervised contact with the Children until she successfully completes “a reputable alcoholism rehabilitation program” and in the alternative, that E.’s parenting time be supervised by a professional supervisor with the cost to be borne by her. [ 42 ] On May 5, 2016, J. filed a Notice of Motion seeking to set aside the Protection Order and seeking orders that E. not remove the Children from the geographical area of Fort St.

John, that the Children’s relocation be prohibited and that they be returned to J.’s residence, that the Children be re-enrolled in [omitted for publication] School, that E. deliver the Children’s passports to J., a Protection

Order on the basis that E. was an alcoholic and regularly abused J. and the Children and that J. have sole guardianship of the Children until E. had successfully completed “a reputable alcoholic rehabilitation program” and that E.’s contact or parenting time with the Children be supervised until such program was completed. [ 43 ] On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in his name in which he related his wish to have the earlier Ex Parte Protection Order granted to E. set aside, set out the history of the business and farming operations he shared with E. and the history of their marital problems dating back to 2015.

E. had a history of alcohol abuse but it accelerated after 2015, with her often coming home late and drunk, sometimes with the Children with her, putting all of them in danger. E. moved to the basement in January 2016, because of his attempts to curtail her drinking because that allowed her to continue drinking without interruption and the Children did not want to be around E. because of her alcohol excesses. E. threatened on many occasions to take the Children and to force him to sell the business and the farm.

E. would often take his phone and call people he did business with to sabotage his business relationships with them. While intoxicated, E. would often send him nasty and threatening text messages. E.’s alcohol abuse had carried on for approximately two years up to that point. E. was always jealous and possessive of him, often accusing him of cheating including with their family members. E.’s family members deny that she had a drinking problem. On one occasion in February 2016, while intoxicated, E. lit the kitchen garbage can on fire and sat there watching it rather than trying to put it out.

E. would often drink 4 to 5 beers, often with the Children in the vehicle, in the 45 minute drive from Fort St. John to their residence. On one occasion prior to the final separation, J.G. was upset and when he tried to comfort her she said, “I wish beer had never been invented”. That statement caused him to not drink beer in front of the Children since that date.

Many of the allegations set out in E.’s affidavit sworn April 18, 2016, concerning the incident alleged by her to have occurred on January 4, 2016 but that actually occurred on February 24, 2016, were untrue, on April 14, 2016, he did assist in packing boxes belonging to E. although most of her things were already packed and she was extremely drunk that evening. E. withheld the Children from him for several days after she left. He had extensive involvement in the raising of the Children through the years. [ 44 ] On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of V.G., his brother, in which Mr.

G. related that within the last year E. had been very drunk and belligerent at family gatherings, that J. has been a role model father and uncle, that E. had permitted his daughter to watch an R-rated film, that on more than one occasion at a family gathering E. drove herself to the function in an intoxicated condition or became so intoxicated during the family gathering she was unable to care for the Children. This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.

As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence. [ 45 ] On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of J.G.C., the common-law spouse of his brother, in which Ms. C. related that she was concerned for the safety of the Children but that she worried about the amount of alcohol E. consumed at one time because she does not know when to stop and had blacked out on numerous occasions. She had seen E. driving while intoxicated with the Children in her vehicle. [ 46 ] On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of A.G., his cousin in law, in which Ms.

G. related that she had known J. for 17 years and that he is caring, friendly, a great person and a great father to his Children. He is a hard-working man but still dedicated to his family and that after the Children were born, J. took a job closer to home so that he could be there for his Children. This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination. As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence. [ 47 ] On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of D.G., his cousin, in which Mr.

G. related that J. is a respected, hard-working man who loves his family and that he was very close to the Children, involving them in his many farm activities. This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination. As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence. [ 48 ] On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of B.M., his cousin, in which Ms. M. related having known J. her whole life and that he was a good and caring man.

J. was a good parent to E.’s son F., and he was actively involved in the Children’s lives often taking them with him on his farming chores. She had observed several occasions when E. was so intoxicated while in public that she was unable to attend to the needs of the Children. E. should seek some professional assistance to deal with her alcohol issues. This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.

As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence. [ 49 ] On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of M.A.G., his sister-in-law, in which Ms. G. related that she had known E. for seven years and that E. often would consume alcohol to excess at family gatherings to the point that she was extremely intoxicated or would even pass out. In the past two years E.’s alcohol consumption had increased to the point that she became intoxicated so quickly that she was unable to control her behaviour.

On several specific occasions in 2015 at family gatherings, E. became so intoxicated that she acted in a very bizarre fashion including disrobing in front of the gathering on one occasion; attempting to lap dance on her father-in- law’s lap on another and almost damaging a pool table. Although E. loves the Children, her involvement with alcohol was to the point that she cannot be left as their primary caregiver. [ 50 ] On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of T.G., his brother, in which Mr.

G. related that all too often at family functions E. drank to the point of extreme intoxication and became belligerent. Her drinking had increased over the past couple years and cause disturbances at family functions. E. needed professional assistance with regard to her drinking problem. She had easy access to alcohol because her brother owns a number of [omitted for publication] in the area. Her family tolerated her excessive drinking. J. and the Children get along very well and he continued to work hard to provide for the family, run the farm and the business yet still attending to the Children’s needs.

E. was deviously smart and had no issue with using the Children as pawns in this whole ordeal. This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination. As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence. [ 51 ] On May 10, 2016, E. filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders prohibiting J. from taking the Children from within the geographic area of Fort St.

John / [omitted for publication], the relocation of the Children from her residence, a blood test be taken from J. with regard to his alcohol consumption, that J. be restrained from operating a motor vehicle containing the Children within 12 hours of consuming alcohol, disclosure of all banking and credit account records J. has control over and that she have access to the financial

records from January 1, 2016, that the Children be in the primary care of E., a Protection Order against J. as protection for E. and the Children, that E. have sole guardianship of the Children until such time as J. had successfully completed “a provincially recognized substance abuse rehabilitation program” and that J.’s contact or parenting time be supervised until he completed such program, interim child support and interim spousal support. [ 52 ] On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she referenced the fact that she had commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court on April 20, 2016, and served upon J. on April 29, 2016, contested the evidence set out in the affidavits of J.G.C., M.A.G., T.G., B.M., A.G., D.G. and V.G. as it pertained to her alcohol consumption and their alcohol consumption.

She enclosed letters of support from various friends of hers, she contested many of the facts alleged in J.’s earlier affidavit on numerous topics including their respective consumption of alcohol, business and personal financial issues, their marital relationship and divorce, care of their animals, J. sexual behaviours, J.’s hacking of her phone and removing data, the relationship with his extended family, day-to-day care of the Children, arranging for and attending the Children’s activities, the nature of text messages and emails between the two of them, the circumstances that arose on the date of separation, J.’s stalking of her since separation, J.’s false allegations to the RCMP about her being intoxicated while caring for the Children and attaching numerous exhibits including extensive text messages. [ 53 ] On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of N.E., her sister-in-law, in which Ms.

E. related an incident that occurred on April 15, 2016, when the Children and their grandmother, E.H., were visiting her. J. arrived at her property uninvited and forcibly entered her residence; at that point the Children ran and hid in the bedroom while J. was shouting about taking them with him and threatening to punch Ms. H. in the mouth. She intervened demanding that he leave and eventually J. agreed and left the property. She injured her hand, back and shoulders during the altercation and had to seek medical attention.

This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination. As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence. [ 54 ] On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of D.H., her sister-in-law, in which Ms. H. related her history of knowing E. since 1999, E.’s positive attitude and attributes with regard to her personal relationships, child care and involvement in her Children’s and community activities. This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.

As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence. [ 55 ] On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of K.P., a long-time friend, in which Ms. P. related that E. did not allow alcohol consumption to interfere with her parenting or her driving. This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination. As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence. [ 56 ] On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of E.H., her mother, in which Ms.

H. related her observations of E. and J.’s marriage, J.’s drinking and driving, J.’s dominating, controlling and disrespectful behaviour towards E. She noted E.’s hands-on attitude in maintaining the household in contrast to J.’s lack of participation. There were many occasions when E. and the Children had to retreat to her residence when J. was drunk and became abusive, and violent. She related the incident on April 15, 2016, when J. tried to force his way into Ms. E’s home and his break and entry into her private residence located on property belonging to his parents.

J.’s parents insisted that she vacate the property on short notice after the litigation commenced. J.’s father made disrespectful descriptions vulgar comments about E. She described J.’s disregard for properly treating his diabetes, the drinking behaviours of and the effect of alcohol on E., J. and the G. family. [ 57 ] On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of J.D.H., her brother, in which Mr.

H. related his observations of J.’s drinking alcohol and driving on numerous occasions, the excessive drinking that occurs at the G. family gatherings, and J.’s cruel treatment of E.. [ 58 ] On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of J.S., a friend, in which Ms. S related her observations of E.’s dedication to her Children’s sporting activities, her excellence in maintaining her household and providing wonderful meals to the Children and her close bond with the Children. [ 59 ] On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of P.E., her brother, in which Mr.

E related his observations of E. as a very loving and caring mother who was involved with the Children in their extracurricular activities, J.’s driving while intoxicated, often arriving at family camping events intoxicated and late in the night. This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination. As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence. [ 60 ] On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of T.T.C., her former spouse’s sister, in which Ms.

T.C. related her close friendship with E. since they were teenagers, and E.’s excellent parenting of the Children and F., her nephew. This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination. As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence. [ 61 ] On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of J.T., her former spouse, in which Mr. T. related that his son F. was moved by E. to British Columbia with his consent and that she was a good mother to F. throughout the years.

This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination. As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence. [ 62 ] On May 11, 2016, the Court granted a Consent Order (the Consent Order) setting aside the Protection Order made on April 22, 2016, ordering that a Family Justice Counsellor prepare a full

Section 211 Report, requiring the Parties to complete the Parenting After Separation program, prohibiting the removal of the Children from outside the Northern Region as defined by the British Columbia Ministry of Health, prohibiting either Party from consuming alcohol while the Children are in their care, restraining the Parties from operating a motor vehicle containing the Children if they had consumed alcohol within the preceding 12 hours. [ 63 ] The Consent Order also dealt with parenting time in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as follows: 7.

J. shall have parenting time with J.G. and K.G. every weekend from Friday or Thursday, if Friday is a professional development day or statutory holiday, after school until Monday or Tuesday, if Monday is a professional development day or statutory holiday, before

school commences. J. will pick up and drop off J.G. and K.G. at school for the course of his parenting time. 8. Should the parties be unable to agree on further parenting time while J.G. and K.G. are on vacation from school, parenting time for the months of July and August shall be split evenly between the parties on a week on, week off basis at dates and times as agreed between the parties. 9.

Moving forward, the parenting time between the parties reflected in this order shall not form the basis of a position of status quo, nor shall the enrolment of the Children in [omitted for publication] School form the basis of a position of status quo. [ 64 ] On June 13, 2016, J. filed a Response to Family Claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in which he denied practically all the claims made by E. in the Notice of Family Claim. [ 65 ] On June 13, 2016, J. filed a counterclaim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in which he sought orders that he be granted sole custody, primary residence and all parental responsibilities for the Children until E. successfully completed a reputable alcoholism rehabilitation program and that her parenting time with the Children be supervised, that E. pay him child support for the Children and F. and special and extraordinary expenses for the Children and F., spousal support for himself, an unequal division of family property and family debt in his favour, a declaration that certain assets were excluded property belonging to him and an order for compensation for property. [ 66 ] On August 8, 2016, J. filed a Notice of Motion seeking an order to amend the Consent Order so that parenting time is 50/50 during the 2016 – 2017 school year and that the Children not be removed from [omitted for publication] School. [ 67 ] On August 8, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in his own name in support of his Motion in which he related his view that the parenting time of the Children should be equally shared between him and E., the Children be returned to [omitted for publication] for the 2016 – 2017 school year, that E. had denied him parenting time with the Children for three weeks after their removal from [omitted for publication] School, that he had re-enrolled the Children in [omitted for publication] School had arrangements made for them to be transported by bus from his driveway to the school and that E. refused to pay for the

Section 211 Report despite earlier agreeing to do so. [ 68 ] On August 23, 2016, E. filed a Reply opposing the relief sought by J. in the Notice of Motion filed August 8, 2016, indicating that the Supreme Court proceeding was ongoing. [ 69 ] On August 23, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she related that J. had agreed to the Consent Order, that matters are proceeding in the Supreme Court, that J. had made threats against her, that the Children are settled in [omitted for publication] and that she picked that community because it was a small friendly community, the Children had made numerous friends in [omitted for publication] and were a five minute walk to school, the disruption alleged by J. was as a result of him putting E. and the Children out of their home on short notice, that the present Consent Order entitles them to almost equal parenting time, that the Provincial Court proceeding should be adjourned generally because of the commencement of the Supreme Court proceedings. [ 70 ] August 26, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of Marian Krieger, her then counsel’s paralegal, in which Ms.

Krieger attached numerous email communications between her then counsel and J.’s then counsel over a variety issues outstanding in the Provincial Court and Supreme Court proceedings. This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross- examination.

As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence. [ 71 ] On August 29, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she related that during previous separations between her and J., prior to the final separation; the Children would always come with her and remain in her care when she was forced out of the family residence. She attached a photograph of J. operating a [omitted for publication] with K.G. sitting on his lap and not safely restrained by a seatbelt.

She stated J. had taken the Children to [omitted for publication] School on June 30, 2016 telling them that he had re-enrolled them. The Children have told her on numerous occasions they wish to continue to attend [omitted for publication] School. The Children have become upset while accusing her of forcing J. to sell all of their assets when they should not be involved at all in that issue The Children have advised her that when J. had his parenting time with them they often spend long hours with his mother while he is working.

She said she wished to have the Supreme Court adjudicate all matters at issue because of the availability of pre-trial discovery tools that would assist in determining the best interests of the Children. [ 72 ] August 29, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in his name to which he attached a number of emails in which he alleged inappropriate behaviour on E.’s part with regard to her treatment of F., restricting the Children’s activities while they are with him, arranging activities for the Children when they are with him without consulting with him or obtaining his consent and the school bus

schedule for [omitted for publication] School. [ 73 ] On January 24, 2017, Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an Order with regard to possession and sale of certain assets, medical records concerning J.’s diagnosis and treatment for diabetes, J.’s production of insurance documents with respect to the beneficiary of those policies, E. to have permission to meet with the corporate accountant and obtain information and documents from that person, transfer of certain [omitted for publication] from one Party to another pending full resolution, the Children to attend the counsellor through E.’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP), contribution and distribution of various

Section 7 expenses and that the Consent Order of the Provincial Court be varied with regard to each of the Parties travelling with the Children outside of the province and outside of Canada; [ 74 ] May 29, 2017, J. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking orders for a change in parenting time from the Consent Order while E. was in Vancouver tending to the needs of F. who had been injured in an automobile accident. [ 75 ] On May 29, 2017, J. filed a Notice of Motion seeking a change to the Consent Order concerning parenting time of the Children while E. was away in Vancouver. [ 76 ] On May 29, 2017, J. filed an affidavit in his own name in which he related that the night before F. had been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident and he had to be transported to Vancouver for further treatment.

When asked by the doctor in Fort St.

John, he was unable to provide medical decisions for F.. When E. arrived at the hospital a couple of hours later she was intoxicated. E. had to go to Vancouver with F. and he advised her that he would take care of the Children while she was gone.

E. became angry and told him that her mother would take care of the Children because she did not wish them to miss any school but he informed her that he would ensure the Children attended all of their classes. [ 77 ] On May 29, 2017, the Court granted an Order giving J. interim parenting time with the Children until June 1, 2017, and directing that E.H. and J.C. be present and that E. could attend the hearing by telephone. [ 78 ] On June 1, 2017, the Court granted the Order giving J. interim parenting time with the Children until E. returned to Fort St.

John. [ 79 ] On June 29, 2017, J. filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders to enforce the Consent Order and to have the Children returned to his care with a police enforcement clause. [ 80 ] On June 29, 2017, J. filed an affidavit in his name in which he related that he went to the [omitted for publication] School on the last day of school to pick up the Children to commence his parenting time with them but that when he arrived the Children were not present. He contacted E. to have her return the Children and she refused. He contacted the RCMP and was told that the Consent Order was not police enforceable.

He had vacation plans arranged for the Children for over a month and E. was aware of that and was attempting to bully him. [ 81 ] On June 29, 2017, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she related that the Provincial Court file had been adjourned to the Supreme Court but that J. continued to file Motions and receive relief from the Provincial Court, that matters were on standby in the Supreme Court and that the Protection Order should be reinstated in her favour due to J.’s constant harassment of her, slandering of her name and character, his filing of false reports to the RCMP and his actions which were causing financial hardship on her and the Children. [ 82 ] On June 29, 2017, the Court granted an Order specifying parenting time for the Children to be with E. from June 29, 2017 until July 9, 2017, and with J. from July 9, 2017 to July 20, 2017, and that the police enforcement application be adjourned. [ 83 ] On July 24, 2017, E. filed a Notice of Motion seeking a Protection Order and enforcement of the June 29, 2017, Order on the basis that she received information that J. had entered her home and was behaving out of control. [ 84 ] On July 21, 2017, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she related that she and J. were in court on June 29, 2017, but after the appearance J. refused to respond to a request for the return of the Children.

J. refused to return the Children as directed by the Court, and J. continued to show a lot of anger towards her using slander and vulgar language in her direction and in front of the Children. [ 85 ] On August 1, 2017, the Court granted an Order in which Judge Daley seized himself with any Provincial Court interim applications. [ 86 ] August 22, 2017, J. filed an affidavit in his own name in which he related that he is seeking full custody of the Children until E. undergoes treatment for alcohol.

He related the events of January through April 2016 and that he only agreed to the Consent Order because he had not seen the Children for many weeks prior. He alleged that E. left the Children unsupervised for lengthy periods of time.

The Children asked him to return to [omitted for publication] School and E.’s only goal is to keep the Children in turmoil and away from him as can be seen by her breach of the earlier order on June 28, 2017. [ 87 ] On August 31, 2017, J. filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders for full custody of the Children. [ 88 ] On September 1, 2017, E. filed a Reply disagreeing with J.’s application for full custody and seeking final orders from the Court based on the status quo and the recently completed

Section 211 Report. [ 89 ] On September 1, 2017, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she related that J. was very upset with the outcome of the

Section 211 Report and that he continued to slander her name and to suggest to the Court that the Children are unhappy when in fact the Children are happy when they are with her. She said that J. was making unfounded and untrue accusations against her and his actions are out of control and not focused on the best interests of the Children. She would like the Children to reside with her throughout the school week and on one weekend each month and that they reside with J. during the rest of the time.

She requested that J. be permitted to communicate about the Children with her by email and that the Court approve the Children’s activities for the year because J. is uncooperative. [ 90 ] On September 14, 2017, the Court granted an Order fixing the trial dates for June 26, 27 and 28, 2018, fixing two pre-trial conferences, prohibiting the Parties from filing any further Applications or Notices of Motion without leave of the Court. [ 91 ] On September 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an Order at a Judicial Case Conference resolving all the issues of family property and debt except for certain issues arising from [omitted for publication]. [ 92 ] On October 5, 2017, E. filed an affidavit in her name in which she related events that had occurred since the hearing in Provincial Court on September 14, 2017, she had contacted the Family Justice Counsellor and made a request of J. for mediation but with no response.

J. and his new spouse had made numerous requests of her to remove the Children from school for nine days to see J.’s new spouse’s family and she asked J. to agree to an exchange of some weekends because she does not have the Children on weekends. She made a report to the RCMP after she spoke briefly to J. in the parking lot of the courthouse when he told her that he would not think twice about burning her car. On September 26, 2017 J. texted her numerous times calling her a number of derogatory names and insisted that he would be taking the Children for the nine days in October.

J. refused to acknowledge the recommendations set out in the

Section 211 Report and only then renewed his claims for sole custody. [ 93 ] On December 22, 2017, J. filed an Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements in which he did not indicate any

orders he was seeking but alleged that E. did not take the Children to school so that they would not be able to have Christmas with him as she had threatened earlier. [ 94 ] On December 22, 2017, J. filed a Notice of Motion in which he sought enforcement of the Consent Order. [ 95 ] On December 22, 2017, J. filed an affidavit in his own name which attached a string of email messages between him and E. concerning the issue of Christmas vacation parenting time. [ 96 ] On December 22, 2017, E. filed a Reply disagreeing with the Application to enforce the Consent Order brought by J. and stating that vacation time was to be shared, that Christmas vacation was vacation time and that the Children requested that they remain with her for Christmas Eve and be returned to J.’s care midway through Christmas Day. [ 97 ] On December 22, 2017, the Court granted an Order giving J. parenting time with the Children from 3:30 PM on December 22, 2017 until 12 noon on December 25, 2017 at which time he was to return the Children to E. [ 98 ] January 3, 2018, E. filed an affidavit in her name in which she related that she had patiently waited for J. to stop his foolishness and move together for the best interests of the Children but that it has not happened.

She waited a full year to get a

Section 211 Report and to obtain some weekend time with the Children but that had not happened that J. had continued to do whatever he wants with virtually no communication with her. J. brought an application on December 22, 2017, and advised the Court that he works weekends, and is on a 24 hr call basis when he is caring for the Children. The Children have advised her that they are often left in the care of J.’s girlfriend or mother on the weekends.

J.’s behaviour was promoting the litigation and she was being tarnished with the same bad behaviour although she had not filed for any relief from the Court since July, 2017.

J. is in contempt of numerous Supreme Court Orders and continues to breach Provincial Court orders including over the Christmas vacation when he refused to return the Children as required. [ 99 ] On January 15, 2018, E. filed a Notice of Motion seeking an Enforcement Order or direction from the Court regarding J.’s refusal to return the Children to her. [ 100 ] On February 1, 2018, E. filed an affidavit in her name in which she related that she was in Vancouver between January 19 and 23, 2018 to assist her son F. during his recovery from surgery, it was arranged for J. to keep the Children until she returned but he over held them against their wishes.

J. often has his mother pick up the Children and take them to their activities during his parenting time and very recently before the filing of the affidavit J. had again over held the Children. She sought full-time care the of Children until the matters are resolved by trial because J. had taken the Children from her care on multiple occasions but then left them with his new spouse or his mother or other friends and family instead of caring for them himself during his parenting time.

J.G. had refused to take her phone to J.’s residence because he confiscated it from her. [ 101 ] On February 28, 2018, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she related that J. is currently in contempt of multiple Supreme Court orders for child support,

Section 7 expenses and disclosure. J. continues to be in violation of various Provincial Court orders concerning parenting time. On February 8, with no advance notice to her J. had planned to take the Children out of school and on a trip to Kelowna for an undisclosed period of time. Upon returning from Kelowna J. refused to allow the Children to leave his car stating “mom’s drunk” even though that was a lie and refused to let them out of the vehicle until she came up to the vehicle.

It was unreasonable for J. to refuse to allow her any weekend time with the Children particularly on weekends when they have formalized activities, functions, birthday parties or hockey tournaments, J. persistently told the Children that they will be returning to [omitted for publication] School even though that matter has not yet been determined by the Court. J.G. was upset that she would be required to return to [omitted for publication] School thereby missing out on continuation of band to which she had become quite attached. She has attempted to begin mediation with J. but he refused to participate.

An attempt was made at a Judicial Case Conference (JCC) with Justice Mayer, but J. walked out and refused to attend the following day. [ 102 ] On March 2, 2018, J. filed a Reply in which he disagreed with E.’s Application for an Order or directions alleging that her allegations were false and a waste of the Court’s time and that he was simply following the Court Order and, by counterclaim he sought to enforcement of the June 1, 2017 Order. [ 103 ] On March 2, 2018, J. filed four (4) affidavits in his own name.

In the first he related in response to E.’s affidavit filed October 5, 2017 that it was yet another example of E.’s actions fuelled by anger or jealousy and alcoholism and that she had a disease and needed help. Her bad behaviours had been rewarded by removing the Children from school knowing he had a planned holiday with them. She changed her permission to allow him to take the Children out of school for a fall vacation after the tickets were purchased and then began making unreasonable demands.

E. did not act immediately upon a Supreme Court order requiring her to return the fifth wheel trailer to him rather waiting four hours before doing so. The Children had written a letter to the Court after the

Section 211 Report which reads: Judge, My sister, K.G., and I like the way our parents share us. Weekends and days with no school with Dad and weekdays with Mom. Also, during the summer we think it should be one week and one week. We would like things to stay this way. Thank you, J.G. and K.G.

K.G. had informed him that she wished to attend [omitted for publication] School with her cousins and step brother even requesting a little house at the end of the driveway to wait for the school bus on cold winter days. [ 104 ] In the second affidavit he related a wish to apologize to the Court for wasting valuable court time but that E. had deprived him of his holiday with the Children in the summer 2017, taking two holidays herself with the Children. E. tried to interfere with his October holiday with the Children even though she had previously agreed to it.

E. was acting maliciously towards him and attempting to interfere

with his relationship with the Children and that during the Christmas season of 2017 E. insisted on returning the Children to him earlier than originally planned. [ 105 ] In the third affidavit he related that E. had, throughout the various court proceedings, served him with materials on short notice. She was willing to lie in affidavits which caused the proceedings to be protracted. He had taken the Children with him to Kelowna during his weekend time and as such it was none of E.’s business.

At the end of the trip to Kelowna he attempted to drop the Children off with E. in [omitted for publication] late in the evening but she refused to come out to speak to him to demonstrate that she was sober. The only times he has not taken the Children to one of their events during his parenting time had been either when they were out of town, when K.G. wanted to attend a birthday party or when the Children wanted to attend an event with other people from the [omitted for publication] School. E. has filed over 42 affidavits with the Court as he’s only responded with 16.

E. suffered from alcoholism and depression and had been prescribed medication for depression but did not take it. While E. continues to suffer from alcoholism any attempt at mediation would be impossible. [ 106 ] In the fourth affidavit he related that E. would prefer her mother rather than him to care for the Children when she was unable to do so while attending to F. in Vancouver even though he is their father. She did not communicate with him effectively when dealing with the needs of the Children.

E. was prepared to enlist her mother to cause additional stress for him and the Children when it comes to his picking up of the Children at the school. He has taken J.G.’s cell phone away during his parenting time because E. repeatedly texts her causing J.G. to become upset and disrupting his care of the Children. E. constantly quizzed the Children for information when they left his care.

E. cannot move forward with her life because of her disease and she needed help. [ 107 ] On March 6, 2018, the Court granted an Order for E. to have parenting time with the Children from March 19 through 26, 2018 without prejudice to J. [ 108 ] On April 3, 2018, E. filed an affidavit in her name in which she related that J. assaulted her mother on March 28, 2018, when she served him with documents. J. was involved in fraudulent and dubious sales transactions and he continued to maintain a [omitted for publication] even though he has advised the Supreme Court differently.

J.’s actions have cost her over $100,000.00 in legal fees and J. continued to refuse to share the Children’s holidays with her. [ 109 ] On April 17, 2018, E. filed a Notice of Motion seeking an Enforcement Order of the Consent Order and for an order for expenses to cover the cost of a transcript of a proceeding before Mr. Justice Blok where the proper

interpretation of the Consent Order concerning vacation time was explained to J. by the Judge. [ 110 ] On May 30, 2018, Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an Order requiring J. to pay E. child support; dismissed J.’s applications for medical records and to dissolve an FMEP file and required both E. and J. to produce additional records which had not yet been produced during the proceeding. [ 111 ] Since the beginning of this litigation the Parties have collectively filed the following documents in the Provincial Court:

a) Applications and Replies - 11;

b) Notices of Motion - 14;

c) Affidavits - 43;

d) Orders - 10. [ 112 ] In total the Parties have appeared 12 different times in Provincial Court before 5 different Judges. [ 113 ] in addition to the Notice of Family Claim, Response to Family Claim and Counterclaim the Parties have collectively filed the following documents in the Supreme Court:

a) Notices of Application and Application Responses - 38;

b) Requisitions - 18;

c) Affidavits - 64;

d) Orders - 10;

e) Miscellaneous Document - 27. [ 114 ] In total the Parties have appeared 17 different times in Supreme Court before 10 different Justices. EVIDENCE E.’s Case E.’s Witnesses [ 115 ] E.’s employment manager, K.L.R. evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a) E. is a self-motivated hard-working and reliable employee who will be assuming Ms. L.R. position during her upcoming maternity leave;

b) she has seen E. and the Children interact on numerous occasions and their relationship is very good;

c) she has known E. for approximately 2 ½ years but knows little of her personal life or what she does outside of work;

d) she and E. attended a birthday celebration in 2016 at a local drinking establishment on a week night evening but she cannot comment on how many drinks E. had that night. [ 116 ] E.’s friend, D.P.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a) she has known E. and the Children for approximately five years because she, like E., is involved in figure skating;

b) over the years she has seen E. and the Children on numerous occasions and there is a very strong mother/daughter bond present;

c) from what she knows of E. she would trust her with her own children and that they would be happy and safe in her care;

d) she has rarely seen J. with the Children and cannot comment on his parenting of them;

e) she is unaware of any Court orders that might restrict the Children’s travel. [ 117 ] E.’s sister-in-law, J.G.C’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a) she has known E. and J. for 12 years and lives approximately 6 km away from J.’s residence in [omitted for publication];

b) she travels from her home to Fort St. John on a regular basis and takes approximately 45 minutes in the summer and up to 1¼ hours in the winter. She has also travelled from her home to [omitted for publication] twice a week during the winter and it takes approximately 1 ½ hours;

c) her children played hockey in [omitted for publication] because there is no hockey team in the [omitted for publication] area and she did not want to put them in hockey in Fort St. John.

d) when E. was living in [omitted for publication] they relied on each other for child care as needed and from her observations E. was the primary caregiver of the Children;

e) although she is neutral in the matter between E. and J. she has been cast out from J.’s family and treated like a spy;

f) she has been in E.’s home in [omitted for publication] several times with her children they and the Children are happy to see each other. The home is well taken care of;

g) she has not observed E. consuming any alcohol or drugs during her visits to the her home;

h) she does not visit J. in his home because she does not feel comfortable there. For a time after the separation she assisted E. and J. by driving the Children on some occasions but J. was very demanding and yelled at her;

i) the contents of her May 5, 2016 affidavit are true and E. was drinking heavily in the months before the separation. Although it is not mentioned in the affidavit J. was drinking heavily as well;

j) her children attend [omitted for publication] School and it is a good school. She has not been to [omitted for publication] School but she knows people who work there. [ 118 ] E.’s friend, A.E.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a) she has known E. and the Children for two years. She has three children of her own roughly the same age as the Children;

b) E. and the Children appear to be full of energy and she ensures that they participate in many activities. The Children appear happy and their relationship with E. is very close;

c) one of her daughters regularly spends overnight on a weekly basis at E.’s home and she is very comfortable with that;

d) she was asked by E. to serve documents on J. during the course of this proceeding. He refused to take them and called her derogatory names, including crackhead, in front of the Children. She has no substance abuse issues;

e) she was present on May 29, 2017 at the incident at [omitted for publication] School when J. appeared with a Court Order and then dragged the Children out of their grandmother’s car;

f) she has never seen E. drinking or taking drugs when she is caring for the Children. She has no knowledge of E.’s social life including her drinking habits before they met;

g) her dog did nip K.G. and subsequently the dog was euthanized. The nip did not cause any injury to K.G. that she was aware other than some minor abrasions. [ 119 ] E.’s friend, J.S.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a) she has known E. and F. for 14 years and the Children since their respective births through hockey and other activities. She and E. have been friends for approximately eight years;

b) throughout the years that she has known E., she has been the primary caregiver of the Children;

c) over the years she has taken family vacations with E. and the Children but not J. or her husband;

d) since E.’s move to [omitted for publication] they visit 3 to 5 times per week and she has observed the Children’s involvement in activities such as band, softball, volleyball, figure skating, swimming and golf;

e) she knows that E. and the Children and F. have a strong loving bond and it is clear from her observations that they really enjoy being with each other;

f) she has never seen E. and the Children together when E. was consuming or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. She is never known E. to have a drinking problem or to drink to excess;

g) J.G. is a funny, smart, outgoing, kind and talented young woman. In a conversation she had with J.G. in May 2018 J.G. disclosed that she is excited about the prospect of attending junior high school at [omitted for publication] because she wants to remain involved in band. J.G. also told her that she is tired of her parents fighting;

h) K.G. is a witty, outgoing, strong-willed, kind and smart girl who enjoys sports;

i) she has been to J.’s house on two occasions and has occasionally seen him at hockey games where her son and F. were participating;

j) she is unaware of who cares for the Children when they are with J.. [ 120 ] E.’s friend, J.C.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a) he has been friends with E. for approximately 4 ½ years and they have been very close friends for approximately two years;

b) he spends a great deal of time with E. and the Children doing various activities or just hanging out 3 to 4 days per week;

c) he has been actively involved in getting the Children into golf including lessons which both E. and J. agreed with;

d) E.’s relationship with the Children is fantastic, she is a great parent and the Children feel loved and happy;

e) he has never seen E. consuming or under the influence of alcohol or drugs when she is caring for the Children;

f) on the evening of F.’s automobile accident he received a text message when he got off the plane from Vancouver and immediately called J. as the text directed him to do. From there he went to E.’s home to pick her up and drive her to the hospital.

g) upon hearing the news about F., E. was very panicked and upset. He did not detect any smell of alcohol on E. and they were in close proximity in his truck. He remained at the hospital for a period of time and then returned to E.’s home to collect her clothing because she was going to Vancouver with F.;

h) he has only seen E. overly intoxicated on two occasions. On one occasion the Children were being cared for by others and on the second occasion the Children were with J.;

i) he does not believe that his spending overnight at E.’s on the couch is confusing to the Children. [ 121 ] E.’s brother, J.H.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a) he has often seen J. driving while intoxicated. J. would often arrive separate from E. and the Children to family parties and get- togethers and would inevitably be drunk. At the end of the party J. would drive away while still intoxicated;

b) he went to E. and J.’s home on a couple of occasions when J. was drunk and becoming physical with E. and she called for assistance;

c) he was at the same stag party as J. in 2012 that moved among a number of different drinking establishments. At the end J. drove home even though he was quite intoxicated and had been offered a ride home;

d) he has seen E. intoxicated on several occasions when she and J. were still living together. [ 122 ] E.’s mother, E.H. evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a) prior to the separation she was in almost daily contact with E. and the Children. Since the separation she picks up the Children after school every day and takes them to E.’s place of work;

b) prior to the separation there were numerous times when E. and the Children took refuge at her home for days or weeks after J. had acted violently towards E.;

c) prior to the separation E. was the primary caregiver of the Children and was fully engaged in all aspects of the Children’s upbringing;

d) for several years she lived in a small mobile home on property belonging to J.’s parents approximately 5 km away from where J., E. and the Children resided. Soon after the separation J.’s parents insisted that she remove her trailer from their property immediately. Soon after that her home was broken into, items were taken and her dog went missing. In the days up to the move, J.’s father came to her residence and told her that E. was a “rodeo whore”;

e) soon after the separation E. and the Children were staying at [omitted for publication] E’s home when J. arrived at the property. J.G. immediately ran into the bedroom and J. tried to force himself into the house. She tried to impede J.’s progress and he told her to get out of his way or he would punch her in the mouth. She was able to serve J. with some court documents. Ms. E finally got J. to leave the residence;

f) she has no recollection of having any discussions with J. in the early morning hours of May 29, 2017, soon after F.’s motor vehicle accident about what would happen with the Children the following day

g) on May 29, 2017, there was an incident involving J., her and the Children at the [omitted for publication] School. She had gone to pick up the children at E.’s direction when E. was leaving for Vancouver with F. for medical treatment. J. arrived at the school telling her that he was taking the Children without any explanation to her or them. The Children got upset, especially K.G., and refused to go with J.. He got into the car and dragged a screaming K.G. out. She never received a copy of any Court Order from J. establishing that he could take the Children. Had she received such a document she would have complied with it immediately;

h) there was another incident when she was directed by E. to pick up the Children at the RCMP detachment. When J. arrived he demanded to know where E. was and refused to give her the Children. When she asked him why he was being like that he replied as to the effect that “I hate your guts and I despise you”. This was said in front of the Children who became upset and told J. to stop that behaviour;

i) J. is a diabetic and when he has a low sugar level he can act erratically;

j) over the years she has seen J. driving while intoxicated on numerous occasions, sometimes with a beer in hand. She is also seen E. drunk on a few occasions while with J. and has on one occasion saw E. overly intoxicated when she and J. were both in town at a social function.;

k) she works at the [omitted for publication] store and sometimes the Children come there to sell fundraising tickets for their various sporting activities. E.’s Evidence [ 123 ] E.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a) throughout the Children’s lives she has been the primary caregiver and has been far more involved in their upbringing, day-to- day activities and extracurricular activities both prior to and subsequent to the separation. That includes such things as insuring the children attend their medical and dental appointments, ensuring that they are properly fed and clothed, that they attend to their homework in a timely fashion and that they are registered for and participate in sporting and cultural activities that they are interested in. The Children have excelled in school and in the extracurricular activities under her guidance;

b) she and J. lived a lifestyle for many years when drinking socially and on a regular basis was both accepted and encouraged. In the couple of years prior to the separation both she and J. were over using alcohol in various circumstances. Despite her overuse of alcohol she never drove with the Children while intoxicated. Since she has moved to [omitted for publication] and the Consent Order was made she never has the Children in her care where she has alcohol present or where she is consuming alcohol and she does not consume any alcohol for at least 12 hours prior to the Children coming into her care;

c) she has been on a prescription of Citalopram for over eight years, for anxiety, not depression. It has not in any way interfered with her capacity to care for the Children or conduct her day-to-day activities. She is aware that it is recommended not to mix alcohol with that drug or at least not to drive if alcohol has been consumed;

d) prior to the physical separation in January 2016 and the final separation on April 14, 2016, there were several previous separations due mostly to J.’s violence towards her while intoxicated. During all of those separations she left with the Children without any complaint or interference from J.;

e) In one incident J. went out to a stag party returning at 3:30 AM the following morning extremely intoxicated and having driven himself home. When she confronted him the next morning he assaulted her and she and the Children left for several days;

f) in June 2014, F. was in Saskatchewan attending school and playing hockey. F. had a new driver’s licence and he received a truck as a gift. She asked J. not to drink while with F. when he was driving his new truck. Despite that request J. was drinking when F. was driving his truck home which upset her. She threw a dishcloth at J. who responded by assaulting her. After the assault, she and the Children left for two weeks;

g) on another occasion J. had been drinking and rode away on a motorcycle. Afterward she found beer in the saddlebag;

h) in October 2015, she was out of town when J. called to tell her that F. and a friend got a pickup truck stuck in a field and there was considerable damage but the two young men were okay. Later she heard from F. that J. was very drunk that day;

i) in January 2016, she discovered J. “pleasuring” himself while speaking on the phone to a third party. She immediately moved from the joint bedroom to the basement and they did not live as man and wife again after that incident;

j) in February 2016, J. was to pick the Children up after figure skating but instead he went for drinks with co-workers at various drinking establishments around Fort St. John. She was upset and sent him some nasty texts to which he replied to her to leave the home. When J. returned home he was drunk and kicked in the door. She and the Children left and went to her mother’s;

k) she and J. had been discussing separation since January 2016 and after the incident in April 2016 she determined that she was non-existent to J. and when he told her to get out she did. She was not drinking alcohol that night;

l) on April 14, 2016, she and the Children had returned home from figure skating. J. arrived with boxes and went downstairs telling her that he was going to pack up her possessions and that she should leave immediately. She and the Children left at that time and she has not returned since then;

m) after April 14, 2016, she did not advise J. of her or the Children’s whereabouts until they were somewhere safe and settled approximately two weeks later;

n) up until 2012, she worked for a [omitted for publication]. She left that job after 12 years because J. convinced her that their [omitted for publication] related company was doing well and they were getting financially separated from his parents and she should be a stay-at-home mom. The [omitted for publication] business environment is cyclical and she and J. had known that for several years.

However, when the work slowed in the [omitted for publication] in 2014/2015 they started to feel some financial pressures which resulted in her returning to work at the end of December 2015 because she could see that J. was giving up on the marriage, their business enterprise, the Children and the home;

o) J. has said to others that the separation was due to financial pressures, her drinking and her behaviour, refusing to accept any responsibility himself. Within three months after April 2016 he had moved his pregnant girlfriend, their farmhand’s spouse, into the former family residence. She suspects that relationship had been ongoing for several months prior to April 2016;

p) the constant disagreements with J. about the Children’s parenting time with each of them has been largely driven by J.’s refusal to be flexible on any front and his unique and incorrect

interpretation of the Consent Order;

q) J.’s

interpretation of the parenting

schedule set out in the paragraph 8 of the Consent Order as it pertains to the word “vacation” is simply not accurate and that was pointed out to him by Mr. Justice Blok in December 2016. Despite that judicial direction, J. continues to insist that all times other than week days should be his parenting time with the Children except during the School Summer vacation;

r) J.’s intransigence on the parenting time

schedule has required her to attend court many times to try to get parenting time with the Children during other times when school is not in session such as Christmas and Spring Break. By way of example she only got four days during the Christmas Break in 2017;

s) despite the Consent Order J. has twice taken the Children outside of the Northern Region as defined by the British Columbia Ministry of Health without any further Court Order or her agreement. On one occasion he instructed the Children to keep the fact he was doing so as a secret from her;

t) the Children are sometimes late in arriving at school on Mondays after their weekend with J. and he has provided little if any explanation to the Court as to why that is occurring;

u) the

Section 211 Report accurately sets forth the Children’s wishes and indicates that further disruption of their living arrangements should not occur;

v) J.G. has become very involved in band. She plays the [omitted for publication] and wishes to pursue her band education. That is available to her at [omitted for publication] but not at [omitted for publication] School;

w) over the years that she drove from [omitted for publication] to Fort St. John for work she was involved in four motor vehicle accidents striking either an animal or a snow bank;

x) it would be very difficult to impossible for her to attend to the transportation of the Children from her residence in [omitted for publication] to either [omitted for publication] School or one of the stops associated with that school because it would require the Children to get up extremely early;

y) at the direction of the Court she produced banking records indicating the locations and the amounts spent on any place that alcohol may have been purchased although many of those purchases could have been food, fuel or non-alcoholic items or a mixture of alcohol and confectionery items. [Omitted for publication] is a cold beer and wine store that also sells convenience items, the [omitted for publication] Inn is a combination liquor store, pub, hotel, restaurant and also has a bank machine;

z) when K.G. was nipped by her friend’s dog she did not believe that attending the hospital was necessary given the minor nature of the injuries; aa) when F. suffered his serious motor vehicle accident in May 2017 she was at home asleep and does not know why any call from the hospital would not have awakened her. Her friend J. arrived at her residence and took her to the hospital.

F. suffered serious [omitted for publication] injuries and eventually lost [omitted for publication] as a result of the accident; bb) the Children have been to some counselling paid for through her work EAP but that was discontinued by the counsellor who advised that if the Children wanted to come back to see her they could.

J.’s girlfriend’s text to her on Christmas Day insisting that the Children attend counselling was insensitive and not sent out of any genuine concern; cc) the Children have reported to her that J.’s four-year-old stepson has been violent towards them and on one occasion, even though he was the one being violent, K.G. was punished by J.; dd) for a short period of time K.G.’s behaviour at school went from being respectful and a community award winner to disrespectful.

She spoke to the teacher who indicated that the two week absence from school initiated by J. had a negative impact on her; ee) she rejected J.’s request for the Children to accompany him to Mexico for two weeks in November 2018 to attend his partner’s

family members wedding in part because of J.’s denigrating method of communicating with her, in part because two weeks away was a struggle for K.G. the last time and neither of the Children want to be away for two weeks during the school year. She does not know if the Children actually want to go to Mexico; ff) the Children were away during the school year on a trip to Cuba but that was many years ago before K.G. started school and J.G. was only in Kindergarten. J.’s Case J.’s Witnesses [ 124 ] The former principal of [omitted for publication] School, G.P’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a) he was the principal of the school for approximately six years and during the time the Children attended;

b) he was aware when the Children were removed from [omitted for publication] School and advised J. of the removal within hours of it occurring;

c) both Children were good students both academically and behaviourally;

d) he cannot comment on any comparison between [omitted for publication] School and any other school but did confirm that the Fraser Institute has rated [omitted for p

[…]