Li v Runoh, 2022 ABKB 669

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Li v Runoh, 2022 ABKB 669 Date: 20221007 Docket: 4801 180697 Registry: Calgary Between: Anjela Li Plaintiff - and - Evans N. Runoh Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice G.A. Campbell _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This is a high conflict parenting case.

These parties have been involved in protracted litigation over their parenting relationship since separation. [ 2 ] This is the decision from what became a five-day oral hearing of family law special applications to determine parenting issues for the parties' now five-year-old child. The sole issue is what parenting arrangement and decision-making is in the best interests of the parties' child.

The Parties [ 3 ] The parties were married in May 2015 and separated on February 3, 2018. [ 4 ] There is one child of the marriage, a daughter, born in May 2017 (the Child). At the time of separation, the Child was approximately 9 months old. [ 5 ] The parties' short lived married life appears to have been tumultuous from the outset. There were many disputes between the parties.

There was evidence that the Calgary Police Service had attended at the matrimonial home on numerous occasions before and after the birth of the Child. [ 6 ] Matters between the parties came to a head on February 3, 2018, when after a dispute that prompted police involvement, the Father left the matrimonial home.

The parties never resumed co-habitation after this incident. [ 7 ] The Mother was born in Kazakhstan and her native language is Russian although she speaks a number of languages, including English. [ 8 ] The Mother has been employed as a contracts manager with the same Calgary oil and gas company since 2013. [ 9 ] Since the parties' separation in 2018, the Mother has resided in the former matrimonial home with the Child and her parents. [ 10 ] The Mother's parents have resided with the Mother since the birth of the Child, with a few absences. The Mother and her parents speak primarily Russian in the home.

The maternal grandparents speak little, if any, English language. The maternal grandparents care for the Child when the Mother is unable to do so such as when she is at work. [ 11 ] The Father was born in Kenya. He speaks both English and Swahili. He does not speak Russian. [ 12 ] From October 2017 to December 2019, the Father had two employers. Since February 2020 the Father has been employed as a professional electrical engineer with a Calgary engineering and survey firm. [ 13 ] After separation, the Father lived in two temporary accommodations. He currently resides in his own home with his partner.

The Court Proceedings [ 14 ] Since separation there have been numerous court orders with respect to parenting. [ 15 ] The first order was granted October 5, 2018 by a Provincial Court Judge. The October 2018 Order granted the Mother primary care of the Child and the Father was granted parenting time with the Child every Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday for one and one-half hours and every Sunday for 4 hours, with two of the hours with the Mother and the Child at church and the remaining two hours with the Father and Child alone.

The 2018 Order was to be reviewed on December 20, 2018. [ 16 ] A second order was granted December 20, 2018 by a Provincial Court Judge. The December 2018 Order varied the Father's parenting time with the Child to every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm and was to be supervised at the Mother's discretion. The Father was also prohibited from operating a vehicle during his parenting time with the Child.

The December 2018 Order was to be reviewed on April 19, 2019. [ 17 ] Supervised parenting was instituted as a result of the Father's failure to disclose to the Mother that he had been charged in 2018 with driving under the influence. Those charges were subsequently withdrawn by the Crown. [ 18 ] A third order was granted on April 19, 2019 by a Provincial Court Judge.

The April 2019 Order varied the Father's supervised parenting time with the Child to 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. [ 19 ] A fourth order was a Consent Interim Without Prejudice Parenting Order granted by a Queen's Bench Justice (now King’s Bench) on July 15, 2019.

The July 2019 Order granted, among other things, the Mother primary care and sole decision making with the Father to continue to have parenting time with the Child every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm and any other mutually agreed on parenting time, and with the Father's parenting time supervised at the Mother's discretion. The Father was also prohibited from operating a vehicle during his parenting time with the Child.

The July 2019 also set the matter down for a half-day Domestic Special Chambers Application to be heard on a mutually agreed date. [ 20 ] A fifth order was a Without Prejudice Interim Parenting Order granted by a Queen's Bench Justice on November 29, 2019. The November 2019 Order permitted the Father to request that his parenting time take place at a Calgary library. The Father was also granted additional parenting time to his weekday parenting time. He was to have parenting time for three hours every second weekend on Saturdays from 10:30 am to 1:30 pm at either his home, Cross Iron Mills Mall or a church.

The Mother was permitted to be present at any of the Father's parenting time. [ 21 ] The November 2019 Order required that, for a six-month period, the Father would not operate a vehicle that was not equipped with an inter-lock device and would provide bimonthly reports to the Mother. The November 2019 Order noted that the Father had voluntarily agreed to these requirements to provide assurance to the Mother and work towards more parenting time.

The Father was also ordered to provide to the Mother his receipts and health care billing record for any psychological and psychiatric treatment for the past 18 months. [ 22 ] A sixth order was an order granted by a Queen's Bench Justice on April 22, 2020. The April 2020 Order noted that public

health requirements to address the COVID-19 pandemic made parts of the November 2019 Order unworkable. The April 2020 Order, permitted, among other things, the Father to elect to exercise his parenting time - the weekdays and every other Saturday - at his residence or at a public park.

Supervision at the Mother’s discretion continued. [ 23 ] A seventh order was an Interim Interim Order granted by a Queen's Bench Justice on September 29, 2020 that continued the Father's parenting time on every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm and provided that every other weekend would be alternating Saturdays and Sundays from 10:30 am to 1:30 pm at the library, the church, or a public park as supervised by the Mother at her discretion.

If the Father elected to have the parenting time in his home, his parenting time was to be supervised by a third- party supervisor at the Father’s cost. [ 24 ] An eighth order was a Procedural Order that was granted by a Queen’s Bench Justice on October 30, 2020. The October 2020 Order directed the parties to attend a Family Law Domestic Special on February 26, 2021 to address parenting, among other issues. [ 25 ] A nineth order was granted by a Queen's Bench Justice on December 17, 2020.

The December 2020 Order, in light of the impact of changing COVID 19 rules on the Father's parenting time, reconsidered the supervised parenting mechanism of the September 2020 Order. [ 26 ] The December 2020 Order provided that commencing December 2020, the Father's parenting time was to be supervised by a professional third-party supervision agency, including KidScope Family Services (KidScope), without the consent of the Mother. The costs were to be shared on a 65% (Father), 35% (Mother) basis. The KidScope supervisor reports were all positive regarding the Father’s parenting time with the Child.

The KidScope supervisor reported that the Child communicated primarily in Russian and that her English language communication skills were very limited. [ 27 ] The Mother brought this application seeking a final order for sole decision making and primary parenting care of the Child, with specified parenting time for the Father. The Father brought a cross-application for joint decision making and shared parenting time. [ 28 ] On February 26, 2021, the parties attended at a Family Law Special Chambers for hearing of these applications.

The presiding Justice ordered the parties' applications for decision-making and parenting be set for a hearing with oral evidence.

The February 2021 Order also provided for the Father to have unsupervised parenting on a tiered, bimonthly arrangement on an every-other-weekend basis ("on week") together with intermittent weekly parenting time during the non-weekend parenting time ("off week”). [ 29 ] The February 2021 Order also permitted the parties to engage a mutually agreeable parenting coordinator to assist them in arriving at a consent parenting plan and to help them support each other in their parenting activities. Unfortunately, this did not occur. The parties could not agree on a Parenting Coordinator.

The Evidence [ 30 ] At this hearing, the parties relied on their affidavit evidence as evidence-in-chief and both parents were cross-examined on that evidence during the hearing. The parties also called witnesses to support their respective positions. [ 31 ] The Mother called Dr David Le, a pediatrician, who had seen the Child. The Mother apparently called Dr Le to discredit the Father. The Mother alleged that the Father had made numerous medical appointments without her knowledge, including some with Dr Le.

The Mother also alleged that the Father falsely advised Dr Le that he had shared parenting of the Child when he did not and that the Father had expressed unfounded health issues about the Child's hearing, readiness for kindergarten, iron deficiency and weight issues. However well intended, the Father may have been, the evidence of Dr Le supported the Mother's allegation that the Father unilaterally made medical appointments for the Child without the Mother's knowledge often raising health issues that subsequently were determined to be unfounded.

It was not clear whether the Father had advised Dr Le he had shared parenting or would be granted shared parenting shortly. [ 32 ] The Mother also called Jacklyn Bass, a speech and language pathologist, who was qualified as an expert in the field of speech and language pathology. The Mother called Ms Bass to discredit the Father's assertion that the Child had an English language comprehension deficiency or delay due to the Mother limiting the Child's exposure to the English language.

The evidence of Ms Bass was of minimal assistance given her limited interaction with the Child and that, by the time of her assessment, the Child had more exposure to English speaking persons, notably through the Father's increased parenting time with the Child. In any event, the evidence is clear that the Child had limited English language comprehension until fairly recently. Ms Bass confirmed that the Child was slower in her development in the English language but was not a cause for concern. [ 33 ] The Mother called her mother and sister to speak to their observations of the couple.

The maternal grandmother testified with the assistance of a Russian interpreter as she has very little, if any, English language comprehension. Their evidence was treated with some caution due to anticipated lack of objectivity. [ 34 ] The Father called Dr Linda Matsalla, a clinical psychologist, to provide a parenting capacity assessment of the Father and speak to her observations of the interactions between the Father and the Child.

In Alberta, Dr Matsalla has been qualified as a parenting expert in many matters before the Provincial Court and the Court of Queen's Bench. [ 35 ] I gave no weight to Dr Matsalla's conclusions and recommendations regarding the appropriate parenting regime for the Child.

While some of Dr Matsalla's evidence was based on her clinical experience and understanding of research and literature on child development, alienation and parent/child relationships, her evidence was of no assistance given that Dr Matsalla had never met the Mother, relied entirely on the Father's information given to her about he and the Mother’s interactions and had only observed one interaction between the Father and the Child during her one home visit.

That said, I did give some weight to Dr Matsalla's observation of the Father and Child interactions during her one home visit where her observations were consistent with observations made by the professional supervisor, KidScope.

[ 36 ] The Father also called his new partner. Like the Mother's mother and sister, the Father’s partner's evidence was treated with caution due to anticipated lack of objectivity. [ 37 ] The most current information regarding the Child and parenting came from the parties.

There was some useful information about the Father's interactions with the Child gleaned from Supervised Visit Reports completed by KidScope from December 2020 to January 31, 2021 as well as the very limited recent one-time observations of Dr Matsalla. [ 38 ] The Mother's witnesses' opportunities to observe the Father as a parent were so historical and limited that their evidence was of little assistance. [ 39 ] Notwithstanding that these are important parenting issues, the evidence presented had material limitations.

For example, there were no independent assessments of the Child's current circumstances or of the parties' parenting. [ 40 ] While the parties were encouraged to retain the services of a parenting coordinator prior to this hearing, none was retained because the parties could not agree on who should be the parenting coordinator. Fault can be attributed to both parties. In the result, the court had no independent evidence as to how these individuals are in fact parenting their Child. [ 41 ] As is often encountered in high conflict domestic cases, the parties' evidence conflicted on many key issues.

Much of the evidence contains a "he said" versus "she said" narrative, with each party attempting to paint the other parent in the worst possible light while interpreting events in a manner that favoured their preferred positions and outcomes. In essence, their evidence reflected their personal views of their experience with the other and of their family circumstances.

Thus, the relevance of their evidence was more about the reasonableness and rationality of the view each had of the other and their family circumstance than any credibility assessments. [ 42 ] The Mother does not trust the Father and is on constant guard with him. She views all his actions with that perspective. [ 43 ] The Mother over-stated safety concerns and minor parenting complaints about the Father. [ 44 ] The Father’s perception is that the Mother seeks to alienate him from the Child and she will do anything to accomplish this.

He views all her actions with that perspective. [ 45 ] The Father showed no insight into his role in the parental conflict and the impact it could have on the Child. [ 46 ] While I may not expressly refer to all of the evidence I heard, I did carefully consider all of the evidence presented in this hearing.

Applicable Legal Principles [ 47 ] The recent amendments to the Divorce Act , RSC, 1985, c 3, 2nd Supplement , which came into force on March 1, 2021, set out the factors to be considered in determining the best interests of the child when making a parenting order. [ 48 ] Notwithstanding these recent legislative changes, in making a parenting decision, the only relevant consideration to determine decision-making, primary residence and parenting time is what is in the best interests of the child.

The best interests test is the only consideration. [ 49 ] Section 16(2) of the Divorce Act requires the Court, when determining the best interests of the child, to prioritize the child's physical, psychological, and emotional safety, security, and well-being. [ 50 ] Section 16(3) sets out the factors to consider when determining the child's best interests. The Court is required to consider these factors as related to the child's circumstances but they are non-exhaustive as there may be other considerations that are relevant when determining the child's bests interests.

Other factors (s 16(3) of the Divorce Act ) considered include: • the child's needs, given the child's age and stage of development, such as the child's need for stability; • the nature, strength and stability of the relationships between the child and the significant people in their life, including their relationship with their parents, siblings and extended family; • the history of the child's care; • the child's views and preferences, considering the child's age and maturity; • the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage; • any family violence and its effect on the child and other parties; and • the ability and willingness of each party to care for the child and to communicate and cooperate with the other. [ 51 ] In cases of family violence involving intimate partner violence, the court must consider whether a cooperative parenting arrangement is appropriate.

To help courts assess the impact, severity, and risks for family violence s 16(4) provides a non-exhaustive list of additional criteria. [ 52 ] The past conduct of the parties may be considered if relevant to the exercise of parenting time or decision-making: Divorce Act , s 16(5). [ 53 ] Section 16(6) of the Divorce Act provides that when allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a

child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child. This does not presume equal parenting time. It is the best interests of the child that determine the allotment of parenting time, which may or may not be equal parenting time. Each family is different. [ 54 ] In assessing the best interests of the child, there are no presumptive starting points: CAS v NPC , 2020 ABQB 421 at para 8 . There is no legal presumption in favour of the primary care parent. While their views are given serious consideration, it is the best interests of the child that is determinative.

It is not parental rights, interests and preferences. [ 55 ] It is recognized that children benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents so long as it is safe and positive. Parenting Time Parties' Positions [ 56 ] The Mother seeks to confirm the status quo parenting arrangements.

She urges the court to resolve the parties' parenting issues on a final basis. [ 57 ] The Child would remain in the Mother's primary care with the Father continuing with specified parenting time. [ 58 ] The Mother is opposed to a shared 50/50 parenting regime at this time. [ 59 ] The Mother contends that, as she has since the Child's birth, she is better able to provide a stable, loving home environment that meets the needs of the Child while allowing the Child to have a meaningful relationship with her Father with appropriate boundaries.

The Mother says she supports the Father's relationship with the Child and appreciates the importance of their Child being exposed to her Father's cultural heritage. However, the Mother expresses overall concern about the Father's parenting pointing to his periodic neglect to properly supervise the Child, keep her safe and respond to her needs.

The Mother expresses concern about the Child's well-being while in the extended care of the Father. [ 60 ] The Mother does not believe that, at this time, it would be in the best interests of the Child to move to a shared parenting regime given the Father's unstable work, residence and relationship history, his mental health and alcohol consumption issues, and his failure to adhere to court ordered parenting time.

The Mother also emphasized the Father's continual abuse of court time in seeking additional parenting time when he failed to obey court orders, failed to use parenting time allotted to him or was late for parenting time. [ 61 ] The Mother contends that the Father has perpetrated intimate partner violence through physical and emotional abuse, including controlling behaviour, prior to and after separation. [ 62 ] The Mother said that the parties could perhaps move to a shared parenting regime once the Father demonstrated stability in his life and displays a willingness to discuss with her any concerns he has about the Child instead of acting unilaterally.

She suggested that it may be appropriate to move to more of a shared parenting regime once the Child attains the age of seven. [ 63 ] The Mother proposes that the Father would parent their Child in weeks one, three and five from Friday at 6:00 pm to Monday at 8:00 am and in the off weeks from Wednesday at 6:00 pm to Thursday at 8:00 am.

The Father would continue to be responsible for the Child's pick-ups and drops off from the Mother's residence unless the Child's school/kindergarten day falls on a Monday or Thursday morning when the Father's parenting time ends, in which case the Father would drop the Child off at her school/kindergarten. [ 64 ] With respect to holiday parenting time, the Mother proposes the following: • The Child would reside with her during the Child’s Winter Break and Spring Break in even numbered years and with the Father in odd numbered years. • The Child would reside with the parent she is scheduled to be with on Thanksgiving and Easter weekends. • The Father would have parenting time with the Child for one week during the Child’s summer vacation. • Each parent would have a full parenting day for Mother's Day, Father's Day and their respective birthdays. [ 65 ] She also proposed provisions relating to her and the Father's travel with the Child.

The Mother would be permitted to travel with the Child outside of Canada on notice, that included an itinerary, to the Father. The Father would be permitted to travel with the Child only within Alberta on notice to the Mother, with trips exceeding 24 hours to include an itinerary.

Make-up time for missed parenting time would be agreed on. [ 66 ] The Father has had varied parenting time with the Child from supervised to unsupervised parenting time and from parenting time a few hours on a few scheduled days each month to the current court-ordered alternate weekend and weekday parenting time. [ 67 ] The Father seeks to move to a shared parenting regime, either immediately or by gradually increasing his parenting time in staggered increments to an ultimate 50/50 shared parenting regime.

The Father also proposed an equal sharing of the Child's holiday time. [ 68 ] The Father seeks an order prohibiting either parent from relocating the Child from either Calgary or Airdrie without mutual consent or Court order. The Father also seeks to permit either parent to travel outside of Canada to Hauge signatory countries and Kenya with the consent of the other parent on 45 days' prior notice that includes an itinerary of the travel.

[ 69 ] The Father offers a different narrative and denies many of the Mother's allegations. [ 70 ] The Father says that since separation the Mother has made every effort to prevent or undermine his parenting visits, pointing to the numerous previous court applications. The Father contends that the Mother has raised the same issues since separation in an effort to prevent him from having any meaningful input or contribution to their Child's life. [ 71 ] The Father wants to be an involved parent with the Child but has been unable to do so as a result of the restrictions on his parenting time.

He believes his concerns about the Child's delayed English language and other health concerns have been warranted and worthy of investigation. [ 72 ] The Father believes that the level of conflict between he and the Mother has dissipated over time and that, despite their differences, they are well able to communicate effectively and work amicably to co-parent the Child. [ 73 ] The Father says that the best interests of the Child is that she have equal exposure to both her parents, especially given their very different cultural heritages.

The Father says that he can provide and does provide a very stable, loving home environment for the Child and exposes the Child to his cultural background. He says he is a loving father and engaged parent to whom the Child is closely bonded. He testified that certain pre-and-post separation conduct attributed to him are behind him and he is capable of co-parenting. He asserts that it in the Child's best interests to have maximum time with both parents. What Parenting

Schedule is in the Best Interests of the Child? [ 74 ] As a result of the February 2021 Order, the Father currently has parenting time with the Child on his "on-week", referred to as Week One, from Fridays pick-ups at 6:00 pm to Mondays drop-offs at 9:00 am and, in Week Two, his "off-week" on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 5:00 pm pick-up to 8:00 pm drop off.

The Father is responsible for the Child's pick-ups and drops-offs from the Mother's residence in NW Calgary, with a 30 minute buffer or grace period on all pick-up times. [ 75 ] The Father also had parenting time over the Christmas break, which was accomplished with the agreement of the Mother. [ 76 ] As discussed, earlier, the only consideration for determining parenting arrangements is the best interests of the Child. [ 77 ] I now address the s 16 factors in deciding whether there should be a change to the current parenting regime.

The Child's Physical, Emotional and Psychological Well-Being [ 78 ] The Mother criticized the Father's parenting from birth. [ 79 ] The Mother said that after the Child's birth while they were still living together, the Father was absent from their home for large periods of time and she did not know where he was. She was left to care for the Child on her own. Since separation, she does not believe the Father can care properly for the Child. [ 80 ] The Mother claims that the Child is always returning to her home hungry, is often unclean with uncombed hair and unbrushed teeth.

The Mother suggests in 2020 that the Father failed to properly supervise the Child pointing to one instance when the Child fell and suffered a bloody cheek, mouth and a bruise on her forehead. More recently, the Mother referred to one instance when the Child was crying when she returned from parenting time with the Father over Christmas 2021. [ 81 ] The Mother has not observed the Father 's interactions with the Child since supervision was removed in February 2021. She described the Father's pick up and drop off of the Child at her home as very brief and uneventful.

She also agreed that the KidScope supervision reports regarding the Father's supervised parenting time with the Child were positive. [ 82 ] As noted, supervised parenting was instituted as a result of the Father's failure to disclose to the Mother that he had been charged in 2018 with driving under the influence. Although the charges were withdrawn by the Crown, the Mother suggested that the Father had alcohol issues. She said she saw alcohol bottles in the Father's home during her supervision in 2019.

She has no current information regarding the Father's use of alcohol. [ 83 ] The Mother claims that the Father had admitted to her that he had struggled with depression and had confessed to her that he had psychological issues. [ 84 ] The Mother also pointed to the Father failing to comply with the court order that only permitted him to drive with the Child in a vehicle equipped with an inter-lock device and his failures to provide her with the bi- monthly inter-lock device reports, and past records for psychological and psychiatric treatment.

Prior to that time, the Mother said that she was required to transport the Child to and from the Father's parenting time because court orders prohibited from driving anywhere with the Child. [ 85 ] The Father denies the Mother's allegations that he fails to care properly for the Child. [ 86 ] One concern of the Mother was that the Father failed to properly feed the Child. Interesting, the KidScope supervisor noted on a few occasions that while the Father was encouraging the Child to have something to eat, the Child told the Father that “Mom said "No" to eating at Dad's house”.

The KidScope supervisor noted that after being reassured by the Father the Child would eat what was offered, but, and at other times, was resistant to eating. [ 87 ] Both the KidScope supervisor reports and Dr Matsalla spoke to their observations that the Father had fed the Child properly during their visits. [ 88 ] The Father says that the Child also suffered physical injuries while in the care of the Mother. He says that the Child had

suffered a dislocated elbow on two occasions that required hospital visits. The Mother failed to advise him of these injuries, which he says he discovered only after reviewing the Child's medical records. [ 89 ] No childcare concerns were raised by either the KidScope Supervisor or Dr Matsalla. [ 90 ] The Father admitted to being depressed as a result of the parties' marriage breakdown. He sought counselling from psychologists to assist him with issues arising from his marriage breakdown. He was never referred to any psychiatrist. He was never prescribed any medication.

He denied any current mental health issues. [ 91 ] With respect to the allegations of alcohol issues, the Father admitted that he is an occasional drinker of alcohol. He admitted he had alcohol in his home. However, he denies having an alcohol problem. He explained the four failed inter-lock ignitions in 2020.

His explanation was that the device had captured alcohol consumption from the evening before the day of the failed attempt. [ 92 ] There is no evidence that the Father currently suffers from either mental health or alcohol abuse issues that would cause safety concerns for the Child. [ 93 ] I do not find the parenting deficiencies alleged by one side against the other to be convincing or disqualifying of the other as a parent.

The majority of the concerns raised by the Mother are historical, with no evidence that the concerns cited are continuing ones. [ 94 ] Significantly, despite these alleged deficiencies the Father has had extended unsupervised parenting time with the Child, including overnight parenting time since February 2021 with no concrete safety concerns cited.

Furthermore, from the limited evidence it appears that despite the parties' conflict, the Child spends significant time with both of her parents and is thriving well physically, emotionally and psychologically under each. [ 95 ] In the absence of further evidence, I am not prepared to find that the Mother's historical and current claims are reasons enough to deny the Father increased parenting time but does give me pause in moving to an equal parenting regime in a short time.

The Child's Needs, Development, and Stability and Ability of Each Parent to Provide those Needs [ 96 ] The Child is reportedly a healthy, happy 5 year-old. At her young age, she requires regular hands-on care, supervision, loving and supportive attention, and a stable and predictable home life. [ 97 ] The Child does not have any diagnosed health or special needs. [ 98 ] The Child is to commence attending kindergarten in September 2022 near her Mother's residence in NW Calgary. [ 99 ] The Mother suggests that the Father would provide a less stable home environment for their daughter.

The Mother points to the Father having unstable employment, living accommodations and relationships. She says that the stressors associated with those would detract from the Father's ability to provide for the Child in a stable way. [ 100 ] The Mother pointed to Father being married previously and his relationships after their separation. [ 101 ] The Mother says that the Father's work

schedule is not flexible and involves travel. She says that the Father was often late for his parenting time. The Mother also pointed to three times in 2020 when the Father was unable to exercise his parenting time due to work travel commitments. She said that she has work-related issues but still exercises her parenting time.

The Mother acknowledged that the Father always communicated to her when he was unable to exercise his parenting time in advance of his scheduled parenting time, albeit sometimes it was only hours. [ 102 ] The Father counters that he has fairly consistently exercised what parenting time he has had. He says that difficulties with having the Mother supervise his parenting time led to gaps in his parenting time as well as the odd work commitment. He points to his consistency in exercising his parenting time since it became unsupervised. [ 103 ] The Father has been employed by the same employer since February 2020.

The Father says that he rarely has to travel for work purposes. He said he may have to travel for work once every three months but those would typically be day trips only. He would have at least two-weeks' prior notice for longer trips. In 2021, the Father traveled twice in June, which were day trips. The Father is confident he can make appropriate childcare arrangements if he has to travel for work. [ 104 ] The Father now resides with his partner in a home he owns.

They have been living together in the same home in Airdrie for approximately two years. [ 105 ] The Father states that he has provided a safe and stable home for the Child. The Child has her own bedroom. The Father described his activities with the Child during his parenting time. They read together, play games outdoors and indoors. He assists the Child in learning the English language. [ 106 ] KidScope supervisor reports and Dr Matsalla all noted that the Father's home was clean, tidy and organized.

It was also noted that the Father had a designated bedroom for the Child with space for the Child's belongings and that there were toys, games and books for the Child that were age and developmentally appropriate. [ 107 ] Both the Father and his partner say that that the Child is very comfortable with them. The Father says the Child is always happy and excited to see him. [ 108 ] KidScope supervisor reports and Dr Matsalla indicate that the Child appeared comfortable and at ease with her Father and his

partner with no signs of upset or apprehension. They also observed that the Father and Child were lovingly demonstrative to each other and appeared to enjoy their time together. [ 109 ] The Mother has been and continues to provide a stable environment for this young Child and ensures that her needs are meet by her. [ 110 ] The evidence indicates that the Father is well on his way to establishing a stable home environment for the Child. He currently has had a stable home, work and relationship, albeit for less than two years.

I also do not accept that the Father is unable to care properly for the Child. [ 111 ] This factor favours increased parenting time for the Father. History of Childcare [ 112 ] Since October 2018, the Mother has had primary care of the Child under numerous previous court orders. [ 113 ] The Mother and her parents provided the majority of care for the Child since her birth.

The Mother has attended to the Child's health and education needs, including regular attendances at medical and dental appointments and recently enrolling the Child in kindergarten. [ 114 ] The Father has been less involved due to the court ordered restrictions on his parenting time. He has been much more involved since February 2021, when supervision was lifted and he commenced overnight parenting. The Father 's increased parenting time appears to be going well with no real concerns substantiated. [ 115 ] The pattern of care that has evolved here are not grounds to limit the Father's future parenting time.

Relationships between the Child and Significant Persons in Her Life; Nature and Strength of Relationships [ 116 ] The Child is close and familiar with all the members of her parents' two households. [ 117 ] Since her birth, the Child has been primarily cared for by the Mother with assistance from her maternal grandparents. These are no doubt significant people in the Child's life. I find that the Mother and her family have the strongest relationship with the Child. [ 118 ] The evidence also indicates that the Child has a strong bond and relationship with her Father.

The evidence also indicates that the Child is comfortable with the Father’s partner. [ 119 ] This factor favours increased parenting time for the Father to give effect to the maximum contact principle. Supporting the Child's Relationship with the Other Parent [ 120 ] Both parties assert that they support and respect the other's parent's relationship with the Child. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

To date, neither parent have supported the Child to have a stable and constant relationship with the other parent. [ 121 ] Until the February 2021 Order, both parties, at times, impeded or failed to follow court ordered parenting times. [ 122 ] The Mother referred to the Father's failure to exercise any of his parenting time during the month of October 2020. The Father says he did so because the Mother would not permit him to have his parenting time in his home supervised by his partner. The Mother had wanted to meet with the Father’s partner first before she agreed to such supervision.

The Mother says she would have permitted the Father to have had parenting time in his home if it was under the supervision of a professional supervisor or unsupervised in a designated public place. The Mother said she did so because she wanted the Father to comply with the court ordered parenting time. [ 123 ] The Father referred to the Mother withdrawing her consent for KidScope to continue providing supervision of his parenting time in December 2020. The Father characterized this as the Mother's attempt to circumvent the December 2020 Order. The Mother characterized this as a misunderstanding.

Ultimately, after discussions with KidScope, the Mother reinstated her consent and she agreed to make up missed parenting time by extending the Father's parenting time. [ 124 ] It appears that many of the disputes over the Father's parenting time arose from the untenable position of giving the Mother discretionary control over supervision of the Father's parenting time.

This placed the parties in direct confrontation, caused many of the instances of non-cooperation referred to by the parties and only contributed to their ongoing conflict. [ 125 ] The removal of the Mother's discretionary supervision of the Father's parenting time seems to have alleviate a large part of the parties' conflict. [ 126 ] The Mother also pointed to many instances where the Father took the Child to medical appointments, conducted assessments, and enrolled the Child in extracurricular activities without her knowledge, discussion or consent. [ 127 ] The Father believed that the Child had health issues that he wanted investigated and that if he did so on his parenting time, there was no need to involve the Mother. [ 128 ] He also says he had consulted with the Mother before he enrolled the Child in any extracurricular activity.

[ 129 ] These instances clearly demonstrate the lack of co-parenting and communication between the parents. [ 130 ] As later discussed in relation to decision-making for the Child, the lack of cooperation and conflict between the parties argues against a move to equal parenting time. The Child's Views and Preferences [ 131 ] The child is too young to express a preference.

Impact of Family violence [ 132 ] The court considers any family violence that may impact the ability to care for the child and the ability of parents to cooperate on issues affecting the child. [ 133 ] Family violence was raised as an issue by the Mother. [ 134 ] The Mother alleges that prior to their separation the Father had a controlling and intimidating manner with her and that he sought to isolate her from everyone and controlled who and what she saw and did.

The Mother gave evidence that she engaged women protection and shelter services for emotional and physical safety support, although she never left the matrimonial home for a shelter or advised the Father of this support. [ 135 ] The maternal grandmother and the Mother's sister testified to instances that they had observed when the Father had been abusive to the Mother. These alleged instances all took place prior to separation. [ 136 ] The Father denies engaging in any of the controlling and abusive behaviour testified to by the Mother or her family members.

He did acknowledge conflict between the parties. [ 137 ] The Father's evidence is that while both of them called the police from time to time he did so as a means to prevent escalation of the issue and to keep the peace. He also pointed out that no criminal charges were ever laid. [ 138 ] On February 3, 2018, the Father was the one who called the Calgary Police Service to attend at the matrimonial home to deal with a dispute between the parties. The Father was upset that the Mother and her sister were taking the Child to go have coffee outside the home during a very cold winter day.

The Mother insisted that she and the child should be able to go out with her and her sister. The Father did not want the child to leave the house. The Father attempted to pull the child out of the Mother's arms. There was some pushing and pulling with the Child between them. The Father called the police. The police arrived. Contrary to the Mother's assertion, the evidence is clear that the police did not order but suggested the Father leave the home to settle matters down. The Father did so and never returned. No criminal charges were laid. [ 139 ] There was a disturbing incident in May 2020.

The Father was upset that the Mother had used her phone camera to photograph him driving a vehicle without the court ordered inter-lock device. The Father was driving alone in the car at the time and was returning to his home for his supervised parenting time. The Father grabbed the Mother's phone from her and smashed it on the ground. He was charged by police with theft under $5000. The Child was present. The Father admits that he did so because he was angry with the Mother taking pictures of him.

The Father admitted it was not appropriate behavior and that he subsequently replaced the Mother's cell phone. [ 140 ] Not all incidences of family violence between intimate partners are directly relevant to the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child is a forward-looking analysis. As such, even the most egregious past conduct by one spouse against the other may not bear on the child's interests going forward. [ 141 ] I find that both parents put the Child directly in their conflict while they were still living together in the same house.

While the Child was exposed to parental conflict during her early years of her life, it appears to me that both parents contributed to that exposure and even though such exposure to parental conflict is not in the Child's best interests, this past exposure is not a relevant consideration today. [ 142 ] There was the one incident of family violence since separation. There is still some hostility between the parties.

However, the parties’ separation and removal of the Mother's supervision of the Father's parenting time seems to have alleviated much of this behaviour. [ 143 ] I do not find that the Father's past conduct is directly relevant to his present ability to parent. He appears to support the Mother's relationship with the Child. [ 144 ] I also do not think that the Mother has been significantly impacted by the Father's past behaviour towards her.

After separation, she alone supervised the Father's parenting time in his home and in public places for several years. [ 145 ] The Mother also seems to have grown more comfortable with the Father having more parenting time with the Child. I do not believe that the Mother views the Father to be a significant threat for family violence. [ 146 ] I conclude that the Child's safety, security and well-being is not impacted by these past acts of family violence and the Father is not impaired in his ability to care for the Child or meet her needs.

There is no evidence that there is family violence when the Child is alone with the Father. [ 147 ] At this time, I find this a neutral factor.

Culture, Religion, and Heritage [ 148 ] The parties come from different backgrounds with different cultures and language. The Mother's first language is Russian and she is from Kazakhstan. The Father's first language is Swahili and he is from Kenya. Their common language is English. The Child shares both parents' heritages and needs to have exposure and involvement in learning about her heritage from both of her parents. [ 149 ] The Father raised concerns that, although the Mother is fluent in the English language, she and her parents only speak in Russian with the Child, even when the Father is present.

He also raised concerns with the Mother's decision to remove the Child from daycare in September 2019. The Father believes that the Child's removal from daycare resulted in the Child having had limited, if any, social interaction with children her age and English speaking people. He asserts that this caused him to have concerns.

He believed this isolation impacted the Child's development of age-appropriate social skills and her ability to communicate in English as the Child resides in a home with people who speak very little English with her. [ 150 ] The Mother explained that she removed the Child from daycare because the Child was not adapting there well and was homesick. The Child has not attended daycare since 2019 and remains at home being cared for by either the Mother or her parents. The Mother contends that she supports the Child's exposure to her Kenyan roots.

The Mother says that she does speak English with the Child. [ 151 ] Despite the Mother assurances, it appears that in December 2020 that the Child, who was 4 years old at the time, spoke little, if any, English. This was confirmed by the KidScope supervisor who noted that the Child spoke primarily Russian, and spoke very with little very English. [ 152 ] However, both Dr Le and Ms Bass confirmed that the Child currently is kindergarten ready and any speech issues are not of concern. [ 153 ] That said, these actions do raise concerns that the Mother might not support the Child's Kenyan heritage.

Further, the Mother's failure to expose her child to the English language until more recently is concerning given that the Father does not speak Russian. [ 154 ] It is clearly important that the Child be exposed to both of her parents' cultures and heritages. [ 155 ] Despite the Mother's best expressed intentions, the Father is likely better equipped to assist the Child in navigating many of the heritage issues that may arise and assist the child in forming her identity. [ 156 ] This consideration favours increased parenting time for the Father.

Parenting Decision [ 157 ] This decision is made on what the Court finds to be in the best interests of the Child. [ 158 ] The Child has two parents and is entitled to a meaningful relationship with both of her parents. [ 159 ] I am mindful that the Child is only 5 years old. It is important for a child of such a young age to have an opportunity to build and maintain a bond with her Father.

Further, young children with attachments to both parents need contact with both parents, without prolonged separation subject to their best interests to maintain meaningful and close relationships with their parents. [ 160 ] Courts will always give effect to the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of that child. [ 161 ] There is no doubt that these parents love their Child and want to spend as much time as they can with the Child. [ 162 ] While the Father seeks shared parenting as soon as possible, he recognizes that there may be a need for his gradual integration into the Child's life. [ 163 ] I understand that the Father wants more time with the Child.

However, the current parenting schedule, which was a significant change in parenting time to what the Child had been accustomed to, has only been in place for approximately a year and a half. The Child will experience another significant change in her life as she begins kindergarten this September and spends even more time away from her Mother and grandparents. [ 164 ] I am of the view, that it is not in the Child's best interest to order an equal parenting

schedule at this time. Given the age of the Child there is a need for a stable transition to longer parenting time with the Father. [ 165 ] That said, I do think it in the Child's best interest to increase the Father's parenting time. This will give the Child more time in her Father's care and give the Father the opportunity to actively participate in the Child's day-to-day life in a meaningful way. I am also of the view that the Child requires time to become accustomed to spending less time in her Mother's home environment and more time in her Father's home environment. [ 166 ] This parenting

schedule will provide the Father with additional over-nights than he presently exercises. This parenting

schedule recognizes and builds on the Father’s parenting strengths. It will provide him with multiple opportunities to have contact with the Child’s school/kindergarten and her teachers. [ 167 ] It is also in the Child’s best interest to grant both parents extended holiday time with the Child as ordered herein. [ 168 ] Both parties seek to travel with the Child outside of Canada to any Hague signatory countries and Kenya (the Father) on written notice that includes an itinerary to the non-travelling parent. The Mother opposes the father travelling outside of Alberta. The Mother

says that the Father has threatened to remove the Child to Kenya and never return. The Father denies any such threat. [ 169 ] Given the young age of the Child, the recent lift of supervision, the Father's unilateral actions taken in respect of the Child and that both parents are connected to countries that are not signatories to the Hague Convention, I do not think it is appropriate, at this time, to permit either parent to travel outside of Canada unless they obtain the consent of the other parent or further court order.

Both parents will be permitted to travel within Canada provided they comply with the conditions of such travel. [ 170 ] It is now generally accepted that parenting time arrangements will change and evolve over time as a child grows older, matures and becomes independent. In recognition of this and that it may well be in the best interests of the Child to transition to the equal parenting time that the Father seeks after this parenting

schedule has been in effect for a time, either party may apply for a review of parenting time any time after the Child's seventh birthday. Final Parenting Order Parenting - Regular

Schedule [ 171 ] The Mother shall continue to be the Child's primary caregiver.

The Child shall reside in the care of the Mother at all times, except when she is in the care of the Father. [ 172 ] Commencing November 3, 2022, the Child will reside with the Father every other Thursday from the time when the Father shall pick up the Child at the end of school/kindergarten or at 6:00 pm from the Mother's home if the Child is not attending school/kindergarten until the following Monday morning when the Child shall be dropped off at either the Child's school/kindergarten or if not attending school/kindergarten at 9:00 am at the Mother's home. [ 173 ] During the weeks when the Father does not have weekend parenting time, the Child shall spend Wednesday night with the Father from the time when the Father picks up the Child at the end of school/kindergarten or at 6:00 pm from the Mother's home if the Child is not attending school/kindergarten until the time the Child commences school/kindergarten the following Thursday morning when the Child shall be dropped off at either the Child's school/kindergarten or, if not attending school, at 9:00 am at the Mother's home. [ 174 ] The same pick up and drop off times shall be followed for all other parenting exchanges unless directed otherwise. [ 175 ] This regular parenting

schedule may be amended as may be agreed to by the parents in writing. [ 176 ] There shall be a 30 minute grace period for all drop-offs and pick-ups of the Child Parenting - Holiday

Schedule [ 177 ] The holiday

schedule shall take priority to the regular

schedule and is as follows. [ 178 ] The parties shall share the Child's Winter Break. Commencing in 2022, the Child shall reside with the Mother for the first half of the Winter Break in every even numbered year and the second half of the Winter Break in every odd numbered year. Conversely, the Child will reside with the Father for the first half of the Winter Break in every odd numbered year and the second half of the Winter Break in every even numbered year.

The Winter Break is determined by the Child's school calendar and shall commence from after the school day ends for the Winter Break until the first day of school in the New Year. With respect to the Christmas holiday itself, the parent who does not have the Child on Christmas Day shall pick up the Child from the other parent's home at 11:00 am and drop the Child back off at the other parent's home at 2:00 pm. This means that for Christmas Day 2022, the Father shall pick up the Child from the Mother's home at 11:00 am on Christmas Day and return the Child to the Mother's home at 2:00 pm. This

schedule is reversed in every odd year. [ 179 ] Commencing in 2023, the Father shall have parenting time with the Child over the Teachers’ Convention/Family Day weekend in each odd numbered year, from after school, or 6:00 pm, on the Thursday that Teachers’ Convention/Family Day weekend begins until school starts, or at 9:00 am, on the Tuesday after the Teachers’ Convention/Family Day weekend ends. [ 180 ] Commencing in 2024, the Father shall have parenting time with the Child over Spring Break in every even numbered year from after school, or at 6:00 pm, on the Friday that Spring Break starts, until school starts, or at 9:00 am, on the Monday after the Spring Break ends. [ 181 ] Commencing in 2024, the Father shall have parenting time with the Child over the entire Easter weekend in every even numbered year, from after school, or at 9:00 am, on the Thursday before the Easter weekend begins until school starts, or at 9:00 am, on the Tuesday after the Easter weekend ends. [ 182 ] If the Child is not otherwise with the Mother on Mother's Day weekend, the Child shall be picked up by the Mother from the Father's home at 11:00 am.

If the Child is not with the Father on Father's Day weekend, the Child shall be picked up by the Father from the Mother's home on Sunday at 11:00 am and remain with the Father until the Father drops the Child off at either school/kindergarten or the Mother's home at 9:00 am on Monday morning. [ 183 ] Commencing in 2023, with respect to summer vacation, if either parent wishes, the Child may reside with that parent for two exclusive consecutive weeks during the Child's summer vacation (July and August).

The parties shall advise each other by April 1 of each year of their chosen weeks if they wish to spend the two-week period with the Child during her summer vacation, the Mother having the first choice in even numbered years and the Father having first choice in odd numbered years.

[ 184 ] Commencing in 2023, the Father shall have parenting time with the Child over the entire Thanksgiving weekend in every odd numbered year, from after school, or at 9:00 am, on the Thursday before the Thanksgiving weekend begins until school starts, or at 9:00 am, on the Tuesday after the Thanksgiving weekend ends. [ 185 ] With respect to Halloween, the Child shall spend Halloween with the parent with whom she is scheduled to be with on that day. [ 186 ] With respect to the Child's birthday, the Child shall spend the overnight before and morning of her birthday (ie 4:00 pm the day before until 1:00 pm on the day of her birthday) with the Mother in every even numbered year and with the Father in every odd numbered year and then spend the afternoon and overnight of her birthday until 6:00 pm the following day with the Father in every even numbered year and the Mother in every odd numbered year. [ 187 ] With respect to the parent's respective birthdays, the Child shall celebrate birthdays overnight with the birthday parent regardless of the regular

schedule and without the need to replace the overnight stay to the other parent. In the event a parent's birthday falls on the other parent's weekend, the full weekend shall be swapped with another regular weekend, to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. [ 188 ] Neither party shall be entitled to make-up time unless mutually agreed to in writing. [ 189 ] This Holiday Parenting

Schedule may be amended by the parents as agreed to by them in writing. [ 190 ] There shall be a 30 minute grace period for all drop-offs and pick-ups of the Child. Communication [ 191 ] The parent who has parenting time shall be responsible for facilitating the Child having daily electronic video communication (FaceTime, WhatsApp, etc) with the other parent unless the parent with parenting time advises otherwise and gives written reasons for same.

Travel [ 192 ] Neither parent may travel with the Child outside Canada unless mutually agreed to by the parents or further court order. [ 193 ] Either parent may travel with the Child outside of Alberta but within Canada. Where either parent is travelling with the Child outside of Alberta, a written itinerary of such travel must be provided 15 days prior to such travel taking place. The itinerary shall contain information about the destination, including address and telephone contact number, mode of transportation, accommodation arrangements and contact details.

All such travel is to take place during the travelling parent's parenting time unless otherwise agreed to, in writing, by the parties, in which case, make-up time, if any, shall be as agreed to by the parties. [ 194 ] Either parent may travel with the Child within the province of Alberta. Where either parent is travelling with the Child to a destination for more than 24 hours, a written itinerary of such travel must be provided 5 days prior to such travel taking place.

The itinerary shall contain information about the destination, including address and telephone contact number, mode of transportation, accommodation arrangements and contact details.

All such travel is to take place during the travelling parent's parenting time unless otherwise agreed to, in writing, by the parties, in which case, make-up time, if any, shall be as agreed to by the parties. [ 195 ] The travelling party shall assist the Child in contacting the non-travelling parent in a reasonably frequent manner while away, such contact to take place once every day via video communication, such as FaceTime, WhatsApp, etc.

No Court Applications [ 196 ] Either party may apply for a review of this Parenting Time Order any time after the Child's seventh birthday. [ 197 ] Neither party is permitted to bring any court application to review the parenting time for the Child set out in this Order prior to the Child's seventh birthday without leave of the court first obtained, such leave should only be granted if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated to exist.

Decision-making [ 198 ] The Mother seeks to continue to have sole decision-making responsibility for the Child. [ 199 ] The Mother asks for this given her concerns that the Father will continue to not communicate or cooperate with her regarding the care of their Child. The Mother asserts that she and the Father have consistently had poor parenting communication since the Child's birth. [ 200 ] The Mother feels she cannot communicate effectively with the Father about the Child. The Mother describes the Father's communications with her as dictatorial and not open to hearing her positions.

She believes that when the Father communicates with her, has already assumed that she would be opposed to whatever he suggests and that he will oppose what she has suggested. She says he is demanding and insistent about getting his own way. [ 201 ] The Mother says that she has advised the Father of substantive decisions she has made regarding the Child. She has informed the Father of actions taken regarding the Child's health care, such as immunization, test results, enrollment in daycare and kindergarten,

and extracurricular activities. [ 202 ] However, she says the Father has not reciprocated. The Father has made numerous unilateral decisions without her knowledge. [ 203 ] The Mother points to the Father enrolling the Child in soccer and swimming without her knowledge or consent. [ 204 ] The Mother points to the Father making several medical appointments for the Child without the Mother's consent or knowledge. [ 205 ] The Father took the Child for an eye exam with a doctor different from the one the Child had seen with the Mother.

The Father continued to insist that the Child required a different eye glass prescription even after the Mother had followed up with the Child's eye doctor who confirmed to her that the Child had the proper prescription. [ 206 ] The Father made an appointment for the Child to see a family doctor as well as Dr Le without the Mother's knowledge or consent. He did so even though he was aware the Child had a family doctor at the time.

The Mother noted that Dr Le found the Father alleged concerns about the Child's hearing sensitivities, iron deficiency, weight issues and readiness for kindergarten to be unfounded. [ 207 ] The Father had the Child undergo a speech assessment without the Mother's knowledge or consent. The Father refused to provide the Mother with a complete copy of the speech assessment despite the Mother's request for same. The assessment scores apparently did not support the Father's concerns about the Child's speech.

The Father then registered the Child in speech and language therapy without consultation or the consent of the Mother. [ 208 ] The Mother acknowledged that the Father had raised with her his concern that the Child's English was not at the level it should be for a child of her age. The Mother says that the Father's concerns regarding the Child's proficiency in the English language is unfounded and that the Child’s English language comprehension and communication skills are good.

The Mother relied on Ms Bass' assessment report that concluded that while the Child's communication skills were at a higher level in Russian, she could successfully carry on a conversation in English. [ 209 ] The Mother points to Father’s failure to provide her with the bi-monthly inter-lock device reports and psychological treatment reports. [ 210 ] The Mother maintains that her having sole decision-making authority will serve to minimize potential conflict between she and the Father that could adversely affect the Child.

She urges the court to find that it is in the child's best interests to minimize the contact between the parents by giving her sole decision-making. [ 211 ] The Father seeks to parallel co-parent the Child. The Father wishes to play an equal role in the raising of their Child.

He emphasizes the generally positive effect of having both parents involved in making decisions related to the health and well-being of their Child and does not want to be deprived of this important role in the life of his Child. [ 212 ] The Father acknowledged that although the parties had a volatile relationship, he believes that he and the Mother have made ongoing efforts to cooperate in an effective positive way. [ 213 ] The Father seeks joint decision-making as he wishes to be involved in important decisions affecting the Child.

He is concerned that some of the decisions the Mother has unilaterally made in the past have not been in their daughter's best interests. [ 214 ] The Father points to the Mother's unilateral decision to remove the Child from her daycare with no consultation or notice to him.

He believes that this decision had negative effects on the Child by limiting her socialization and her exposure to the English language. [ 215 ] Although the Mother asserted that the Father had enrolled the Child in soccer and swimming without her knowledge and consent, the Father says that was not the case. [ 216 ] The Father provided an email he sent the Mother. The Father had advised the Mother that he was proposing to register the Child in soccer and, that if she did not agree to the activity, he would pay all the costs and make sure the activity only occurred on his parenting time.

The Mother's evidence was that Father enrolled the Child without consideration as to how it might affect her parenting time. [ 217 ] The Father admitted to taking the Child to medical professionals without consulting first with the Mother but that the Mother was advised after the fact. [ 218 ] The Father's explanation was that he believed he could make these appointments and enrollments so long as they took place during his parenting time and at his cost. [ 219 ] Neither party is completely without fault for their behaviour. [ 220 ] The Mother's evidence implies that she believes that she alone knows what is best for the Child and, practically has rejected, any input by the Father into the Child's care.

However, the Mother, to her credit, appears to have kept the Father reasonably informed about actions she has taken with respect to the Child's health and education and other matters regarding the Child’s care. [ 221 ] The Father made unilateral decisions regarding the Child even though he had neither primary care nor decision-making for the Child. He did so without consultation or agreement from the Mother. Further, taking the Child to a myriad of medical professionals for unfounded health complaints is not in the Child's best interest.

This is very troubling behavior and must cease. [ 222 ] The Father gave no credible explanation for his failure to provide the court-ordered inter-lock device report and psychological and psychiatric records. This is not acceptable. [ 223 ] The parties' willingness to communicate and cooperate on issues affecting the Child is a major issue.

[ 224 ] I am mindful of Courts' reluctance to order joint decision-making in high conflict parenting situations where the parents are unable to communicate or cooperate with one another: Richter v Richter , 2005 ABCA 165 . [ 225 ] What is clear is that the parties' conflict continues, with each blaming the other for the conflict between them. Both parties exhibit dysfunctionality as parents. They need to stop and reconsider their behaviour as it will negatively impact their daughter and exhaust their financial resources.

These parents have many years of co-parenting ahead of them and they need to learn how to work cooperatively to put the best interests of their Child above their own personal animosities. [ 226 ] I accept the sincerity of the Mother's reservations about future contact with the Father, given the volatile history of their relationship.

However, the focus is on the best interests of the Child, not on what these parents wish. [ 227 ] I am concerned that the Mother, notwithstanding her stated intentions to support the Father's relationship with the Child, may do what she can to limit the Father's involvement in the Child's life. That said, I am not unsympathetic to the Mother's feelings in this regard, given the Father's actions in taking the many steps he did to

schedule health care and speech therapy appointments without her consultation, knowledge or consent and pursing so many health issues for the Child that turned out to be unfounded. Such actions are clearly not in the best interests of the Child. [ 228 ] However, it is important to ensure that the Father's relationship with the Child is not marginalized, which is a concern. [ 229 ] The Child will benefit from the involvement of both parents in making decisions for the Child on substantive issues that are in the Child's best interests.

This includes prior consultation on any decision regarding the Child's education, health care, childcare arrangements and extracurricular activities. [ 230 ] While the parties have never gotten along, have been unable to cooperate to date and do not effectively communicate with each other, these are issues that can be reasonably managed by setting up rules of conduct. [ 231 ] I find that the Mother has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Father is not cooperative and the dynamics of their relationship are such that communication between them is challenging.

I find that in these circumstances it is in the best interests of the Child for the Mother, after reasonable prior consultation with the Father, to have final decision-making responsibility on the issues of health and education.

Decision-Making Order [ 232 ] For the foregoing reasons, I make the following orders. [ 233 ] The parents are the joint guardians of the Child. [ 234 ] The parent with parenting time with the Child shall make the day-to-day decisions about the Child, such as homework, bedtime, chores, extracurricular activities, attendance at religious activities and visits with friends and family. [ 235 ] Each parent shall be entitled to have input in all major decisions affecting the Child, including but not limited to: education, medical, health, religion and extracurricular activities. [ 236 ] Each parent shall be entitled to take the initiative to anticipate major decisions that might need to be made about the Child and make reasonable suggestions about what needs to be done, how, when and by whom.

These suggestions must be communicated, in writing, to the other parent with their reason for the major decision sought to be made and include the name and contact information for any suggested service provider (ie doctors, dentists, speech pathologists, counsellors, etc). [ 237 ] If one parent makes a suggestion, the other must respond with their agreement, suggestions or disagreement (with reasons) within seven days, unless the circumstances call for a more or less timely response in which case the suggesting party should indicate that timing at the outset and the reasons for the adjusted timing.

These will include all requests for health care appointments and treatments and education needs. [ 238 ] For clarity, unless there is a medical emergency, neither the Father nor anyone on his behalf, shall make any medical, dental or other health care appointment for the Child unless he has first obtained the Mother's written consent to do so. [ 239 ] In the event the parents reach an impasse on a major decision involving the Child's health care or education needs, the Mother shall make the final decision and provide promptly, in writing, to the Father, her reason(

s) for the decision she made and why she rejected the Father's suggestion. [ 240 ] To ensure that the Father has the information from education and health care professional involved in the Child's life, the Mother shall inform the Father of all health care and educational appointments made for the Child and the Father shall be able to attend all such appointments should he wish.

Two weeks' advance written notice must be provided to the Father to facilitate the Father's schedule, unless the appointment is emergent. [ 241 ] Each parent shall be entitled to receive or access all information, including professional and other records, directly and independently from third parties who provided such care or services to the Child, subject to third party costs and rules and without requiring the consent of the other parent.

This includes information from schools, health care providers, other professionals or other group or associations involved in the Child’s life. [ 242 ] In the case of emergency medical treatment, the parent caring for the Child at that time shall contact the other parent immediately by email and telephone and inform them of the location of the Child. If that parent is not available, then the custodial parent shall make the necessary decisions including emergency surgery or urgent treatment.

[ 243 ] With respect to extracurricular activities, each parent may enroll the Child in one extracurricular activity to take place during their parenting time and at their own cost. Any proposed extracurricular activity involving a commitment that would take place during the other parent's parenting time, including weekend time, must be agreed to in writing by both the parents, including agreement as to the payment of the associated costs.

If the parents cannot agree, then the Child shall not be enrolled in that extracurricular activity or shall only attend the activity during the enrolling parent’s parenting time and at their sole cost. [ 244 ] With respect to extracurricular activities, the parents shall share with each other in a timely manner details of any activities in which they intend to enroll the Child, including

schedule and location of the activity. [ 245 ] There are no restrictions on the Child seeing her parents at any extracurricular or public events. The Child will return with the parent who has her under their care at that time. [ 246 ] Either parent shall be free to observe, volunteer or participate in any school or extracurricular activities the Child is engaged in following any school/agency policies on condition they act civilly to each other. [ 247 ] With respect to daycare, unless mutually agreed to, either parent may enroll the Child in daycare to take place during their parenting time and at their own cost. [ 248 ] The parents shall share with each other in a timely manner the

schedule and location of the daycare, if any. [ 249 ] Both parents shall keep the other informed at all times of their current address, phone number and email address. [ 250 ] Both parents shall be listed as an emergency contact with the Child's school/kindergarten in case of illness or injury. The parent caring for the Child at that time shall be contacted first, and is responsible for caring for the Child should she be required to leave during school/kindergarten hours.

The other parent shall be notified immediately of the school absence due to illness/injury and the course of treatment required. [ 251 ] The parents at this time shall have all communication by email, which shall be restricted to parenting matters. The parties will attempt communication through Our Family Wizard to allow timely information and keep track of all matters, at their own respective expense, to be reviewed in one year by the parents.

The parents shall exchange all reasonable information without harassment or disrespect. [ 252 ] All communications, written or otherwise, shall be child-focused, cordial and to the point about the Child. The parents shall remain courteous and polite with each other at all times.

In addition, the parents shall refrain from including information that reflects their personal opinions and feelings about the other parent and focus on deciding what is the Child's best interests. [ 253 ] Neither parent shall denigrate or disparage the other parent or members of their extended family in any communication with the Child or in her presence. [ 254 ] The Mother shall have in her care the Child's passport, Alberta Health Care Card, any other health coverage and other personal documentation.

The Father shall be provided with a copy of the Child's Alberta Health Care Card, and any other health coverage and immunization records for use only in case of an emergency. The Mother may obtain or renew all government documentation for the Child, including passports.

The Father shall provide his consent to the renewal of the Child’s passport within seven days of receiving the written request from the Mother, failing which his consent is dispensed with. [ 255 ] Neither parent shall permanently move or relocate with the Child outside of Calgary or Airdrie without the other parent's written consent or further court order. [ 256 ] The parents have each requested an order directing them to jointly engage a parenting coordinator for the purpose of resolving any future disputes that may arise from compliance with this Order.

Given this joint request, the parents are directed to engage a mutually agreed on parent coordinator for 12 months or a total of 15 sessions, whichever comes first, with the costs to be shared in proportion their incomes. The parenting coordinator is to be retained by the parents by November 15, 2022. Failing agreement, the parents are directed to each provide to me the name of one parenting coordinator who is available to be retained by the parents together with reasons as to why their parenting coordinator should be selected by the Court.

The parenting coordinator is to be retained to assist the parties in resolving disputes regarding the Child. [ 257 ] The parties shall also consider the joint retention of a parenting coach to address the issues of communication, with the costs to be shared in proportion to their incomes. [ 258 ] As was the case with the parenting time decision, the issue of decision-making for the Child may be reviewed in conjunction with either parent's application for review of parenting time after the Child's seventh birthday. [ 259 ] As well, neither party is permitted to bring any court application to review decision-making for the Child prior to the Child's seventh birthday without leave of the court first obtained, such leave should only be granted if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated to exist. [ 260 ] In the event of any future disputes regarding parenting or decision making, the parties are strongly encouraged to resolve any such issues with the assistance of a Parenting Coordinator or at Mediation and Arbitration. [ 261 ] The Court thanks counsel for their professional presentation of this matter.

Heard on the 26 th day of October, 2021 to the 27 th day of October, 2021 and the 22 nd day of June, 2022 to the 24 th day of June, 2022.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 7 th day of October, 2022. G.A. Campbell J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Danilo A. Aburto for the Plaintiff Alya M. Nazarali for the Defendant