N.R.G. v. G.R.G., 2015 BCSC 1062

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: N.R.G. v. G.R.G., 2015 BCSC 1062 Date: 20150619 Docket: 13-1789 Registry: Victoria Between: N.R.G. Claimant And: G.R.G. Respondent Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice N. Kent Reasons for Judgment Claimant N.R.G.: Appearing in person on her own behalf Counsel for the Respondent: Jon Stewart Place and Dates of Trial: Victoria, B.C. April 20-24; 27-30; May 1, 6-8, 25-26; 28-29, 2015 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. June 19, 2015 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .. 4 FACTUAL BACKGROUND .. 4 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SEIZURE OF FUTURE APPLICATIONS .. 13

SUMMARY OF NON-PARTY WITNESS TESTIMONY .. 14 Mother’s Lay Witnesses . 15 Dr. Darcy Nielsen .. 15 Dr. David Hanks . 16 Stephen McBride . 16 Elizabeth Hind . 17 Jacqueline Horton .. 18 Dr. Margaret Sherwood . 20 Tine Moberg-Parker 20 Jean Bigelow .. 22 Jacob Burnett 23 Constable Jason Ince . 26 Heather Schryburt 26

Jennifer Grierson .. 27 Erik van der Pol 28 Margot Bernard (Peggy Bain) 29 Louise Mooney . 30 Kimberly Walker 30 Father’s Lay Witnesses . 32 Kira Maxwell 32 Lynn G. 36 Olga Melounova . 38 Laurie Kelley . 39 Psychologist and Counsellor Witnesses . 41 Dr. Peter Meuser 41 Dr. Gloria Burima . 49 Alyson Jones . 53 Dr.

Larry Waterman .. 56 DIVORCE .. 59 CUSTODY, ACCESS, GUARDIANSHIP AND PARENTING .. 59 Estrangement and Alienation: Concepts and Possible Remedies . 60 Analysis, Findings and Orders Made . 66 Personalities, Parenting Styles and Past Conduct 67 Best Interests of the Children and Orders Made . 71 CHILD SUPPORT .. 80 Mother’s Income . 83 Father’s Income . 84 Amount of Child Support 87 Retroactivity . 89 SPOUSAL SUPPORT .. 90 OUTSTANDING CONTEMPT APPLICATIONS .. 94 CONCLUSION .. 94 Divorce . 94 Custody, Access, Guardianship and Parenting . 94 Support 98 Miscellaneous . 99 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] This is a high-conflict family law dispute.

The issues to be determined include entitlement to divorce, parenting arrangements for the five children of the marriage, as well as child and spousal support. Each issue will be addressed separately.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND [ 2 ] The following chronology of various events sets out findings of fact based on the evidence and relates to matters that are largely uncontroversial. In other parts of the judgment where facts significant to any issue are in dispute, the evidence tendered by the parties may be cited and express findings of fact will be made. [ 3 ] G.G. (also “the father”) was born November 12, 1961, in Detroit, Michigan, and is currently 53 years old.

He attended the University of Maryland where he obtained a Bachelor of Science degree, specializing in accounting and finance, followed by a Master’s of Business Administration (MBA). Following university, he worked in the banking industry for approximately six years before joining Riverdale International Inc., a commercial property developer headquartered in Washington, DC. He also undertook real estate development under his own personal business corporation, Dexter International LLC.

For the past several years, however, he has been effectively unemployed and has had no income. [ 4 ] N.G. (also “the mother”) was born on September 20, 1964, in Vancouver, BC, and is currently 51 years old. She graduated with a medical degree from the University of British Columbia in 1991, thereafter completing an internship and residency at Dalhousie University for a specialty as a general surgeon.

She then completed a number of fellowships in Montréal, Washington, DC, Chicago and Houston to become a certified pediatric surgeon and has been practising as such in Victoria, BC, since 2005. [ 5 ] The couple met in 1998 and were married on October 31, 1998, in a Catholic church wedding. Another marriage ceremony was also performed in Hawaii in December 1998. [ 6 ] The couple have five female children namely: 1. S., born August 5, 2001, in Washington, DC, currently 13 years old; 2.

T., born June 26, 2003, in Houston, currently 11 years old; 3 Ao., born January 16, 2006, in Victoria, BC, currently nine years old; and 4. The twins, Ai. and N., born August 26, 2009, in Victoria, BC, currently five years old. [ 7 ] The couple/family resided in Washington, DC, for the period 1998 to 2002, and thereafter in Chicago, Illinois, for one year, and Houston, Texas, for the period 2003 to 2005.

These moves were to accommodate N.G.’s various fellowships in pediatric surgical critical care. [ 8 ] In September 2005, the family moved to Victoria, BC, where they continue to reside, albeit now in separate households. Throughout this period of time, G.G.’s employment was headquartered in Washington, DC, and he engaged in fairly extensive travel each year for business purposes. [ 9 ] Apart from his employment as managing director of Riverdale International Inc. (and related entities), G.G. also built a fairly substantial property development portfolio over the years.

He took leveraged advantage of US tax exemptions for capital gains on personal residences, combined with the single-purpose LLC structure of Dexter International which allowed for contributions and withdrawals without tax consequences. Property would be purchased in the name of both N.G. and G.G., loans taken out secured by the property value, development/ improvements undertaken and, following appreciation in value, resale or repositioning as rental properties would then occur.

The leveraged nature of the portfolio permitted the couple to enjoy a wealthy lifestyle but in the years following the 2008 financial crash, the substantial equity in the portfolio nosedived into substantial deficits. Creditors closed in, loans were called, and the wealthy lifestyle came to an end. [ 10 ] In September 2005, the couple purchased a substantial home in the Upland’s area of Victoria. G.G. obtained his flying licence and in 2007 he purchased a six-passenger Cessna turboprop aircraft through a holding company, Zazu Holdings LLC.

The aircraft was refinanced in February 2008, giving rise to a debt obligation, including finance charges, of approximately $850,000. [ 11 ] The house in Victoria, which had been purchased for approximately $4.5 million in 2005, saw its value increase over the years to almost $10 million. The property was also refinanced in order to extract equity and was subject to two mortgages of approximately $7 million. Following the crash of the couple’s portfolio, payments on the house could not be made and foreclosure proceedings were instituted.

The property was eventually sold in foreclosure in March 2012 for approximately $4 million, leaving a substantial shortfall in the mortgage security and considerable personal liability. [ 12 ] The couple also purchased a condominium in Sun Peaks Resort, again through a holding company owned by the family. That property was also leveraged and, following its eventual sale, substantial debt to the two mortgagees remained. [ 13 ] In the meantime, all of the children were enrolled in Montessori day schools and thereafter in the private (and costly) Glenlyon Norfolk School (GNS) in Victoria.

All of the children are still attending GNS, although the parents are now unable to afford the tuition. That tuition has been funded for some time by N.G.’s parents. [ 14 ] Sailing has always been a common interest of both parents. The family members are all members of the Victoria Yacht Club. The two eldest children have been enrolled in various sailing programs throughout the years which have entailed substantial travel locally, nationally and internationally.

Sailing has been and remains a time-consuming and expensive undertaking which the couple can no longer realistically afford. [ 15 ] The International Baccalaureate Program at GNS requires extensive participation in co-curricular, non-academic activities including a variety of sports, drama and social service ventures. Quite apart from GNS-related activities, all of the children are also enrolled in a variety of other programs including soccer, ballet and the sailing referred to above. The logistics for all of these children’s

activities are very challenging and involve conflicts that would be daunting, even for a happily married couple with a healthy support network, let alone for a couple who are separated and have been engaging in intensive, high-conflict family law litigation for almost two and one-half years. [ 16 ] While the dissolution of the couple’s relationship is no doubt related to the two parents’ conflicting styles and personalities and exacerbated by the total collapse of their leveraged lifestyle, matters started coming to a head in 2011 and have been in a downward spiral since that date. [ 17 ] In March 2011, the Child Protection Services Division of the Ministry of Children and Family Development (“Ministry”) received a report from the school of shouting, name-calling and possibly excessive physical discipline in the G. household.

One outcome of this report was the enrolment of the couple in marriage counselling for the next several months. That counselling, which lasted for several months, was unsuccessful. Garnishing orders were issued by creditors on the couple’s bank accounts and the mother’s RRSP. The mother terminated the father’s employment: he had been working for some time as her office assistant and with the development of her electronic medical records system.

The house was subject to an order nisi of foreclosure but no purchasers could be found. [ 18 ] In early November 2011, the husband consulted with the family solicitor and inquired about separation and divorce. [ 19 ] During the summer of 2012, the husband travelled extensively with S. and T. for a variety of sailing events in both Canada and the USA. [ 20 ] In August 2012, the husband emailed the wife demanding a divorce. Lawyers were retained. A collaborative process for divorce was proposed. [ 21 ] On January 9, 2013, an altercation occurred between the parents at the home.

The Saanich police attended upon being summoned by the father. The father had the twins in his bedroom and the mother was attempting access when some grabbing and pushing ensued. Things had settled down by the time the police arrived, however the incident was reported to the Ministry by the police. [ 22 ] On January 18, 2013, while the father was away in the United States, the mother moved the children and all her belongings to another rental home. She did not advise the father of this beforehand and he returned from his trip to find the house empty and his children gone.

He became extremely distressed and reported the matter to both the police and to the Ministry. [ 23 ] On January 19, 2013, the twins were attending a junior kindergarten orientation at GNS. The mother and T. were also present. The father came into the room, lifted N. into his arms and took her away. His counsel calls it “taking N. into his care.” The mother considers it to be abduction. [ 24 ] On January 21, 2013, the husband made an ex parte application in the Victoria location of the Provincial Court and secured an order granting joint custody and joint guardianship to both parents of the five children.

The order also provided for an adjournment of further proceedings to January 24, 2013. At this later date the wife attended with counsel and an order was granted requiring the husband to return N. to the mother by way of pickup at the Montessori school at 5:00 p.m. that same day.

The order also required all of the children’s passports to be surrendered, prohibited the removal of the children from Vancouver Island, and adjourned to January 31, 2013 the issue of appropriate access. [ 25 ] On January 31, 2013, the Provincial Court issued a consent order granting the husband specified access to the three youngest children from February 1 to February 3, 2013. No access was ordered for S. and T. as there was no agreement between the parties on that issue. [ 26 ] In March 2013, the parties attempted mediation without success.

The mediator issued an email to the parties noting that the two “divorce coaches” for the parents would continue to work with their respective clients and would also try to identify an appropriate counsellor for the children. It was also noted that the husband was “taking a break” from seeing the children for the next couple weeks while his divorce coach was away. [ 27 ] On April 3, 2013, the husband attended GNS and removed T. from class to take her to an appointment that he had made with the family doctor. She did not wish to go but the school granted permission.

At the doctor’s office, T. initially refused to get out of the car. Eventually she went into the office and was interviewed by Dr. Nielson. The father was asked to leave and the mother was summoned to retrieve T. [ 28 ] On April 11, 2013, the Provincial Court issued an order prohibiting the father’s attendance at GNS and the Montessori school being attended by the twins. The order also prohibited the parties from attending at the other’s places of residence, employment, education or recreation. [ 29 ] On April 22, 2013, the father attended the Yacht Club while the eldest children were present.

Another confrontation ensued and the police were called. The father was asked to leave the premises. [ 30 ] The present Supreme Court proceedings were initiated by the mother on May 17, 2013. In her Notice of Family Claim, the mother sought a divorce, primary custody of all five children, parenting time with the father for only the three youngest children, child support and a variety of conduct orders restraining the father’s communication and contact with both the mother and the children. [ 31 ] The father filed his Response and Counterclaim on June 18, 2013.

He too sought a divorce and parenting time with the children, together with both child and spousal support. [ 32 ] Since the institution of the Supreme Court proceedings, there have been no less than 15 orders made by seven different members of this Court. The first order, dated July 16, 2013, directed the preparation of a report pursuant to s. 211 of the Family Law Act , S.B.C. 2011, c. 25, assessing the needs of the children, the ability and willingness of the parents to satisfy those needs, and the views of each child, to be prepared by a psychologist to be jointly selected by the parents.

The parties eventually agreed upon the selection of

Dr. Peter Meuser for the s. 211 assessment and their respective lawyers issued a joint letter of retainer to Dr. Meuser on September 11, 2013. [ 33 ] On August 30, 2013, the wife made an assignment into bankruptcy. She has still not been discharged. Her discharge has been opposed by one of the house mortgage creditors but it is anticipated that an application will be made shortly for a discharge notwithstanding the objection. [ 34 ] Various orders were made during the period August 19, 2013 to April 2014 respecting parenting arrangements, travel for the children, and other contentious matters. [ 35 ] Dr.

Meuser issued his s. 211 report on April 8, 2014. He concluded that the mother had been engaging in a program of systematic alienation of the children from the father, particularly insofar as S. and T. were concerned.

He made a number of recommendations including that the parties and children be enrolled in a counselling program specifically designed to address alienation. [ 36 ] On May 1, 2014, an order was issued implementing counselling with Alyson Jones & Associates “Family Forward Reunification Therapy Program” and directing the parents to follow all reasonable treatment recommendations made by the therapists in that program.

An order for parenting time for the father with the three youngest children was made, however his parenting time with the two oldest children was suspended. [ 37 ] In June, Alyson Jones recommended equal parenting time between the parents and all of the children. On July 4, 2014, this Court issued an order creating such an equal parenting time regime for the months of July and August.

The order also provided that the eldest daughter, S., would be at liberty to attend a certain sailing competition in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, from August 10, 2014 to August 23, 2014. [ 38 ] In the third week of August 2014, the father took the four other children to visit family in Michigan, USA. He attended Lunenburg on August 22 to pick up S. to take her back to Detroit. This was the last day of the sailing event in Lunenburg. A confrontation ensued with S. refusing to leave that particular evening.

The father retrieved her in the early morning of the following day and the two of them travelled to Michigan. [ 39 ] While in Michigan, in response to truculence on the part of S., the father is alleged to have violently pushed her down some stairs.

The father vehemently denies this. [ 40 ] On the return trip to Vancouver, in frustrated response to further verbal defiance and insults by S. at the airport, the father slapped S. in the face in front of the other children. [ 41 ] Upon the family’s return to Victoria, the slapping and alleged pushing incidents were reported to both the police and the Ministry and investigations were undertaken. In the course of that investigation, T. disclosed to the Ministry an incident which she said occurred four years earlier and involved her father dragging her out into the garage and putting her in a dog kennel.

This alleged incident features prominently in the mother’s various accusations of abuse by the father. The father denies anything of the sort occurred and says it is a complete fabrication. The Ministry ultimately made a determination that the children were not in need of protection. [ 42 ] In September 2014, the two youngest children, the twins, started school at GNS. On September 4, 2014, the Court issued a further order for parenting time for both parents on a four-day on, four-day off basis. [ 43 ] In September, the mother filed an application to terminate the counselling program with Alyson Jones.

She also filed an application for an order to have Dr. Meuser’s s. 211 report reviewed or alternatively for a second such report to be prepared. [ 44 ] A two-day hearing on all outstanding applications occurred in front of Mr. Justice Pearlman in October 2014. On October 28, 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing the mother’s applications referred to above, confirming shared parenting on a one-week on, one-week off basis and directing continuation of counselling with Alyson Jones & Associates.

The order also directed the father not to disrupt or interfere with the children’s ballet, swimming, soccer and sailing activities, a direction which the mother alleges to have been breached many times since. [ 45 ] On January 13, 2015, N. sustained a scratch on her forearm. It apparently occurred when her father was hurrying her to get dressed that day. The mother brought the scratch to the attention of the school principal and the matter was also reported to the Ministry. Interviews were again conducted. The father was completely unaware that any scratch had been sustained.

The Ministry did not suspect any type of child abuse and the incident was closed. [ 46 ] In the fall of 2014, the attendance of the mother and the two eldest children at Alyson Jones counselling petered off. In January 2015, the mother reconnected with the Family Forward Therapy Program and counselling for the family resumed on February 2, 2015, and has continued to date. [ 47 ] The trial of this action was held for 17 days April 20-24, 27-30, and; May 1, 6-8, 25-26, and 28-29, 2015.

CASE MANAGEMENT AND SEIZURE OF FUTURE APPLICATIONS [ 48 ] The term “high conflict” fails to properly capture the depth of animosity displayed by the parties in this case. To date, there have been countless applications by the parties resulting in 21 orders issued by 10 different judges in the Supreme and Provincial Courts. I am the 11th member of the judiciary to handle this matter and, unlike my predecessors, I have had the benefit of 17 days of evidence from 26 different witnesses.

[ 49 ] I am in complete agreement with the comments of Madam Justice Martinson in A.A. v. S.N.A. , 2009 BCSC 387 , to the following effect: 77. It is imperative in high conflict family cases generally, and certainly in cases involving allegations of alienation like this one, that one member of the Court take charge of the case. Having a single judge hear cases is required by s. 14 of the Supreme Court Act :

(1) All proceedings in the court and all business arising from those proceedings, if practicable and convenient, must be heard, determined and disposed of before a single judge.

(2) All proceedings subsequent to the hearing or trial including the final order, except as otherwise provided, and on a rehearing must, if practicable and convenient, be before the judge before whom the trial or hearing took place. 78. The reasons for doing so for all cases are obvious. The judge will be familiar with the case so the litigants do not have to explain the situation over and over again. It avoids “judge shopping” to try to get a better result. It prevents inconsistent approaches. It saves legal and other costs.

There will be times in dealing with some cases when it is not convenient or practical to do so. 79. However, in high conflict custody cases the stakes are particularly high; children can be seriously harmed by the ongoing acrimony and lack of a timely resolution. It should be only in rare circumstances that the court finds it inconvenient or impractical to have a single judge hear the applications in cases of this sort. 80. It is common for these cases to come before the court numerous times before the trial takes place. The problems do not end with the trial judgment.

After the trial, it is equally common to have one parent or both make repeated applications to the court, often trying to change the result at trial. Issues that have been decided at trial are re-argued. Highly contentious access problems arise. There are allegations of breaches of court orders. These problems can, if unchecked, go on for many months or even years. It is the trial judge who knows the situation; that judge, in my opinion, should deal with the matter as it continues to unfold, as envisioned by s. 14 of the Supreme Court Act . 81.

Unless a particular judge decides to become seized of a case, the applications can be heard by many different judges. I was the fifth judge to deal with this case after the Court of Appeal made its decision in June 2007. If a judge does become seized of a case, the applications normally must be dealt with on top of the judge’s regular workload, before or after normal court hours. This ad hoc approach is not effective. It does not give these important cases, and the children involved in them, the attention they deserve. 82.

In my respectful view, an institutional response is required which identifies these cases early and ensures that they are dealt with by one judge who has experience in and an interest in family law.

The importance of effective case management in high conflict cases is supported by judges, legal academics, medical professionals, and lawyers. [ 50 ] While the institutional response referred to by Madam Justice Martinson has not yet occurred, it is nonetheless imperative and in the best interests of the children, the parents and the court for one member of this Court to be seized of any further applications that may be made in this case. I will therefore remain seized of all such further applications.

However, in the case of any application involving urgency and where, for any reason, I am not available to hear the matter, such urgent application can be heard by another member of this Court.

SUMMARY OF NON-PARTY WITNESS TESTIMONY [ 51 ] I do not intend to resolve the numerous credibility disputes between the parents nor their differing characterization of the numerous events which have occurred in their troubled relationship. I much prefer determination of facts made with the benefit of observations from disinterested witnesses. From this latter category, I exclude family members and witnesses who are clearly advocates for one party or the other. [ 52 ] I set out below a

summary of the evidence provided by all of the non-party witnesses in this case.

I apologize to any readers of this judgment for the resulting increase in the length of these reasons, however, I consider the description of factual events made by the disinterested lay witnesses to be generally accurate and reliable. [ 53 ] It is also hoped that, in the event yet another member of this Court is required to adjudicate any further proceedings in this matter, the evidence summaries below will provide useful context for the conclusions reached and orders made at this time. [ 54 ] As well, I am directing that a copy of these reasons be provided to the therapists and counsellors currently assisting the parties so that they might have a better understanding of the facts determined by the Court, the rulings made, and therefore the context in which future therapy may play a helpful role.

Mother’s Lay Witnesses Dr. Darcy Nielsen [ 55 ] Dr. Nielsen is the former family doctor for the G. family. She went to medical school with the mother. [ 56 ] Dr. Nielsen described an incident which occurred on April 3, 2013. I accept her evidence as an accurate and reliable recounting of the event. The father had made appointments for T. and S. to attend upon Dr. Nielsen in the afternoon of that day. He called Dr. Nielsen’s receptionist from the parking lot indicating that T. was in the car, crying, and refusing to go into the doctor’s office. He asked the receptionist to have Dr.

Nielsen go down to the parking lot to encourage T. to attend. Dr. Nielsen refused. [ 57 ] The father called three times from the parking lot. He also came into the office to directly request assistance. Eventually,

Dr. Nielsen’s receptionist went outside and T. ultimately came into the office. [ 58 ] Dr. Nielsen spoke with the father in a separate examination room. He wanted a note stating that T. was afraid of him. He wanted Dr. Nielsen to know that he had not seen his children and that they were being kept from him. She told him that this was not a medical issue and not a situation in which she would become involved. [ 59 ] Dr. Nielsen then spoke with T. She was visibly upset, shaking and tearful. However, T. would not disclose why she was upset. At T.’s request, Dr.

Nielsen called the mother who arrived shortly thereafter to pick T. up. At Dr. Nielsen’s request, the father had departed the doctor’s office in the meantime. Dr. David Hanks [ 60 ] Dr. Hanks is the mother’s brother-in-law. He has known her for some 30 years. He is a general surgeon and his wife, the mother’s sister, is a family physician. The mother’s family name is Yoshida. [ 61 ] Dr. Hanks testified as to his observations and experience with the Yoshida family and the mother’s children. He says the family is very close-knit and large family gatherings play an important role.

All of the children are “well raised” and are mature and respectful in their behaviour. [ 62 ] Dr. Hanks noted that everyone in the family has busy careers, but “the kids come first”. He believes it is a “Japanese cultural thing”, but he considers it to be an extremely positive attribute. [ 63 ] Dr. Hanks’ recollection is that the father was spending a lot of time out of the country, but he did attend the various family gatherings. The frequency and duration of such attendances dropped off, however, and he has not seen him at the Yoshida family gatherings for several years. [ 64 ] Dr.

Hanks was listed by the mother as one of her “collateral references” to be contacted by Dr. Meuser, the author of the s. 211 Family Assessment Report prepared in this proceeding dated April 8, 2014. Dr. Meuser called Dr. Hanks while the latter was driving his kids to activities and they arranged for Dr. Meuser to call him at 8:00 p.m. that evening. However, he heard nothing further from Dr. Meuser in that regard and no interview was ever carried out. Stephen McBride [ 65 ] Mr. McBride runs the sailing program at the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club where he is head coach.

He has known the G. family for five to six years. He described the three older daughters as quiet, shy and reserved; however, in the past couple of years they have been “coming out of their shell” and interact a lot more with the other children in the sailing program. [ 66 ] Mr. McBride described an incident at the yacht club which occurred in April 2013. He was on his way to work when he received a telephone call to come to the club immediately. The police were in attendance and Mr. and Mrs. G. had been involved in a confrontation.

He does not recall the actual outcome, but he has the impression that the girls, who were in attendance, were trying to avoid and ignore the events in question. [ 67 ] Another incident occurred on awards night at the yacht club on November 22, 2014. S., who is a very accomplished sailor, was receiving several awards that night. Mr. McBride was sitting at a table near the girls and their mother. At one point, the father came over and took the girls away causing upset and tears in the latter.

It “made everyone very uncomfortable”, so much so that he and the senior staff produced a written “incident report” for the club’s records. [ 68 ] On cross-examination, Mr. McBride acknowledged he has no personal knowledge of what the April police incident was about. He also acknowledged that it was the father who had brought the girls to the awards night at the yacht club in November 2014 and that the mother showed up at the event as the banquet began. He agreed that S. had already received her awards by the time the father was trying to leave with the children. Elizabeth Hind [ 69 ] Ms.

Hind, who is currently 23 years old, taught the G. girls sailing at the yacht club and was also their nanny/babysitter for a couple of years. Her working hours would range from two days per week to six days per week depending on the mother’s

schedule and the father’s travel plans. [ 70 ] Ms. Hind described the mother as a respectful and caring mother. [ 71 ] Ms. Hind was one of the “collateral informants” contacted by Dr. Meuser as part of his preparation of the s. 211 report. She was, in fact, the only one of the five informants offered by the mother who was actually interviewed (he interviewed all seven of the father’s proposed interviewees). [ 72 ] Ms. Hind was provided with three pages of Dr. Meuser’s report which recites the contents of the interview of her. She is fairly sure that Dr.

Meuser was not recording the interview and certainly he did not advise her to this effect. She acknowledges she can no longer remember the exact words that she used with Dr. Meuser, but she is confident that in many instances she used different words than the ones that appear on the paper. [ 73 ] Ms. Hind was presented with an affidavit she swore on April 25, 2014 at the instance of the mother’s then solicitor. In that affidavit, the contents of which she affirmed at trial, she identifies over a dozen instances where Dr. Meuser’s recitation of her statements is either inaccurate or never said by her at all.

She also expresses concern that Dr. Meuser’s report omitted positive things she had to say about the mother. In particular, when Dr. Meuser asked which parent the girls should be with in Ms. Hind’s opinion, she expressed a

preference for the mother saying she was much more stable and loving than the father and that she treated the girls kindly and with respect. [ 74 ] On cross-examination, Ms. Hind noted that she was in Castlegar going to school for the period September 2013 to April 2014 and had not seen the girls or their parents for some time before the interview. She has seen the girls a few times since April 2014, but it is essentially just brief interactions at the yacht club and she “can’t speak to how the girls are doing today”. Jacqueline Horton [ 75 ] Ms.

Horton acted as solicitor for the G. family for a number of years and has also been a friend to both parents. She gave evidence respecting the sale of her clients’ condominium in Sun Peaks in May 2013, the foreclosure of their home on Beach Drive in the years 2010 to 2012, and the preparation of travel consent forms for a family trip to Bermuda in November 2011. [ 76 ] The value of the house was once appraised at $9.5 million and was subject to two substantial mortgages aggregating a little under $7 million.

Because of the equity in the home, there was a six-month redemption period in the foreclosure proceedings, but the sale of the home proved difficult. The price kept getting reduced over a period of some 18 months and the only reasonable offer, which was accepted and finalized in March 2012, was approximately $4 million. The mortgagees took a substantial loss. [ 77 ] The Sun Peaks condominium was actually owned by 6015 Valley Drive Holdings Ltd., a company owned by the G. family.

At one point, the shareholdings were restructured so that the two parents held the shares as trustees for the children. [ 78 ] By the time the property was sold, the mother and the father had resigned as directors of the company and the father’s sister, Dianne Stanton, was the sole director. Ms. Stanton was the one who instructed Ms. Horton with respect to the sale transaction. [ 79 ] The sale proceeds were $403,320. They were disbursed in favour of certain outstanding small debts and thereafter to the two mortgagees, the Toronto Dominion Bank and a certain law firm in Washington, DC.

There were insufficient funds to pay out the latter security in its entirety, although a discharge of their security from title was obtained, and the corporation owning the condominium received no money on the transaction. [ 80 ] On the occasion of the father seeking the travel consent forms in November 2011, he attended Ms. Horton’s office. He broke down and cried while describing his marital situation. He wanted to separate and asked Ms. Horton to prepare a separation agreement. She told him this could only be done if both parties to the agreement consented to same. Dr. Margaret Sherwood [ 81 ] Dr.

Sherwood is a physician who works at the operating room at Victoria General Hospital. She has been the mother’s full-time surgical assistant for the past five years and on an intermittent basis for some years before that. [ 82 ] Dr. Sherwood described the mother as calm and pleasant with her interactions with other professionals, staff, the patients and their parents. She has never heard the mother swear, seen her throw things, or otherwise demonstrate any behavioural issues during the time they have worked together. [ 83 ] Dr. Sherwood has never met the father. Tine Moberg-Parker [ 84 ] Ms.

Moberg-Parker is a sailing coach who has known the G. family for six to seven years. Her two children are approximately the same age as T. and S. and all of them have gone through the same sailing programs. [ 85 ] Ms. Moberg-Parker coaches the Provincial sailing teams and supervises their participation in local, national and international events. She travels with the team and has spent a great deal of time with the elder G. girls, S. more than T. [ 86 ] Ms. Moberg-Parker gave evidence about various events in which the father had insisted his children participate, even though they were too young and inexperienced.

This included a training camp in August 2011, and two regattas in San Francisco. The latter venue usually involves rough conditions with winds of more than 25 knots and it is “not a kid-friendly event”. [ 87 ] The father’s insistence on pushing his children into events at a young age was part of the impetus for the sailing organization to impose minimum age requirements for certain events. Ms.

Moberg-Parker says she has had long talks with the father about these issues and, at the end of the day, albeit after the events in question, he has agreed that perhaps the children should not have been in attendance. [ 88 ] Ms. Moberg-Parker also described how the father would frequently drop the children off at events and return later. The usual practice, particularly when it is not a local event, is for any travelling parent to be there for the entire event.

This is because the coach is always on the water with the children and does not return to shore if one of the children decides to take his or her boat back in. [ 89 ] Ms. Moberg-Parker remembers very well the events at Lunenburg in August 2014. She was aware that a court order had been granted allowing S. to accompany the team for the entire trip to the Nationals (unlike the previous year when she missed the first week of preparation before a court order was obtained). S. had tremendous fun on the trip and was lively and enthusiastic right up until the last day.

At that time, the father wanted to come and pick her up in Lunenburg to take her to the USA the night before the awards ceremony and [S.’s] “whole personality changed”. She “closed down” and “didn’t talk”. [ 90 ] The father came to the yacht club to collect her gear the day before the team was set to travel home and a screaming match ensued. Ultimately, he left the gear behind and Ms. Moberg-Parker took it home the following day.

[ 91 ] S. did stay for that night’s celebratory dinner, but the father showed up very early the next morning to pick her up and take her to the airport. Ms. Moberg-Parker woke S. up and the latter pleaded with her to stay with the team. She asked three times if she had to go before leaving. [ 92 ] The G. girls have always been polite and kind and Ms. Moberg-Parker says the screaming incident involving S. was very shocking and in her view, “totally out of character”. [ 93 ] For this upcoming summer, S. is in her last year at this particular age group. T. is now ready to perform in her first Canadian Nationals. The

schedule this year will include a training camp in Squamish from June 7 to 8, one week in San Francisco from June 13 to 22, a training camp and the Provincial Championships the first week of July, and training/racing in Squamish from August 20 to September 5. There will also be other BC circuit events throughout. Total costs for all of this will be approximately $3,000 per child (S. and T.), plus travel costs and any equipment costs. There are no costs for attending training camps, and participation in the local circuit, which is A.’s direction this summer, is also free of charge. [ 94 ] Ms.

Moberg-Parker is aware that she was identified as a potential collateral interviewee for Dr. Meuser. However, she testified that he never contacted her to conduct any such interview. Jean Bigelow [ 95 ] Ms. Bigelow is the principal of the junior school at GNS in Victoria. She has been at the school for 22 years in both the junior and senior programs and has been junior principal for the past four years. She has known the G. family for approximately four years, during which time the three oldest girls were in the junior program. [ 96 ] Ms.

Bigelow described a couple of incidents in January and April 2013 when the father turned up at the school to pick up N. and T. respectively outside of usual school hours. She allowed this to occur because he was the father of the children. With respect to the T. incident, the purpose was to take her to the doctor’s office and T. did not want to go. Ms. Bigelow insisted that she accompany her father and she returned approximately one hour later, very upset. She did not say why she was upset. [ 97 ] Ms. Bigelow has been provided a copy of the extract from Dr. Meuser’s report describing her interview.

She disagrees with some of the emphasis which appears in Dr. Meuser’s account. For example, she did not say that T. was “inappropriately anxious”, only that she appeared anxious. She also points out that she has no personal knowledge about the cause of T.’s anxiety and any statements attributed to her in Dr. Meuser’s

summary were “pure conjecture” on her part. [ 98 ] When asked whether, based on her contact with and observations of the children at her school, she had any concerns about any of the children’s physical, psychological or emotional well-being, Ms. Bigelow stated she had no concerns at all in that regard. In her opinion, these are “well-adjusted happy little girls” who are engaged and affectionate and who like school very much. Jacob Burnett [ 99 ] Mr. Burnett is the middle school principal at GNS. GNS is an independent school which offers education from junior kindergarten to Grade 12.

It has 700 students divided between two campuses. The first campus is for junior kindergarten to Grade 5 on Beach Drive, Victoria. The second campus, for middle and senior school, is located in Pemberton Woods. [ 100 ] Middle school is for Grades 6 to 8. S. is currently in Grade 8 and T. is currently in Grade 6. Mr. Burnett knows both children well, although he has had more exposure to S. over the years. [ 101 ] GNS offers the International Baccalaureate program (IB).

The starting point is the standard BC curriculum, but the IB program also emphasizes a variety of additional values at its core, including leadership, service and extensive participation in co-curricular, non- academic activities. The intent is to involve the students in as many different activities as they can reasonably manage so as to broaden horizons and experience. Mr. Burnett says that children who are educated in an IB program usually go on to do very well in life and research confirms that they tend to get higher grades at university. [ 102 ] GNS middle school has an awards program.

The school emblem is a griffin. Nine “Griffin Awards” are awarded each year, three for each grade of the 180-student body. These awards are made for exceptional all-around accomplishment and are considered to be a very notable distinction. [ 103 ] Mr. Burnett considers both S. and T. to be very smart (excellent marks) and also very involved in a host of co-curricular activities. S. received a Griffin Award in 2014. Both children get on well together and have a wide circle of friends at school.

He has no concerns regarding attendance, attitude, behaviours, interaction with others or their general well-being at the school. [ 104 ] GNS does not have any sort of express policy dealing with interaction with parents and children involved in high conflict matrimonial disputes. It tries to ensure that communication is with both parents equally and in most cases, where custody is shared, the school will generally follow the desires and instructions of the parent who has custody of the children during the week or other time in question. [ 105 ] In the case of the G. family, Mr.

Burnett says he has adopted a slightly different regime; he requires mutual permission from both parents before allowing the children to engage in any additional activities. For example, both S. and T. wanted to be involved in the school’s annual drama production in 2014-15; however, the father felt that the girls were already too “stretched” in their activities and was not prepared to consent to the additional commitment required for participation in drama (at least two hours per week including rehearsals on weekends as the production date nears). [ 106 ] Mr.

Burnett recounted an incident which occurred on Friday, September 5, 2014. The second full day for the fall term had been completed and all the students had gone home when Mr. Burnett received a message summoning him to the parking lot. When he

arrived, the father was there with all five girls, the three younger ones in the car, and S. and T. outside who were refusing to get into the car. [ 107 ] The father asked Mr. Burnett to instruct the children to get into the car. He refused, reminding the father that the school is supposed to be a “safe place” for children involved in marital conflicts and that it tries to maintain a position of total neutrality. He spoke with the girls who told him that they did not want to go with their father. Mr. Burnett then consulted with the head of school who in turn called the school lawyer.

The latter advised that it was “up to the girls” as to what they wanted to do and so the parking lot impasse continued for some additional time. [ 108 ] When Mr. Burnett contacted N.G. by phone, he learned there had been some incident involving the Victoria Police Department in the summer. When he contacted the Police Department, he was informed that there was a court order addressing custody and that the girls would have to go with their father.

He instructed the girls to get into the car and they complied. [ 109 ] The following Monday, he was visited by S. who explained to him certain events which had occurred during a summer trip to the USA with her father and which involved two incidents of pushing and striking her at an airport. Mr. Burnett says that upon learning this information, it was his obligation to report it to the Ministry. T. also spoke to him later about the same summer incidents. She had evidently witnessed the incidents and felt uncomfortable as a result. Mr.

Burnett said that he again reported this information to the Ministry. [ 110 ] Both girls advised Mr. Burnett that they had been instructed by their mother to tell him about these events. He considered this unusual since the events were now in the past. He thinks that perhaps the information was being given to him as an explanation for the girls’ refusal to get into the car with their father. [ 111 ] Mr. Burnett also recounted how the Ministry social worker, Kira Maxwell, came to the school several times to meet with the girls.

As far as the school is concerned, it is the student who decides whether or not they wish to meet with any such visitor. S. did consent to meeting with Ms. Maxwell; however, T. refused, saying, “There’s nothing in it for me.” [ 112 ] On cross-examination, Mr. Burnett acknowledged that all of these co-curricular activities before, during and after school require “careful logistical planning”. He also is aware that just one month ago, S. was posting a comment on a website frequented by children her age about how she “hated” her father.

He does not monitor this website, but he learns of the activity on it by way of reports from others. [ 113 ] Mr. Burnett also confirmed that while the father appears to be frustrated by his daughters’ conduct at times, he does not raise his voice and appears to be reasonably calm and collected. Constable Jason Ince [ 114 ] Constable Ince is the police officer who investigated the September 5, 2014 report made by N.G. regarding the interactions between the father and S. earlier in the summer. He first sought some advice from others within the department because the allegation involved conduct outside of Victoria.

However, he obtained a statement from S. a few days later (her mother brought S. to the station). She was a credible witness who described how her father had pushed her down some stairs while visiting her aunt in Detroit and the next day had slapped her at the Seattle airport. Later that same day, Constable Ince received a phone call from the school principal respecting an altercation in the school parking lot.

The father was at the lot; however, the children did not wish to go with him at the time. [ 115 ] Constable Ince told the principal that the father had custody of the children on certain days and that the children had to go with him whether they wanted to or not. Heather Schryburt [ 116 ] Ms. Schryburt is an assistant at the office of a family physician, Dr. How. She testified as to the content of a conversation with the father on February 18, 2015. At the time, the father wanted to speak to Dr. How about taking over the care of the children. He was informed that Dr.

How, who had taken on the mother as his patient, would not speak to him. [ 117 ] Ms. Schryburt testified that, contrary to a statement that was later attributed to her in a letter by the father’s legal counsel, she did not say to the father on that occasion that the office was “under strict instructions from the mother not to talk to [the father] regarding the children’s medical matters”. Jennifer Grierson [ 118 ] Ms. Grierson is a sailing coach and has known the G. family for five years. Most of her exposure has been with T. and S. [ 119 ] Ms.

Grierson testified to several incidents where the father displayed poor judgment. [ 120 ] In June 2011, the two girls, then nine and seven years old, were part of the Provincial team attending the “heavy weather” regatta in San Francisco. It had been recommended that the girls not participate because they were too young and small, but the father brought them along in any event. They were struggling and having difficulty performing. They were unable to make the line for the last race and so the coaches decided to tow them into the dock.

They got upset, saying they “weren’t allowed to go in” and that “Dad would be mad at them”. At the dock, the father had an angry exchange with Ms. Grierson, although she cannot now remember the exact words. Both girls were crying and he did apologize later. [ 121 ] At the 2011 Sailwest Championship in Gimli, Manitoba, the BC attendees travelled as a Provincial team. Ao., who was only five years old at the time, was part of the novice “green fleet” and was required to have an individual coach on the water with her at all times. The father did not act as her coach so Ms.

Grierson assigned her own student to another person and assumed that role. Ao. did not really

wish to sail and so with Ms. Grierson’s blessing, she went into shore, but was promptly sent out again by the father. She then spent the rest of the day in her boat while anchored or travelling with Ms. Grierson in the latter’s boat. [ 122 ] In a summer training camp at Porteau Cove, BC in 2012, S. and T. attended with the father and rented a cabin. During the days, the father was not present. Pick-up time for the children was generally 3:30 to 4:00 p.m. He did not arrive, but 45 minutes later made a phone call to advise that he would be another couple of hours.

He suggested that the girls just be left as they would be fine in the cabin, but the coaches were not comfortable with leaving a 10 and 8-year-old in such a fashion and so they stayed with them until he arrived. [ 123 ] Ms. Grierson says that in the past, the girls were generally quiet and reserved, but in the most recent year and one-half or so, she has seen a big change; they have become much more social and interact with the other children.

She believes that sailing is really important for these girls and that while sailing is fun and a “sport for life”, she thinks the social element of the sport is even more important for them. [ 124 ] Ms. Grierson says that when the girls attend events with their father, they tend to be quiet and reserved and do not say much. When attending with their mother, however, they tend to be a lot more social and display their personalities. [ 125 ] Ms. Grierson described the time commitment associated with sailing. It is extensive.

It includes training two to three days a week (Wednesdays for two to three hours, Sundays for five hours, and the occasional Saturday) for the season that spans the end of April to October. There is a break from training in the months of June and July so that children can participate in other sports such as soccer or baseball. There are nine local sailing events which take place over weekends (Saturday and Sunday). In August, the Canadian Championships last for one week, sometimes with another week of training beforehand. The Sailwest Championship lasts four days in the summer.

The San Francisco “heavy weather” regatta is another optional event and lasts one week. If the children qualify for any international events, these can last 10 days to two weeks. Erik van der Pol [ 126 ] Mr. van der Pol is also a sailing coach and indeed taught S. her first sailing lesson. [ 127 ] He described how during the BC Summer Games in 2012 the father asked him to take S. to the airport so she could fly to the USA. As a result of that, she had to miss the last two races. [ 128 ] He also described the November 22, 2014 incident at the Royal Victoria Yacht Club Awards Ceremony.

S. had received her award for the Canadian Championship (best under 15 sailor) and the father was then anxious to leave with the girls. He was quite abrupt and rude. The twins were sitting with their mother and he came over and pulled them off her lap. They started to cry. It was an embarrassing and awkward moment, sufficiently so that he and two other coaches prepared a written “incident report” describing the event for the club’s records just in case anything further came of it. Margot Bernard (Peggy Bain) [ 129 ] Ms. Bernard owns the Centrepointe Ballet School. She goes by the name “Peggy Bain”.

She has known the G. family since S. was four years old, i.e., 10 years. All of the G. girls have taken and continue to take ballet lessons at her school, although in different programs and at different times. [ 130 ] The “season” stretches from September to June. S. has lessons on Mondays at 4:30 p.m. and Wednesdays at 5:00 p.m., each for one hour. T. and Ao. have lessons on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 4:30 p.m. for Ao., followed by 5:30 p.m. for T. The twins attend for 45 minutes on Tuesdays at 3:45 p.m. [ 131 ] All of the girls seem to enjoy ballet.

They are “quite keen” and “work very hard” when they are in class. All of S., T. and Ao. have missed quite a few classes. It is a concern because they are all enrolled in examination programs and also have responsibilities for performing at the year-end show. [ 132 ] At the end of session 1 in December 2014, Ms. Bernard asked the father if the girls would be continuing in January. He told her he did not think they would be coming back because he “couldn’t manage the time”.

However, they are still currently enrolled and continue to attend, albeit with some missed classes. [ 133 ] In February 2015, the father asked Ms. Bernard if the two of them could meet for coffee. She agreed, but only if ballet was the subject of discussion. He commented at that time that the mother “had a mental illness”. Ms. Bernard did not wish to pursue the matter and there was no further discussion of it. [ 134 ] In April 2015, there was a guest choreographer at one of S.’s Wednesday classes. The father showed up at 6:00 p.m. when there was still 15 minutes to go and wanted to take S. away.

She became embarrassed, but after some discussion, she was allowed to stay. Louise Mooney [ 135 ] Ms. Mooney is the head nurse for the operating room at Victoria General Hospital. She has known the mother for 10 years and has worked with her professionally throughout that time. She has never received any complaints about the mother who Ms. Mooney described as professional and very level-headed. Ms. Mooney has never heard the mother swear, throw things or otherwise behave inappropriately at work. [ 136 ] On cross-examination, Ms.

Mooney acknowledged that she is not a personal friend of the mother, has never met the father, and has never seen her interact with her children or family. Kimberly Walker

[ 137 ] Ms. Walker has known the mother for many years since the mother attended the same medical school class as Ms. Walker’s husband. She first met the father approximately 13 years ago, shortly after S. was born. [ 138 ] Ms. Walker recounted an incident which occurred approximately 10 years ago when the G. family was staying with them. The father was bathing the girls in the upstairs bathroom and after 10 or 15 minutes, water started flooding through the dining room pot light. It appears that the father was on his telephone and the bathtub had overflowed.

It appears that the father had been on the telephone and had left the water running. She described it as an “oh darn! parenting moment”. [ 139 ] Ms. Walker described the father as an intense person who was “always crisis-driven”, so much so that at one point she stopped answering the phone when Caller ID indicated a phone call from him. [ 140 ] Since the mother and father’s separation, Ms. Walker has been a self-described “helper” for the mother.

She lives five minutes away and although she has three children of her own aged 12, 15 and 19, she is happy to help out when she can, driving the kids around several times a month, whether to activities, dental appointments and the like. Sometimes when the mother was called out to work, she would babysit to “relieve the pressure from [S.]”. [ 141 ] Ms. Walker drove S. and T. to one of their counselling appointments with Shelaine Grant, a counsellor with the “BC Families in Transition” program. Afterwards, T. told her that the experience was very helpful and positive for her, although S. was more private and Ms.

Walker did not get any sense of S.’s impressions. [ 142 ] Ms. Walker has had quite a bit of interaction with the G. children over the last few years. She says they are “great kids, pleasant and helpful, although they all have different personalities”. She believes they are very independent and “don’t need parents hovering over them”. [ 143 ] Ms. Walker remembers being called by the Ministry Social Walker, Kira Maxwell, one morning in the fall of 2014. The call was very brief as Ms. Maxwell was interrupted and asked if she could call back. She never did make a return call, nor did she respond to a message that Ms.

Walker left for her on her voice mail. [ 144 ] Ms. Walker attended one of the court appearances as support for the mother. At that time, the presiding judge had to recuse himself because he knew Ms. Walker’s children. However, Ms. Walker was speaking with the father on that occasion and was told by him that the mother “is sick and needs help”. He seemed very sincere in stating this, but in Ms. Walker’s opinion, the mother is not at all unbalanced and is a capable parent. Father’s Lay Witnesses Kira Maxwell [ 145 ] Ms.

Maxwell is a social worker in the Child Protection Services Division of the Ministry of Children and Family Development (“Ministry”). She joined the Ministry in July 2014 and assumed the G. family file in August 2014. At that time, the mother’s counsellor/divorce coach, Dr. Burima, had reported two incidents of concern respecting the father’s parenting. The first was that he had locked some of the children in his car for three hours while attending a regatta. The other was the alleged slapping of S. and pushing her down some stairs. [ 146 ] Ms.

Maxwell has no personal knowledge of any of the earlier “Ministry intakes” involving the G. family, but she did conduct a review of the file and put together a document entitled “Evidentiary File Review” which she used for the purposes of refreshing her memory during her testimony. [ 147 ] It should be noted that the father provided to Ms. Maxwell, early on in her file handling, a copy of the s. 211 report prepared by Dr. Meuser.

She read the report and although she denies that it “coloured” her perception of things, she acknowledges it raised issues that “confirmed her own thinking” and “reinforced her own suspicions” respecting parental alienation and preparatory coaching of the children for their interviews. [ 148 ] The Ministry file was not put into evidence and the recitation of its contents by Ms. Maxwell is not proof of the events described or the Ministry’s handling of the matter before August 2014. Nonetheless, these contents informed Ms.

Maxwell’s understanding of the background and therefore her approach to the handling of the matters that she was required to address in the period following August 2014. [ 149 ] The first Ministry report is in March 2011. It was triggered by Ao.’s disclosure at school of shouting, name-calling and hitting in the household. During meetings with parents, both acknowledged dysfunction and conflict in the family and both admitted to yelling/swearing when frustrated and to spanking the children from time to time as a form of discipline.

Both parents agreed to counselling and the Ministry closed its file. [ 150 ] The next incident recorded in the Ministry file is in October 2011. At that time, the father had reported to the counsellor “verbal aggression” (swearing) on the part of the mother and one instance of her allegedly kicking one of the children in the behind. The file was closed without follow-up because the father was out of town and did not seem interested in assisting with the investigation. [ 151 ] The next incident recorded on the file is January 9, 2013.

It was reported to the Ministry by the police, whom the father had summoned to the residence in the late evening. The Saanich Police Department’s “Narrative Occurrence Report” is in the file and was read by Ms. Maxwell. The police had been dispatched to a “domestic dispute in progress”, namely, a verbal altercation between the father and mother. The argument related to the sleeping arrangements for the children (the parents were separated, but living in the same home and the children were sleeping with their mother).

The father had the two youngest children in his bedroom and the mother was attempting access when some grabbing and pushing occurred. Things had settled down by the time the police arrived. Both parents agreed to have no further contact for the remainder of the evening.

[ 152 ] The Ministry is aware that they are often used as a weapon by parents involved in high-conflict marital disputes and they are careful to try and avoid such involvement unless actual violence occurs and child protection interests are triggered. This January 9, 2013 incident was treated as a “custody and access” and not a “child protection” matter. Both parties were directed by the Ministry to address the dispute through their respective lawyers. A determination was made that the children were not in need of protection. [ 153 ] On January 19, 2013, the father again called the Ministry.

He had returned from a trip to find the house empty and the mother and children gone. Again, the Ministry treated this as a custody and access concern, and the father was advised to speak with his lawyer. [ 154 ] The next incident recorded on the Ministry file is February 2013, and again involved a report by the father. He accused the mother of being verbally abusive to the children, striking the back of the children’s hands, being denied access to the children, incidents where the children were left in the car for long periods of time by themselves, and the like.

The parents were interviewed and the mother did admit to leaving the children in the car from time to time, albeit for shorter periods than was being alleged and under the “care” of the eldest daughter, S. (who was almost 12 years old). [ 155 ] The next report on the file is April 5, 2013 and was again reported by Dr. Burima. It involved an incident where, although the father had been “taking a break” from the children as a result of a mediation agreement, he showed up at school to pick up T. for a medical appointment. T. was extremely upset.

The Ministry determined that again, this was not a “child protection concern”, but rather was a custody and access matter. On May 1, 2013, the Ministry wrote a letter to the father explaining the department’s role in terms of child protection and recommending that he contact BC Families in Transition and look into the “Caught in The Middle Program” for the children. [ 156 ] Ms. Maxell herself handled the August 2014 incident, albeit with assistance from her supervisor. She interviewed all the children separately in mid-September and also did a follow-up interview with them in late October.

She interviewed the parents and also spoke with some of the “collateral contacts” that had been provided. [ 157 ] The father denied slapping S., but acknowledged he “tapped her” on the side of the face. He demonstrated to Ms. Maxwell a single contact, patting the side of his cheek with the palm of his hand, leaving her with the impression that it was an “attention getting mechanism” and not a forceful slap. He denied pushing anyone down the stairs although he stated that the twins had tripped on the stairs. [ 158 ] For her part, the mother was very concerned and reported to Ms.

Maxwell that the children were “severely traumatized”. [ 159 ] S. demonstrated a noted dislike for her father during Ms. Maxwell’s interview, stating she would not see him if she had a choice in the matter. She called him a “liar” and described him as “mean” and someone who “yells”. She admitted that she called him “stupid” whereupon he slapped her. She also described how he dragged her to the steps and kicked her down the stairs. [ 160 ] The other children also purported to confirm the slapping incident. During her interview, T. also disclosed to Ms.

Maxwell how in 2010 she had been dragged out of her bedroom by her father and put in the dog cage (kennel) in the garage. She began to cry, but then “shut down” and would not say much more. [ 161 ] Ms. Maxwell asked the father about the kennel incident. He stated the entire thing is completely fabricated and simply did not occur. [ 162 ] It was apparent to Ms. Maxwell that these parents were in a “nasty” custody and access battle. However, she found the manner in which the children answered questions to be strange and she believed they were coached in some of their responses.

She believes some sort of slapping incident did in fact occur, but considers the varying descriptions of details to be “questionable”. She did not think that the children were “severely traumatized” as stated by the mother. [ 163 ] In the late October 2014 interview with Ms. Maxwell, S. stated that she had been told by her mother that her father had “lied in court” and described the slapping incident as “tapping”.

She again labelled her father a “liar” and restated that if she had her way, she would not see him at all. [ 164 ] At the end of the day, knowing that the matter was before the courts and that the family was in a comprehensive court-ordered counselling program with Alyson Jones, the Ministry made a determination that the children were not in need of protection and a letter was issued to the father to that effect. [ 165 ] The next and most recent incident on the Ministry file occurred on January 13, 2015.

The mother had taken N. to the principal at school, pointed out a scratch on the child’s forearm, and accused the father of abuse. The principal did not think this was significant and indeed was suspicious of the mother’s motive in bringing the matter to her attention and chose not to report it to the Ministry. [ 166 ] Interviews were again conducted by Ms. Maxwell, although this time T. refused to meet. N. stated that she was taking too long to get dressed, so her father had grabbed her to hurry up and in doing so scratched her forearm.

She did not talk to her father about it, but she believed it was deliberate because he did not apologize. Ai. said the same thing in her interview and gave the same rationale for not thinking this was an accident. Ms. Maxwell again had the impression that the children had discussed the matter beforehand. [ 167 ] When interviewed, the father expressed incredulity. According to Ms. Maxwell, he had no idea that any scratch had occurred as no one had mentioned anything to him and he had no idea that anything had been reported to the Ministry. According to her, he seemed genuinely surprised. [ 168 ] Ms.

Maxwell informed the mother that based on the nature of the injury and the interview contents, she did not suspect any type of child abuse. She says the mother was not pleased to hear that determination, protesting that if a person has a genuine concern about abuse occurring, then they must report it to the Ministry. [ 169 ] At the end of the day, Ms. Maxwell states that this is a situation where the children are understandably caught up in the middle

of a high-conflict marital dispute and that the Ministry has no concern at this time that any of the children are in need of protection. Lynn G. [ 170 ] Ms. G. is the 79-year-old mother of the father. She gave no evidence about her son’s upbringing. She did not attend his wedding to the mother. Indeed, she did not meet the mother until May 2001 at her brother’s funeral, and even then, she did not speak to her. [ 171 ] Ms. G. lives in Midland, Michigan.

It appears she has only met the children on five occasions, for two to three days at a time. [ 172 ] The first such visit was in 2012 when G.G. visited with S. and T. The next was during a June 2013 visit to Victoria. She described the children as pleasant, happy children on these occasions. [ 173 ] In August 2014, G.G. brought four of the girls to Midland for a short visit. S. was not present. At that time, she noticed a change in T. who had developed “a bit of an attitude to her father”. At one point, Ms.

G. took it upon herself to remind T. that one of the biblical commandments is to “honour thy father”. [ 174 ] In November 2014, Ms. G. visited her son for a USA. Thanksgiving dinner. She thought the children were non-responsive and rude and that S. in particular was behaving badly. It was, she said, an unpleasant, trying day. [ 175 ] At one point, Ms. G. became so angry with S., she told her in a “loud, authoritative tone” that she was “the nastiest child I’d ever seen”. [ 176 ] Thanksgiving dinner started with a blessing. According to Ms.

G., when S. was asked what she was thankful for, she stated “I can’t wait till this court case is over and I won’t have to see any of you anymore.” According to Ms. G., T.’s blessing was simply the statement “Death.” [ 177 ] Ms. G. has been providing financial support to her son. She has provided him with a credit card with a $2,500 limit which she pays off from her chequing account. Simply for living expenses over the past couple of years, she calculates she has given her son approximately $152,000, not including the money she has provided for his legal fees.

She says she does not know if she can keep doing this and declared “I’ve assumed the mother’s responsibility for spousal and child support!” [ 178 ] The animosity Ms. G. displays to the mother was immediately evident when the latter stood up to try and conduct cross- examination. Ms. G. felt obliged to make a “statement” to the mother before being cut off by the Court and directed to simply answer questions put to her. [ 179 ] Ms. G. acknowledges she has had no contact with the mother in over 12 years.

She admits she cannot recall all of the words that she used on the occasion of her scolding S. at the November Thanksgiving dinner, but she denies calling the latter a “malicious bitch”. Olga Melounova [ 180 ] Ms. Melounova speaks imperfect English with a heavy accent. She is one of the father’s collateral witnesses who was interviewed over the phone by Dr. Meuser for the purposes of the s. 211 assessment and report. It is clear from her presentation in court that the language and syntax ascribed to her by Dr. Meuser in his report cannot be verbatim quotation. [ 181 ] Ms.

Melounova worked as a nanny for the G. children, primarily for Ao., from 2006 (Ao. was six months old) until the end of September 2009, shortly after the birth of the twins. Her position ended at that time as the mother was taking advantage of a nine-month maternity leave following the birth of the twins, and so both parents were available to look after the children. [ 182 ] Ms. Melounova has gone back to working for the father since September 2013, again providing childcare for the children during the weeks when he has parenting time.

She generally works Monday to Thursday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., but sometimes on the weekends as well. [ 183 ] Ms. Melounova was asked about her observations of the mother and the father as parents. She described the mother as being very strict, so much so that the girls would become worried about upsetting their mother if they failed to do things like practise piano and the like. In her opinion, the mother is a person who “likes to have things under control” and gets very upset when little things go awry. [ 184 ] Ms.

Melounova remembers an occasion when the mother had left instructions with her that the children were not to go outside, but because the mother was late returning from work, Ms. Melounova decided to take the children outside to play on the beach. The mother became extremely angry when she arrived home and found the children outside. [ 185 ] Ms. Melounova was asked to tell the Court what she remembered advising Dr. Meuser during the telephone interview. She did not mention everything that is set out in Dr. Meuser’s report and her memory had to be refreshed by same. [ 186 ] In Dr. Meuser’s report, Ms.

Melounova is said to describe an incident when the mother on one occasion squeezed Ao.’s mouth until a chocolate candy she was eating fell out, whereupon she was then put in the garage for punishment. Ao. was only two or three years old at the time and was crying. This was an example of how strict the mother was in terms of insisting on eating healthy food. [ 187 ] Ms. Melounova confirmed she did indeed advise Dr. Meuser that the mother’s behaviour and language left her concerned that she might at some point become so furious as to lose control and perhaps do some kind of harm to the children. [ 188 ] Ms.

Melounova describes the father as being much more easy-going and the happier parent who would keep the children calm. He was always very nice with the children, frequently giving them little gifts. He would play music and would dance with them. Unlike the mother, who rarely displayed affection (hugging and kissing), the father has always been affectionate with the children. She observes him to be very patient, especially with the older girls with whom he has really tried to foster a relationship.

Laurie Kelley [ 189 ] Ms. Kelley, who has two children (twins) of her own who attend GNS, met the G. family in September 2009 when their children were in Grade 1. She has had a number of contacts with the G. family during the period 2009 to 2013, although primarily with the father who seemed to do most of the dropping off and picking up at school. [ 190 ] Ms. Kelley describes herself as a “school parent” whose role is to “keep parents busy”. [ 191 ] Ms. Kelley is clearly an advocate for the father in this proceeding and displayed an obvious antipathy for the mother.

During her testimony on behalf of the former, she broke into tears on several occasions as she was describing her observations of the mother and the father, their children and their home. During cross-examination she became combative and argumentative. [ 192 ] Most of Ms. Kelley’s observations respecting the G. children related to T. who, at one point in time, was best friends with Ms. Kelley’s daughter, G.K. Apparently, T. “shut G.K. out” in early spring 2013, upsetting the latter considerably. G.K. told Ms. Kelley that T.’s reason was “my mummy says your mummy is bad”. [ 193 ] Ms.

Kelley expressed the view that the mother was “too hard on the kids” and in Ms. Kelley’s opinion, it amounts to “abuse”. She has observed the mother yelling at the children in a loud voice, telling them to “hurry up!”, “get in the car!” and the like, and she has seen the mother jerk the children’s arms to hurry them along and slap their hands. She described her conduct as “militaristic” (ordering people around and enforcing discipline). [ 194 ] Ms.

Kelley says she would see the children emerge from class happy and laughing with their classmates and then immediately change demeanour the moment they saw their mother. They would hurry to meet their mother and stop talking to their friends. [ 195 ] Ms. Kelley has visited the G. house on many occasions, mostly during the course of picking the children up or dropping them home. When she did the latter, she would invariably take the children inside the house and so had an opportunity to view the interior. She described it as “filthy”. She saw uncovered half-eaten dinners in the fridge.

The previous night’s food would still be sitting on the table. The high chairs had mold growing on them. The floors were covered with clothes. The bathroom was grimy and wet laundry was sitting in the dryer molding. [ 196 ] Ms. Kelley confirms some of the statements she made to Dr. Meuser during their interview. She acknowledged telling Dr. Meuser that in Ms. Kelley’s opinion, the mother has some sort of psychological dysfunction and that there is “clearly a mental health component” in the mother’s conduct. [ 197 ] According to Ms.

Kelley, just the day before her testimony, T. had been declaring in the school gym that “G.K.’s mom thinks I’m ugly and mean”. Ms. Kelley was informed of this by her daughter in front of three Grade 6 girls she was transporting in her car. Psychologist and Counsellor Witnesses Dr. Peter Meuser [ 198 ] On July 16, 2013, this Court ordered the preparation of a report pursuant to s. 211(1) of the Family Law Act by a psychologist to be selected jointly by both parties. This was not a consent order. The application had been opposed by the mother. [ 199 ] The parties eventually agreed to retain Dr.

Peter Meuser for this assessment. The joint retainer letter signed by counsel for both parties was issued to Dr. Meuser on September 11, 2013. [ 200 ] Dr. Meuser has been a registered clinical psychologist in British Columbia since 1980. He obtained his Ph.D. in clinical psychology at the University of Ottawa in 1978. He testified that for the last 10 years his practice has been devoted almost exclusively to psychological assessments for the purposes of court proceedings.

He estimates that he has prepared over 400 assessments in the past 20 years pursuant to s. 211 of the Family Law Act or its predecessor legislation. [ 201 ] Dr. Meuser says he has considerable experience with parental alienation, estimating that as many as 25% of his cases have involved some component of same. While he has not attended any seminars or courses expressly devoted to alienation, nor has he himself written any papers or conducted any research in the area, he says he has read extensively on the subject and is familiar with both the research and the “pivotal” publications on the subject. [ 202 ] Dr.

Meuser’s report is dated April 8, 2014. It comprises 141 pages, unfortunately without the benefit of any table of contents. [ 203 ] For the purposes of his report, Dr.

Meuser: • reviewed thousands of pages of documents including many of the affidavits sworn in the litigation between the parties and hundreds of emails and related documents forwarded largely by the father; • listened to more than 15 hours of covert audio recordings made primarily by the father during his “access visits”; • interviewed and undertook formal psychological testing of both the mother and the father; • interviewed the three oldest daughters; • attended each parent’s home to observe their interactions with the children (one observation in the mother’s home and three observations in the father’s home, the latter because of the complicated parenting routine which disallowed all five children in the father’s home at one time); and,

• conducted phone interviews with various “collateral informants” identified by the parties. [ 204 ] With respect to the covert audio recor

[…]