C.V.G. v. M.A.L. Date:, 2014 BCPC 214

Citation: C.V.G. v. M.A.L. Date: 20140718 2014 BCPC 0214 File Nos: F8862 and F8922 Registry: Courtenay IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: C.V.G. and P.L. APPLICANTS AND: M.A.L. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.D. COWLING Appearing on their own behalf: C.V.G. and P.L.

Appearing in person: M.A.L. Place of Hearing: Courtenay , B.C. Date of Hearing: September 3, 2013 and June 20, 2014 Date of Judgment: July 18, 2014 Background [ 1 ] Ms. L. is 34 and has 3 male children from 3 separate relationships. She has negotiated the agreement of the father (Mr. K.) of her middle son (T. - age 7) for her relocation to the Edmonton area. Mr. G. (40) is the father of the youngest son (A. - age 5) and Mr. L. (39) is the father of the oldest son (J. - age 14). In April of 2013 Ms. L. notified the fathers of her intention to relocate after December 31, 2013. Mr. L. and Mr.

G. separately filed applications opposing the relocation and it was determined the two matters would be heard together. All of the parties are self-represented. The hearing commenced on September 3, 2013 and when it was not completed on that day a views of the child report was ordered with respect to J. This was prepared by Ms. Meiklem and was available by November of 2013 but for a variety of reasons the hearing could not be completed until June 20, 2014. At that time I indicated to the parties that I would provide a basic form of my judgment within a week with extended reasons to follow.

The basic judgment was dated June 25, 2014 and granted permission for the relocation. These are the extended reasons. [ 2 ] Ms. L. has been in the Comox Valley for the past 5 years and works as a massage therapist. She has been taking courses to upgrade her status within that profession. Her actual income from this was not stated but presents as modest. Prior to living in the Comox Valley she resided in Victoria. Her parents now live in Bowser which is close to the Comox Valley. For the past 3 years she has been renting accommodation for about $800/mth.

The house she was renting was sold and her lease was up as at the end of June. Pending the decision in this case she was going to live with her parents for a month. Her rental was a two-bedroom unit described as a ground-level apartment of under 1,000 sq. ft. such that the living arrangement was that J. had his own bedroom and the two other boys had the other bedroom and Ms. L. slept on the couch in the living room. [ 3 ] Mr. G. is a union carpenter who has owned his own home in the Comox Valley since 2008 and usually works seasonally in that area but of late has worked more often in camp settings in Northern B.

C. and Alberta. [ 4 ] He and Ms. L. cohabited from 2008 to April 2011. In November of 2012, with the assistance of a family mediator, he entered into a written agreement with Ms. L. providing that they would have joint custody of A. and that he would pay support of $350/mth. based on a guideline income of $39,000. It was said that this represented an average of his income over the 3 years prior to the agreement. His present income is suggested to be much higher than $39,000, possibly in the area of $70,000. Mr. G. has lived in the Comox Valley since 2000.

His parents separated when he was 14 and he is on good terms with both. They live in the Duncan area and he facilitates their contact with A. He is currently in a relationship of some 2 years duration with Ms. B. of Nanaimo who has two children ages 12 and 9. Mr. G. maintains a reasonable and generous level of contact with A. subject to his work in camp which often involves a 14 days in and 7 days out shift. It is possible that some of his more recent shifts involve being in camp for up to 3 weeks. Mr. G.’s father is a Sikh but Mr. G. himself does not actively practice in this faith. [ 5 ] Mr.

L. operates a mobile-crane truck for a building supply store serving the mid-Island area. He lives in his own home with his sons A. and J. by his wife D. The boys are 9 and 6. His income is not stated and would be believed to be less than Mr. G. at present and more than Ms. L. He pays support for J. of $200/mth. based on an order from 2001. There is no actual agreement or order designating that Mr. L. has any custody or guardianship right with respect to J. but he has always provided the support as ordered and has maintained a substantive level of contact with J.

He has resided in the Whiskey Creek area for some 33 years and J. also maintains a good relationship with Mr. L.’s mother and her sister, more so than with his maternal grandparents. J. typically sees his father every second or third weekend and for half of the school summer break. [ 6 ] Ms. L. is presently in a relationship with Mr. H. (43) who is a Captain in the Canadian Armed Forces in the Engineering section. They met about 2-3 years ago when he was stationed at the Comox base.

He is now posted to the Edmonton area which he says will likely be his last posting before he retires from the Forces and takes civilian employment. He owns his own home in Edmonton and was divorced in December of 2013 after a 2011 separation. He has two sons (8 and 10) who are with his former wife by agreement. They also reside in the Edmonton area and he has reasonable and generous access with them. He pays support of $1298/mth. for the boys and works mainly day shifts Monday to Friday. He has been in Edmonton since August of 2012 and he and Ms. L. maintain their relationship somewhat on a long-distance basis.

The parents of Mr. H. live in the Sydney area on Vancouver Island and he sees them 3-4 times a year. [ 7 ] Mr. K. is supposed to pay $518/mth. to Ms. L. for support for T. but there is a history of default. Between matters arising from rental issues, relationship issues and employment issues it is thought that Ms. L. has changed residences between 5-8 times over the past 15 years. Views of the Child report : [ 8 ] As of November 2013 Ms. Meiklem reported that J. presented as calm and relaxed with a lot of positive relationships with friends and family and extended family.

J. notices the shortage of space in his living situation with his mother and describes her as keeping a cleaner and more organized household than his father. He describes his mother as “… nice, kind and likes to help other people.” He says that his younger half-siblings in either household might annoy him from time to time but for the most part they all get along well. He expressed feeling “torn” about the move and had a preference for keeping his views on the matter as private as possible.

J. spoke of a particular friend (A.) that he wanted to maintain contact with whether he moved to Edmonton or Whiskey Creek and felt he could better maintain contact from Whiskey Creek. He was concerned that the move to Edmonton might mean that he would no longer have a room all to himself.

[9] J. told Ms. Meiklem that he “… really likes …” Mr. H. and that they share a lot of the same interests. J. was hopeful that Mr.H. could retire and move back to the Comox Valley area to be with his mother. [10] The overall outcome of the report was that J. planned to move to be with his father in Whiskey Creek if his mother went aheadwith the move to Edmonton. It is to be noted that J. understood that his mother might decide not to move to Edmonton if he did notdecide to go with her.

Interview with J. in June 2014: [11] With the agreement of his parents I spoke with J. in Chambers on the second day of the hearing in June of 2013 in the presenceof a court clerk. In most respects he confirmed the information from Ms. Meiklem’s report and voiced the same privacy concerns. Heindicated that he no longer has plans to be an architect and has not had much involvement with Mr. H’s sons. He has his own cell phoneand knows how to Skype/FaceTime but does not have the equipment.

He indicated that while his overall preference would be for bothhis parents to live in one place, either Edmonton or the Comox Valley, he had changed his mind since the report and is prepared to tryliving in Edmonton. [12] J. anticipated that he would still see his father every 3-4 months, possibly more initially, and that he was looking forward tostaying with his father this July. He liked Ms. Meiklem and would be fine with doing a further interview if it came about that theEdmonton move was not working out for him and he wanted to move back.

He understood that he would be expected to give the move a“fair try” and that he could not just switch back and forth but that he was of an age where he was entitled to some input into the decision. J. presented as a bright and thoughtful person perhaps more mature than his actual age. I am respecting his request not to articulate inthis decision what his reasons might be for changing his mind about the move and it may be that no particular reason was articulated butI am satisfied that he has given the matter a lot of thought and has not made his decision lightly.

BASIC RESPECTIVE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES: [13] Mr. G. wants to be fully part of his son’s life and to be there to see him grow. He wants to know his friends and to go to hissporting events and participate in his day-to-day life. He feels it is important for A. to maintain contact with his grandparents and theirfamily culture. He believes that the move will only benefit Ms. L. and Mr. H. and that A. is his “world” and that it would tear him apartto lose so much contact with A. [14] Mr.

L. enjoys his long-time contact with J. and feels he can do as well with education and job prospects on Vancouver Island asin Edmonton. He would like J. to maintain his contact with his extended family here and wanted to respect what he understood to be J.’swish to remain in this area. He has concerns about all the moves that there have been in J.’s life. He also feels that Mr. H. is basically astranger to Mr. L. and he is not sure how his relationship with Ms. L. will turn out. He is concerned that J. has never lived offVancouver Island and that there could be yet another relocation after Edmonton. [15] Ms.

L. wants a better life for all her children. She sincerely believes that Edmonton offers better educational opportunities thanthe Comox Valley and that J. will have more and better job opportunities. She believes the children would all benefit from being out ofrental accommodation and to live as a more complete family unit with Mr. H. She has had at times to take extra jobs and/or extra shiftsat her work to make financial ends meet and finds that difficult in a number of respects.

She would like to have her children live in ahome where their mother does not have to sleep on the couch. [16] She acknowledges that both Mr. G. and Mr. L. are “great” fathers to their respective children in the sense of being caring andconcerned about them and in spending time with them but is aware of some deficiencies on their parts with respect to the more practicalaspects of parenting. [17] She is confident that her relationship with Mr. H. will continue in Edmonton but less hopeful that it would be sustainable livingapart. She has difficulty getting Mr.

G. to properly contribute for A.’s support due to his attitude to the issue and support from Mr. L.may be limited due to overall financial circumstances and/or inertia. She finds that her present financial situation is marginal to theextent that she may have to consider personal bankruptcy and she has had to get financial assistance at times from Mr. H. She has a goodrelationship with his children and would basically like to have the entire family enjoy a less pay-check to pay-check existence and in amore stable and pleasant environment.

RELOCATION LAW CONSIDERATIONS; [18] The new Family Law Act and in particular s. 37 requires that all the needs and circumstances of the child be considered and thatonly the best interests of the child or children must be considered and nothing else. In the context of this case the court is concerned withthe health and emotional well-being of the children, the history of their care and their need for stability, their relationships with otherswho are important in their lives and J.’s views as to the move.

Other factors that the court must consider arise from s. 69 of the Act andrequire that the relocating guardian show that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and that reasonable and workablearrangements have been proposed to preserve relationships and contacts affected by the move. Section 69 (4) (

b) of the Act provides thatwhere there is not substantially equal parenting times between the guardians and the factors in 69(4)(

a) have been established then thereis a presumption that the relocation is in the best interests of the child unless the other guardian “satisfies the Court otherwise.” [19] Some of the leading case law with respect to relocation issues includes Gordon v. Goertz (1996) (SCC), 2SCR 27, Nunweiler v. Nunweiler (2000) 2000 BCCA 300 , BCJ 935 (BCCA) and One v. One

(2000) BCJ 2178 (BCSC). Theyreiterate that what is in the “overall best interests of the child” is the relevant test and consider different factors which may be relevant tothat determination. Under the new legislation it may be that Mr. L. technically does not have legal standing to oppose the relocation ashe has no guardianship status. If he had legal counsel he would likely have requested an interim guardianship order to enable suchstatus. I would have granted such an order for the purpose of facilitating the hearing were it needed. Ms.

L. has not raised any standingconcerns and the hearing has proceeded on the basis that both Mr. G. and Mr. L. are qualified to oppose the relocation as a guardian of

their respective son. Mr.

L. would in any event appear to have standing pursuant to the provisions of s. 65(1) of the Family Law Act as a person “having a significant role” in J.’s life. [ 20 ] Some of the factors enumerated in the cases mentioned above which have particular relevance to this case include such things as: • relative parenting capabilities of either parent; • disruption of children’s existing supports and routines; • difficulty of exercising contact time and quality of same; • desirability of proposed new family unit for the children; • relationship of children with both their parents; • separation of siblings; • retraining and economic advancement opportunities for moving parent; [ 21 ] Some of the specific cases that I consider support the decision to permit the relocation are as follows: Backus v.

Horton 2007 BCSC 1097 , Hinkson, J. See in particular para. 60: “I have concluded that in order for Danielle to have a happy and secure home, it will be necessary for Ms. Backus to have happiness and security.” [ 22 ] Stafeckis v. MacIsaac 2006 BCSC 1886 , Bauman, J. With particular reference to paras. 12-14 inclusive: 12. I have related that Luka has very much been in the primary care of Ms. MacIsaac since birth.

Her counsel says in written submissions: The defendant is a devoted mother who has sacrificed a great deal to ensure that Luka has everything that he could want and is well educated, cultured and athletic. 13. The evidence bears this out. This consideration strongly favours Ms. MacIsaac's position. 14. Counsel also submits: Allowing the defendant to move to Athabasca will significantly improve the defendant's ability to ensure all of Luka's emotional and financial needs are met. She will enjoy a substantial full time salary of $55,000 per year plus benefits.

Her full time faculty position will also provide the defendant more time to spend with Luka and provide Luka with certain amenities he is currently without, and she will not have to work evenings and weekends as would have been the case if she had obtained a part time position in Vancouver . [ 23 ] I also refer to para. 26 of the Stafeckis decision: 26. In Cousens v. Ruddy , Justice Rogers spoke of what has been later coined the "happiness quotient" at paragraph 91 and following, and I incorporate those paragraphs from Justice Rogers' reasons in these reasons and ask the transcriber to do so: 91.

Financial well-being is not, however the only measure by which A.'s best interests must be determined. It is in his best interests to have the benefit of positive role modelling by both his parents. Having such role models is, I think, essential to the development of a child's character. 92. How can a parent provide a good role model? The answer is by being, among other things, a happy, well-adjusted and productive individual. Mr. Ruddy is already such a person. He has achieved his goal of becoming a fireman. He enjoys his profession. It is a profession that the public holds in high regard, and rightly so.

It is something about which he does and should feel proud. 93. Dr. Cousens, on the other hand, has not yet achieved her goal of becoming a successful academic. I have concluded that taking the position at Brock University will give her the opportunity to achieve that goal. When she does achieve that goal - and on the evidence I have heard, I believe that she will - she will enjoy the same positive self-esteem as Mr. Ruddy. 94. Dr.

Cousens should be allowed the opportunity to develop her career because, as well as serving her own interests, and more germane to this case, her doing so will also serve A.'s best interests. 95. In the long run, A. will benefit from having a mother who, like his father, has identified her goals, has worked hard to achieve them, has not been thwarted in her effort to succeed, and who has in fact succeeded. A. cannot help but benefit from having parents who consider themselves to be successful, and whose examples he may follow. [ 24 ] Kennedy v. Kennedy

(1997) BCJ 2572 , McEwan, J. See para. 32: “The health of the ‘family unit’ in which Holly will live is essentially congruent with the welfare of her mother.” [ 25 ] Creighton v. Creighton

(1997) BCJ 2081 , Humphries, J.

19. The unfortunate fact is, things change, people move on to new phases of their lives, and the children's best interests must be accommodated within the new framework. Their best interests cannot be considered in isolation from the rest of the circumstances because at this stage of their lives, they are utterly dependant on their parents. Nor can their best interests be served by creating an artificial situation and forcing the parties to adhere to it. What it comes down to realistically is that the children must live with one parent while the other is a two and a half hour flight away.

I have considered the report of Dr. Colby in this regard. What he says is common sense. Children who are actively involved with a parent suffer when regular ongoing contact with that parent is taken away or reduced. Unfortunately this happens all too often with a broken family. It is clear Dr. Colby appreciates the difficulty of this situation and that there is no clear and obviously right answer to the dilemma. [ 26 ] See also Doro v. Doro

(1997) BCJ 2407 , Loo, J. [ 27 ] An example of a case where relocation was not permitted is Sorace v. Sorace

(2001) BCSC 352 however I do not consider that the factors which were decisive in that case are present in the two matters before me. [ 28 ] No one case is directly on point with the fact situation in these two matters but each of the cases which allow relocation have aspects which resonate with the facts before me. REASONS AND FINDINGS SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE: [ 29 ] I am very satisfied that the relocation is brought in good faith by Ms. L. She has a proven history of encouraging and facilitating access for the children to the respective fathers. Mr.

H. presents as a capable and responsible person as does she and their plans as a family present as viable and considered. [ 30 ] While both fathers have great love for their sons Ms. L. is the de facto primary guardian for each boy and is the foundation upon which their lives appear to rest. The relation of each son with their father presents as very beneficial and important but secondary as to that with the mother. Ms. L. presents as the decidedly more capable, practical and experienced caregiver and it is expected that she would be even more effective with the daily assistance of Mr.

H. [ 31 ] Both fathers have perhaps unconsciously taken advantage of the dynamics of their respective relationships with Ms. L. such that their support for their sons presents as somewhat under-funded. Each would likely have been more forthcoming with adequate support if only their son was in the household with Ms. L. and they did not have concerns that their contribution might be in part sustaining the other children in the household. Ms.

L. and her family unit need better financial security than the existing situation offers although it certainly works well for the fathers. [ 32 ] In some of the relocation cases that the court hears (and a number have a common theme of moving to Alberta for economic benefit) the moving party has not always taken into account that while there may be more work and better pay the living expenses can be markedly higher resulting in no net gain. In this case Ms. L. and Mr.

H. have the advantage that he is already established there and that their joint household expenses should be less than maintaining two separate households. Economic benefit can mean more than just higher pay. In a healthier economy it may mean that an employee can find a job with more security, better hours or shifts, closer to their residence and with better benefits and chances for training and advancement. [ 33 ] While there is no reason to anticipate that their relationship will not be successful even if it was to break down Ms.

L. has a proven history of self-sufficiency and of doing what is best for the children. J., as observed by Ms. Meiklem, and as he presented at his interview with myself, strongly supported a sense that Ms. L. is doing a very good job as a parent in less than optimal circumstances. [ 34 ] On her own and in the Comox Valley Ms. L. is unlikely to be able to afford home ownership and will be a serial renter adding to disruption and social disadvantage for the children. [ 35 ] While Mr.

L. has an alternate living situation of a kind to offer J. he has never been his primary caregiver having apparently separated from Ms. L. when J. was just a newborn. Mr. G. has the ability to care for A. on a short-term basis, helped by some assistance from his mother and possibly Ms. B., but could not offer A. the same fully functional home that Ms. L. can, with or without Mr. H. Neither of the fathers presents as willing or able to take all three of the boys so that they could maintain their relationship with their half- brothers. [ 36 ] It is natural and understandable that both Mr. G. and Mr.

L. equate the best interests of their sons from their own perspective and prefer the status quo whereby they have as much contact with their sons as they wish with minimal inconvenience and marginal financial contribution. In their evidence and submissions they presented as somewhat blind to how economically disadvantaged Ms. L. is left by the situation and as to how this might adversely affect the quality of life for both her and all three boys in the home.

The children are primarily accustomed to being with their mother and with each other and to their mother making the vast majority of the decisions regarding their day-to-day life and assuming most if not all of the responsibility for organizing and sustaining their lives on a practical level. [ 37 ] J. presents as being very capable of adapting to a new living situation and to changing schools and would have as much continuity in this regard with his mother in Edmonton than with his father and the Qualicum school system where he would go from Whiskey Creek.

A.’s educational career will not be meaningfully disrupted by the move and in the longer term may be made more stable. [ 38 ] J. will likely be able to sustain his connection with Mr. L. and his family over a distance better than A. [ 39 ] J. and his father in consultation with Ms. L. should be able to come up with a reasonable plan for contact that while not as good as what they have enjoyed in the past will still be adequate. J. is of an age where he could fly unescorted directly from Edmonton to Comox. It is also possible that he could be an escort for A. [ 40 ] While Ms.

L. in her notification letter broached the subject of arranging contact time with each father those discussions never

really came to fruition given the level of opposition to the relocation. As previously noted she was able to reach an agreement with T.’s father who likely would have been in the weakest negotiating position of the three. It is important that Mr. G. is not discouraged by this decision and the logistics of travel from maintaining contact with A. and also that A. maintains a connection to his paternal grandparents and their culture. This may involve telephone contact, Skype or FaceTime sessions, travel by Mr.

G. to Edmonton and certainly travel by A. to Vancouver Island either when the H. -L. family travels here for their own visits with extended family or for purposed contact time visitation. [ 41 ] The parties may wish to try and use the services of a family mediator such as Ms. Meiklem to structure a contact time template for the next year or two with provision for review and revision as A. ages and the parties develop a sense of what works and doesn’t work with respect to the various arrangements that they might try.

At the present time I would observe that A. maintaining contact with his father and his father’s family would be more important than maintaining perfect attendance at Kindergarten or Grade One. [ 42 ] As alluded to in various parts of this judgment it also presents that the parties need to have a meaningful review of their financial obligations with respect to on-going child maintenance and that before I would be inclined to grant any financial relief to either father for increased access/contact time costs I would want to be satisfied as to what there guideline incomes currently are and that the existing orders are not as obsolete as they appear to be.

In the case of Mr. G. his line 150 income may also be affected by the type of camp and living allowances that the court is aware of with respect to other payors in his situation. Typically these amounts are not added dollar for dollar to the line 150 income but are of some import. Historically Mr. G. and Ms. L. have not done well at financial discussions and any arrangement that they come to would likely benefit from simple and basic terms. One possible avenue of discussion for them with the mediator might be that (apart from medical and dental plan coverage) Ms.

L. would assume responsibility for extraordinary expenses with respect to A. in lieu of the anticipated extra contact time costs of Mr. G. Over the short term each party could keep track of their respective expenses in this regard with appropriate documentation and exchange this information and revisit this suggestion if either felt it was not fair. I stress that at this point this is just a suggested topic of discussion with the mediator and not an order. [ 43 ] It is part of this judgment that Ms.

L. is not to relocate the children from the Edmonton area once having moved there without the prior written permission of each respective father or order of this Court. I do not have the authority to order it but I would expect that Mr. H. when able to do so would place the 3 sons of Ms. L. on any medical or dental plan to which he may be entitled through his employment. It would be appropriate for Mr. G. and Ms. L. to consider a modification of their written agreement of November 9, 2012 to reflect that Ms. L. is the primary residence for A. and the primary source of parental care for him. Mr. L. and Ms.

L. should consider either a written agreement or court order that clarifies a specific guardianship status for Mr. L. vis-à-vis J. and perhaps delineates their respective rights and obligations similar to that as between Mr. K. and Ms. L. of March 3, 2014. [ 44 ] The parties were very respectful of each other and helpful in having this very serious matter heard on its merits without resort to personal attack.

Even though this decision will be understandably difficult for the fathers to accept it is important that the relocation of the children should take place with no added levels of angst or negativity such as might upset the boys more than might inevitably be the case. It will be a difficult time and process for the parents but also for the children and anything that the adults can do to lessen the upset should be tried. [ 45 ] Any of the parties may apply to vary or set aside this order upon 30 days notice as between the parties to their own respective files. That is to say that Mr.

G. does not have to give notice to Mr. L. and vice versa. If for some reason all the parties wanted both files to be heard together in some future application that could be done either by consent or further order but it is more likely that any future application would just involve one of the files on its own. I have set out the basic judgment of June 25, 2014, as an addendum to these full reasons for the sake of completeness and consolidation. BY THE COURT ____________________________ J.D.

Cowling Provincial Court Judge ADDENDUM File No: F8862 and F8922 Registry: Courtenay IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Held at Courtenay, B.C. IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c.25 BETWEEN: C.V.G. and P.L. APPLICANTS AND: M.A.L. RESPONDENT RULING OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.D. COWLING Appearing on their own behalf: C.V.G. and P.L. Appearing in Person: M.A.L. Place of Hearing: Courtenay, B.C. Date of Hearing: September 3, 2013 and June 20, 2014 Date of Judgment: June 25, 2014 [1] By letter dated April 5, 2013, M.A.L. gave notice separately to C.V.G. and P.L. of her intention to relocate her family from Courtenay to the Edmonton, Alberta area. M.A.L. has three children: T age 7, A age 5 and J. age 14.

C.V.G. is the father of A and P.L. is the father of J. [2] Both C.V.G. and P.L. brought applications to prohibit the relocation of their respective sons. All the parties were self- represented. M.A.L. was able to reach a relocation agreement with the father of T. [3] An order was made for the applications to be heard together and the hearing commenced on September 3, 2013. It could not be

completed on that day and was adjourned and a views of the child report was ordered with respect to J. That report was received in November. Through no fault of the parties the hearing could not be resumed until June 20, 2014 at which time further evidence was heard and I held an interview in chambers with J.

At the close of submissions I indicated to the parties that a full judgment would not be available for 3-4 weeks. [4] M.A.L. indicated that her rental situation had expired as of the end of June as the house she was renting had been sold and she had only been able to arrange temporary accommodation with her parents for July.

She indicated that the majority of rental situations for families in the Courtenay area were requiring one-year leases and the delay in the judgment would create some hardship for her as a single-parent of 3 children with a limited income. [5] I advised the parties that I could provide them with my ruling as to the application before the end of June with full reasons to follow within the prior indicated timespan. This was agreed as acceptable to all concerned.

While the parties and their associates are understandably very much divided as to what the outcome of this matter should be they have been co-operative and civil with respect to the hearing process.

RULING: [6] For the reasons that will be set forth in detail in the full judgment to follow I consider that it is in the best interests of the both A and J that M.A.L. be permitted to relocate with them to the Edmonton area as requested and she has the permission of the Court to do so effective July 31, 2014. [7] It is understood that J will be spending most if not all of July with his father and it would be expected that M.A.L. would provide reasonable and generous contact time between C.V.G. and A prior to the relocation and/or to his parents.

C.V.G. resides in Courtenay but works away in Cold Lake, Alberta at the present time and as such there are logistical constraints on the time available for him to spend with his son. [8] It is obvious from the evidence that the court has heard that all of the parties care deeply for their respective children and that this ruling will come as a great disappointment to both fathers.

I apologize for the brevity of this part of my reasons and hope that the extended reasons to follow will provide more insight into why I believe this is ultimately the right decision both in law and in real life for the children. [9] The extended reasons to follow will also outline some of the ancillary issues as to revised contact time schedules and possible maintenance reviews that will arise from this relocation. By the Court: _____________________________ The Honourable Judge J. D. Cowling Provincial Court of British Columbia