B.McV. Applicant v. K.D., 2023 NBKB 102

IN THE COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK FDSJ-214-2021 FAMILY DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SAINT JOHN Neutral Citation: 2023 NBKB 102 Date of Decision: June 14, 2023 BETWEEN: B.McV. Applicant -and- K.D. Respondent DECISION BEFORE: Madam Justice Chantal N. Daigle AT: Saint John, N.B. DATE OF HEARING: December 15 and 16, 2022 DATE OF DECISION: June 14, 2023 APPEARANCES: B. McV., self represented Vanessa Paton, on behalf of the Respondent, K.D.

Daigle, J.: I. INTRODUCTION: [ 1 ] In this matter, the Court is asked to allocate parenting time between two parents, assign decision-making responsibility and determine child support. [ 2 ] Throughout this decision, the Applicant B.McV. will be referred to as “the father” or “Mr. McV.” The Respondent K.D. will be referred to as “the mother” or “Ms. D.” II. FACTS: [ 3 ] The parties are the parents of one child, L.McV. born on […], 2021, now 2 years of age. [ 4 ] The father is 34 years of age. He resides in St. Georges, N.B.

The mother is 28 years of age and resides in Saint John. [ 5 ] The parties were in an “on and off” relationship from approximately July 2019 to April 2021 and then again during the Fall of 2021 until the beginning of 2022. [ 6 ] Their relationship was tumultuous. The mother testified that the father was prone to outbursts. He would get angry and call her names. He would scream in her face. He also destroyed property. [ 7 ] The mother described one incident that occurred in March 2020 when the couple got into an argument. She said that the father damaged their apartment before leaving for work.

She provided photographs to corroborate her evidence. [ 8 ] The mother described another incident that occurred on April 13, 2021 which precipitated their separation. According to the mother, the couple had a disagreement. The father became very angry and punched the door frame and, after threatening words were exchanged, he left. The father acknowledged in his affidavit that the mother had been complaining about his “ mood ” and that he told her to “ just shut the fuck up ”, at which point the mother threatened to leave the relationship with the child.

Once the father left the residence, the mother reached out to his mother M.H.H. (“Mrs. H.”) to help diffuse the situation. [ 9 ] When the father returned and saw that his mother was there, he became very angry. Instead of diffusing the situation, it exacerbated the conflict. The father has no relationship with his mother and it was evident from his testimony at trial that they do not get along. When referencing his own childhood, he said: “ She always treated me the worst. ” On this day, the father repeatedly asked his mother to leave. She refused.

The two of them bickered and at some point, there was a physical altercation between the two. The Respondent mother called 911. This seems to have angered the father even further. Mr. McV. freely admits that he punched the television, kicked the plants over, shoved the coffee machine off the counter and knocked over the water cooler. He was bleeding from having punched the television. The father then sat in a chair and waited for the police to arrive. I note that the child was present during this outburst.

She was 2 ½ months old at the time. [ 10 ] Again, the mother provided photographs to show the state of the apartment after the father’s outburst. A few days later, she returned to the apartment with a police escort to remove the rest of her things. [ 11 ] The father filed an Application (Form 81A) two days later, on April 15, 2021. He indicated in his Application that the child was being held from him. I note however, that the parents had only separated two days prior.

Given what had transpired at the time of their separation, a cooling off period was certainly warranted. [ 12 ] The parties had a first court appearance in May 2021. The father was granted supervised parenting time for short but frequent visits. Specifically, the father was to have parenting time “ a minimum of three two-hour periods each week ” [1] . Arrangements were made for his grandparents to supervise visits. Because his grandparents resided in St. George and the father did not have a driver’s license at that point, this required the mother to travel to St.

George for each visit. [ 13 ] The record before the Court is unclear as to the amount of parenting time the father actually had over the Summer of 2021. Suffice it to say that their relationship continued to be acrimonious and the parties were unable to set aside their differences for the sake of the child. [ 14 ] The evidence suggests that the father had a visit on May 18, May 23, and June 2, 2021. During the visit on May 23 rd , the mother was speaking with the father’s grandmother. The grandmother indicated she would love to have the mother and the child stay overnight for a visit. This angered the father.

He told the mother she could not stay there and he called her a bitch in front of his grandmother and the child. [ 15 ] Then, on June 10, 2021, there was another incident. The father saw a short video of the mother singing or rapping with a friend on social media. According to the father, he had “ major concerns ” with this individual being around the child. The father states in his affidavit that he contacted the mother and “ told her that if she has [his] daughter around that piece of shit […] there will be problems ”. The mother hung up the phone.

Later that day, the mother’s friend called and threatened the father. The father then called the mother who denied any involvement. After this incident, the father blocked the mother so she would not be able to contact him. [ 16 ] Thus, by the time the matter returned before the Case Management Master in July 2021, the father had only had a few visits.

According to the mother, she was unable to contact Mr. McV. to make arrangements for further visits (because she had been blocked) and she could not afford to travel to St. George several times per week because she had limited funds. Mr. McV. blamed the mother. He indicated that whenever he tried to

schedule parenting time, she said she already had plans with the child. [ 17 ] In an attempt to minimize the conflict between the parties and to reduce travel expenses for the mother, the Master granted the father parenting time every Sunday from noon to 6:00 pm. Again, these visits were to be held at the home of his grandparents, at least one of whom was to be in attendance. [2] [ 18 ] A visit was held on Sunday, July 25, 2021. When the mother came to pick up the child at the end of the visit, she asked the father what he thought about getting the child’s ears pierced. He said he would think about it.

According to the father, the mother replied: “ Well, I ran it by you and next time your daughter comes down she will most likely have her ears pierced. ” Then, as they were approaching the mother’s vehicle, the father noticed that a female friend he disliked was with her in the vehicle and he made a derogatory comment about this individual. This upset the mother. She yelled to the child’s great-grandmother who was supervising the visit that she would not be back as the father needed to learn to respect her. She then drove off. [ 19 ] The father was to have parenting time the following weekend. That did not occur.

Within a few days, the father filed a motion asking that his parenting order be enforced. In his affidavit filed in support, the father indicated that the mother made it very difficult for him to exercise parenting time and would keep the child from him.

He described the mother as “ sneaky and manipulative ” and said she was “ an expert at playing victim ”. [ 20 ] According to the father, he was unable to contact the mother directly, based on advice given to him by the Saint John Police. (He believed that the mother had given his telephone number to individuals who had called and threatened him in the past.) [ 21 ] The mother filed an affidavit in response to Mr. McV.’s motion. She explained that there had been three visits since the last court appearance (on July 18, July 25 and August 8).

She explained that on July 18, 2021, she brought the child to the father’s grandparents’ home for a visit. She tried to bring several items in order to ensure that the child would be comfortable. She tried to communicate with the father and give him information she thought he might need during his parenting time. According to the mother, he was not receptive of the information and told her that he would just Google anything he needed. As she was leaving, she asked the father if he was now living in St. George.

According to the mother, the father became angry, swore at her, and told her it was none of her business and told her to leave. As she was packing up her bags to leave, the father kept cursing at her, repeatedly telling her “ to get the f*uck out of the house ”. Meanwhile, his grandmother tried to explain multiple times that Ms. D. was just packing up her bags, but the father continued to curse and swear at her. As she left the yard, he flipped her off from the front door.

All of this interaction took place in the presence of the child. [ 22 ] According to the mother, the second visit on July 25, 2021 did not go any better. The drop-off was fine but when she went to pick up the child, the father was rude towards her. Given how poorly things had gone the previous week, she had taken a female friend with her. She says that she asked the father about piercing the baby’s ears. He responded that he could not make such a decision quickly. She asked about his reasoning but he did not explain himself further.

She acknowledged telling him that the next time he saw the child, she may have her ears pierced, as a result of which he became very angry. I agree that the mother was unreasonable for not allowing the father some time to think it through and demanding an immediate answer. However, the father then proceeded to make a disparaging comment about the mother’s friend and to threaten the mother if she had the child’s ears pierced.

This only made matters worse. [ 23 ] In a text message subsequently sent to the child’s great-grandmother, the mother indicated that she felt threatened and unsafe and would not be bringing the child any longer, in spite of an interim court order being in place.

As a result, the August 1 st visit did not take place. [ 24 ] Before the visit of August 8, 2021, the mother reached out to the father’s grandparents and ensured that they would be the ones to complete the exchange, and that the father would stay inside the home and have no contact with the mother. [ 25 ] The parties returned before the Case Management Master in mid-August 2021. The Master reiterated that the father would have one 6-hour supervised visit per week. [3] [ 26 ] At trial, the father testified that in the Fall of 2021, the mother wanted them to get back together.

They started to spend more time together as a family. Throughout the Fall, the father would see the child about once a week. Then, in December 2021, things became more serious for the couple. The father had been living with his grandparents and he moved into his own apartment. At that point, he saw the child on weekdays and weekends. [ 27 ] This reconciliation lasted less than two months. In January 2022, the mother decided she no longer wanted to pursue a relationship with the father.

She left and never came back. [ 28 ] Throughout 2022, the father exercised parenting time every other weekend from Thursday to Sunday. On occasion, this was extended into Monday. The father indicated that visits went very well. They spent lots of time outdoors and had lots of fun. [ 29 ] There was an incident at one point where the child fell and struck her head on a dresser while she was in his care. The father acted appropriately by taking the child to the doctor. In spite of the mother’s testimony to the contrary, I accept that Mr.

McV. followed the doctor’s advice and the child received a few stiches (i.e. sutures). The mother appears to have misunderstood the term “sutures”. [ 30 ] The father testified that he did not get to see the child on her first birthday in […] 2022 or on any holiday. He said that he asked but the mother refused. According to Mr. McV., the mother tries to do everything she can to distance him from the child. [ 31 ] When discussing the child’s birthday, the mother testified that she had tried to rent a neutral venue to hold the child’s birthday

party. However, neither the father, nor his mother were vaccinated and therefore, they could not enter the premises. When this did not work out, she decided to have it at her mother’s home. However, the father is not welcome there. In addition, she indicated that she and the father had had a huge argument the week prior and she did not want the father to make everyone uncomfortable and ruin the child’s birthday.

The mother testified that the father does not get along with anyone other than the child. [ 32 ] Overall, the father lays all blame at the mother’s feet and takes no responsibility for his role in the difficulties he encountered exercising parenting time. He states that the accusations against him are blown out of proportion. He says that the mother is simply making him out to be a bad person. [ 33 ] The father re-iterated throughout these proceedings that he kept being denied parenting time.

However, as counsel pointed out, in 2022, the father had the child every second weekend, in spite of the fact that the most recent interim order provided that he would have 6 hours of parenting time each Sunday. When asked whether the mother ever allowed him parenting time other than every second weekend, Mr. McV. said no. However, the evidence before the Court suggests otherwise. [ 34 ] At trial, the father denied having a bad temper. He denied throwing or destroying property.

However, when shown the photographs that were submitted into evidence, he acknowledged having damaged the apartment but suggested that counsel did not understand the circumstances in which these incidents happened. He suggested that these incidents occurred because the mother had threatened to take the child away from him. Thus, it would seem that the father felt his actions were justified. [ 35 ] Drop-offs also appear to be problematic. The mother was somewhat exasperated at trial and said that she cannot continue to deal with the father during exchanges.

She testified that exchanges are always a struggle and represent a further opportunity for the father to put her down. [ 36 ] The mother testified that pick ups are fine because both the father and the child are excited and the exchange is done quickly. However, the father is upset at every drop off. He uses the face-to-face exchange to demand more parenting time. The mother “shuts down” because she does not want to engage with him. This results in him slamming the car door, gesturing with his middle finger, and so forth. Again, all of this takes place in front of the child. According to Ms.

D., the child inevitably picks up on this (as can be expected), and she becomes upset. The father then uses this to say that the child does not want to return to the mother. At best, these exchanges are unpleasant for the mother. At worst, they negatively impact the child’s well-being. [ 37 ] More recently, in September 2022, there was an incident during an exchange. The mother was putting the child’s car seat into her vehicle when the father came from behind and pulled her shorts up over her bottom. Again, the child was present when this occurred.

Circumstances of each party [ 38 ] The father currently resides in a 2-bedroom apartment in St. Georges, N.B. He is employed with Coastal Transport Limited. He works on the Grand Manan Ferry, which he described as seasonal, part-time work. According to the father, his work

schedule varies throughout the year. The father confirmed that from about May to September, there are two ferries running. During this period, he works one week on, then one week off. He acknowledged that during his “on week”, he works 12-hour shifts and thus, he would not have a whole lot of time to see the child. [ 39 ] The father testified that from January 2022 to June 2022, he was laid off due to vaccine mandates. For the next several months, he was mostly working 12-hour shifts, one week on, then one week off.

Then, in September 2022, he was assigned to do a refit in Shelburne, Nova Scotia which lasted 28 days. From October 2022 onward, he worked Monday to Thursday, from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm (i.e. 10 hours/day). [ 40 ] The father testified that his

schedule is “ not set in stone ”. It can fluctuate from week to week, depending on the season, staff vacation, maintenance issues, illness, etc. At the time of trial in December 2022, he was working 40 hours per week, spread over 4 days and thus, 10 hours per day. He testified that for the most part, he would work one week on, then one week off for 6 months of the year, and then for the remaining 6 months it varies. [ 41 ] The mother is 28 years of age. Since April 2021, she has been residing in a one-bedroom apartment over her parents’ detached garage.

Her mother, her step-father and her grandfather reside in the main house. Ms. D. described her parents as a large source of emotional and financial support for her and the child. At the time of trial, she was working one or two shifts per week at a local restaurant and was receiving income assistance to supplement her income. [ 42 ] The mother is a certified personal care assistant but is in the process of completing a course to become a personal support worker. At the time of trial, she had four months left to complete and was hoping to be able to do so in 2023.

If she could not complete the program in 2023, her plan was to work in a seniors’ home as a certified personal care assistant. She testified that she had already been offered employment. Eventually, she would like to become a licensed practical nurse. [ 43 ] The maternal grandmother, S.D. (“Mrs. S.D.”), also testified at trial. She is very close with her daughter and grandchild. She is there to help when needed. Because the mother and the child live on her and her husband’s property, she sees them daily. She testified that she tried to help out the parents when they were together.

She described one incident where she and her husband tried to diffuse a fight between the parties. It did not work and instead, the father “ got right into [her] husband’s face ”, to the point where both Mrs. S.D. and the mother were crying. III. ISSUES: [ 44 ] The issues to be resolved in this matter are as follows: (

i) Parenting time and decision-making responsibility;

(ii) Child Support IV. POSITION OF THE PARTIES: [ 45 ] The father takes the position that the mother is a master at portraying herself as a victim. He argues that the real victims are both he and the child. He states that the mother does everything in her power to hurt him, and that she uses every possible excuse to restrict his parenting time. He argues that all he has ever wanted was “ his rights as a parent and as a father ”. He argues there is “ zero reason ” he should not have his daughter fifty percent of the time. [ 46 ] The mother wants to minimize as much as possible the contact she has with the father.

She argues that the parties do not have a good relationship and are unable to communicate in a way that would make shared parenting possible. She argues that it is in the child’s best interests that she be granted primary care and exclusive decision-making authority, with the father having parenting time every other weekend as is currently occurring. V.

PARENTING TIME AND DECISION-MAKING RESPONSIBILITY: [ 47 ] The parties were never married and consequently, this matter is governed by subsection 50(1) of the Family Law Act , S.N.B. 2020, c. 23 which requires the Court to solely consider the best interests of the child when making a parenting order. The factors to be considered when determining the best interests of the child are found at subsection 50(2) of the Act : 50(2) In determining the best interests of the child, the Court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including (

a) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including First Nations upbringing and heritage, (

b) the child’s needs, including the need for stability, given the child’s age and stage of development, (

c) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life, (

d) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent, (

e) the history of care of the child, (

f) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained, (

g) any plans for the child’s care, (

h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child, (

i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child, (

j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things, (

i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and (ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child, and (

k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child. [ 48 ] Subsection 50(3) of the Act requires the Court to give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being when considering the factors listed above. [ 49 ] Further, pursuant to subsection 50(6) of the Act , when allocating parenting time, the Court must give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with his or her best interests. [ 50 ] Eleven factors are enumerated under the “best interests of the child” test.

I will address each of those factors. - The child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage. [ 51 ] No evidence was presented which would suggest that this factor plays a role in this case. - The child’s needs, including the need for stability, given the child’s age and stage of development; and - History of care. [ 52 ] The child L. is currently two years of age. She was described as a happy, joyful child who laughs a lot and can be a lot of fun.

She is smart and is meeting all developmental milestones. [ 53 ] The parties separated shortly after L. was born and the child has been in the primary care of the mother since then. The mother spent almost a year on maternity leave tending to the needs of the child. She has ensured that all of her needs have been met. [ 54 ] The mother testified that she tries to follow a daily routine and she tries to incorporate new experiences into the child’s life. She brings the child to a Kinder Field program for toddlers on Wednesdays in order to develop her motor skills and socialization. They

also go to the Aquatic Centre from time to time. [55] Given the age and the stage of development of the child, her need for stability and security is important. With very youngchildren, as is the case here, the importance of routine and structure cannot be understated.

In this case, this will be best achieved withthe child spending the majority of her time with one parent (as opposed to having a shared parenting arrangement where she would spendan equal amount of time with each parent). - The nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and anyother person who plays an important role in the child’s life. [56] The child has a strong bond with the mother. At this stage of the child’s life, the mother is the psychological parent andprimary attachment parent for the child.

This is not unusual and is not in any way meant to discredit or trivialize the father’s role in thechild’s life. The reality is that the child is only two years of age and understandably, she is highly dependent on the mother. This is, inpart, due to the fact that she was only a few months old when the parties separated. [57] Several Supreme Court of Canada decisions have discussed the importance of this relationship. Recently in F. v.

N., 2022SCC 51, Jamal J. (dissenting in the result) re-iterated the following: 174 (…) in Gordon, L'Heureux-Dubé J. stated, at para. 121, "[t]he assessment of the child's best interests ... involves aconsideration of the particular role and emotional bonding the child enjoys with his or her primary caregiver. The importance ofpreserving the child's relationship with his or her psychological parent has long been recognized by this Court on a number ofoccasions".

She added that "disrupting the relationship of the child with his or her primary caregiver will [generally] be moredetrimental to the child than reduced contact with the non-custodial parent" (para. 126). 175 Similarly, in Young v. Young, (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, L'Heureux-Dubé J., dissenting in the result, noted that"the child's relationship with the custodial parent may well be the most important factor affecting [their] long-term outcome" (p.67, citing N. Weisman, "On Access After Parental Separation" (1992), 36 R.F.L. (3d) 35, at p. 62).

As a result, "the major focus ofcustody decisions should be to preserve and protect the relationship between the child and his or her psychological parent" (p. 66). Seealso Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165, at p. 202(highlighting a child's bonding with their psychological parents). [Emphasis added] [58] The child also has a positive relationship with members of her extended family. She has a strong bond with her maternalgrandmother and step-grandfather. [59] Ms. D. tries to ensure that the child spends time with her extended family on both sides.

She testified that she has visited withthe father’s sister a few times in Oromocto. She regularly visits with the paternal grandmother Mrs. H, whom she described as a greatsource of support. She has also visited with the father’s brother who resides in Fredericton. In fact, the mother testified that she andMrs. H. had recently attended his wedding with the child. Although these are relatives of the father, he has little to no contact with them. [60] The mother agrees that the child loves her father and the two have a strong bond. Mr.

McV. testified that the child sees hisfather and his grandparents as much as possible. [61] Overall, the child is surrounded by love from both sides of the family but the mother plays a greater role in ensuring that thechild maintains important connections with her extended family. - Each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent. [62] The father’s position with respect to this factor is that the mother has done everything in her power to thwart his relationshipwith the child. [63] I acknowledge that in the summer of 2021, his parenting time was not as frequent and regular as it should have been.

Theinfrequent parenting time was not in the child’s best interests. However, the father must take responsibility for part of that outcomegiven the anger and aggression he exhibited toward the mother. [64] I also acknowledge there were other times when the father should have been granted parenting time. For example, on thechild’s birthday, at Easter, on Father’s Day, etc. These were important milestone in the child’s life.

This will be rectified with thisdecision. [65] That being said, I note that over time, the parties progressed to unsupervised parenting time and in 2022, the mothervoluntarily expanded the father’s parenting time beyond the minimum set out in the current Interim Order. [66] As for the father, I could find no evidence where he had been supportive of the mother or her relationship with the child. - The child’s views and preferences. [67] The child L. is too young to be able to express her views and preferences or for the Court to place any weight on suchpreferences. - Any plans for the child’s care.

[ 68 ] It was difficult to elicit a firm plan from the father as he did not seem to have thought things through. The father is seeking to have the child in his care half of the time but could not provide the Court with a plan as to how he would care for the child on a day-to- day basis. [ 69 ] The father’s work

schedule varies throughout the year depending on the season, staff vacation, maintenance issues, illness, etc. For the most part, he appears to work one week on (12 hours/day), then one week off for 6 months of the year, and then for the remaining 6 months it fluctuates. At the time of trial, he was working 10-hour days, Monday to Thursday. [ 70 ] The father said that if he was called in to work while the child was with him, he would simply say no.

While this may be possible on a few occasions, it is not a long-term solution. [ 71 ] Further, there are several months of the year when the father works Monday to Thursday from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm. The father suggested that during those months, he could ask to be laid off if he had the child in his care. Again, this is not a viable solution in the long run. He also suggested that perhaps he could ask the mother or the maternal grandmother to watch the child during the day. However, they work as well and more importantly, the parties reside 1 hour and 10 minutes apart.

Traveling back and forth every day would not be feasible for the parents or the child. When questioned further, he said that perhaps he could find a daycare in St. Georges. However, he had not looked into this. More importantly, it would be very difficult for the child to attend daycare in St. Georges one week and then attend another daycare in Saint John the next. The child needs routine, stability and consistency of care in order to develop a sense of security. [ 72 ] Realistically, the mother has a larger network of resources and support to draw from.

When she returned to work part-time, she enlisted the services of a friend to watch the child when she worked. At trial, she was able to provide confirmation that the child had been accepted into a public daycare commencing in February 2023.

As such, I find that the mother’s plan was clearer and more sound. - The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child. [ 73 ] While both parents would be able to meet the child’s basic needs, the mother has a greater network of friends and family that is able to assist her and provide a safety net for the child. The maternal grandmother lives a few short steps from the mother’s apartment and she provides assistance when needed. [ 74 ] The father is estranged from the rest of his family. He has no relationship with his mother.

He has an older sister who has four children. He has no relationship with her or her children. He acknowledged that he does not get along his mother and his sister. He has three younger brothers and again, he indicated he has no relationship with any of them as well, although he said he sees one of his brothers from time to time. [ 75 ] When asked about a support system, he named his grandparents. However, they are 82 and 84 years of age. He also named his father, and an aunt and uncle.

The mother disputed that he has a steady relationship with his father. [ 76 ] Overall, while both parents may be willing to meet the needs of the child, the mother has demonstrated a greater ability and network of resources to meet those needs. - The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child. [ 77 ] The communication between the parties is very problematic. [ 78 ] As was witnessed during trial, the parties continue to have an acrimonious relationship and neither party displayed any ability or willingness to communicate with the other parent in a respectful manner or to cooperate with the other parent. [ 79 ] There have been times when the father has “blocked” the mother from being able to communicate with him by telephone. [ 80 ] At trial, the father acknowledged that their communication is not good.

When asked why, he indicated that whenever he asks to see the child, the mother refuses. When he asks where the child is, the mother refuses to answer. According to the father, “ it’s her way or no way ”. According to the father, the mother openly states that she will never make it easy for him. At trial, the father did not know whether the child was attending daycare or not. He indicated that when he asked for such information, he was told that he was prying. He would like to know who looks after the child when the mother is at school or at work.

The mother testified that she did not advise the father out of fear that he would try to intimidate the individual who was caring for the child. [ 81 ] The father testified that he was willing to communicate and cooperate with the mother but provided no evidence that he has. In fact, he called the mother a derogatory term while she was testifying at trial. [ 82 ] It is not unusual to see parents fighting and being disrespectful to one another when they separate. It is unfortunate, but it happens.

The initial period after separation can be a very stressful time and, regrettably, this sometimes brings out the worst in people. What is unusual however, it to see that behavior still happening two years after separation. The following text exchange is an example of the type of message the father sent to the mother a few short weeks before trial: Father: I don’t work tomorrow [K.].

Father: I want to see my daughter. Father: We will get this straightened out one way or another I’ll guarantee you that. I’ll have to Drag your sorry ass back in court sooner than later. How long can you cry wolf. Father: You’ll get er trust me. Just like I always said! Father: Everyone will know your dirtiness. Mother: [B.], grow up. We have a life, get over it. Father: Lol don’t get used to it. Will be cut [in] half. Then you can go have your dirty life elsewhere. Father: Trust me there is not one thing I have to get over with you. You are literally repulsive. And others will see to. Just takes times.

Father: Keep holding my daughter from me. Find out one way or another. I may just have to come see her myself. [ 83 ] As is often the case in parenting disputes, the Court was provided with a series of text messages between the parties. One particular series of text messages (marked A-2), was submitted into evidence by the father to show the difficulties he encountered. [ 84 ] I read all of these messages which spanned from May 2022 to December 2022. For the most part, these messages depict a mother who was trying to co-parent and have a civil relationship with the father.

Regrettably, there were many messages where the father made demeaning and degrading comments to the mother. At times, his attacks went on for pages. I was surprised that the father would think these messages cast him in a good light or supported his case. [ 85 ] At trial, the father argued that the mother’s allegations were all lies and that he does not act poorly with her at all. However, these text messages show otherwise. It was the father who kept threatening the mother, not the other way around. She did not threaten to contact her lawyer as he alleged.

She kept asking him to contact her lawyer because, at times, she simply could not deal with his barrage of insults and his aggressive and hostile messages. [ 86 ] At trial, the father denied calling the mother any names. However, when he was presented with further text messages, he acknowledged having called her several derogatory names, including a “weekend whore”, a “piece of work”, “disgusting”, “trash”, “dirty”, and a “pathetic excuse for a woman”. [ 87 ] The father also denied having touched her during exchanges.

However, on cross-examination he confirmed that as recently as September 11, 2022, he grabbed and pulled up her shorts during an exchange. [ 88 ] This type of behavior is simply not conducive to a cooperative parenting relationship and it must stop for the child’s sake. L. loves both of her parents. I have no doubt that she wants to continue to love both parents.

However, this desire to love both parents will be undermined if one parent continues to express anger, hostility and disrespect for the other parent. [ 89 ] Both parties must understand that when they hurt the other parent, they also hurt the child because the child inevitably has to deal with the fallout. - any family violence and its impact on, among other things (

i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and (ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child. [ 90 ] At trial, the father indicated that the child would be safe in his care and there would be no violence around her. The mother did not raise any concerns in this regard.

There was no suggestion or request before this Court that the father’s parenting time needed to be supervised. [ 91 ] However, I note that the father has had several outbursts in the child’s presence. During at least one episode in April 2021, he destroyed property. [ 92 ] It is evident that the father has problems with anger management. He has little control over his emotions. In MacNeil v. Playford , 2008 NSSC 268 , Forgeron J. made the following comments: 11 Parental conduct, including domestic violence, may affect the ability of a parent to provide proper care, nurture and example to his/her child.

Domestic violence demonstrates an inability to problem solve in a healthy manner. Domestic violence shows the absence of respect and dignity for the other parent. Domestic violence demonstrates reactive personality with poor impulse control. Domestic violence is emblematic of poor parenting skills.

12 Domestic violence will usually impact the court's determination as to whom should be assigned primary care of a child. This is one factor, albeit a significant one, which determines the best interests of the child. The seriousness of the assaults, the frequency of the assaults, the circumstances of the parties, and the circumstances of the child, all must be examined in determining the best interests of the child. [ 93 ] Domestic violence (or intimate partner violence as it is now more commonly called) is not limited to physical violence.

This type of behavior often involves a pattern of conduct where a partner or former partner tries to belittle, denigrate or intimidate the other. It sometimes involves destruction of property. [ 94 ] Here, there is cogent evidence that the father damaged property on two occasions. There is evidence that he has repeatedly used denigrating language towards the mother. There is also evidence of difficulties encountered at the end of exchanges when the child is returned to the mother.

According to the mother, he routinely flips her off, calls her names and in September 2022, he lifted her shorts while she was placing something in her vehicle. [ 95 ] The father has demonstrated an absence of respect for the other parent. He has demonstrated poor impulse control. He called the mother a derogatory term while she was testifying in Court and called it “ a slip of the tongue ”. The father has displayed a lack of control over his emotions. He is prone to reactive behavior when he feels threatened. In fact, that is how he justified damaging couple’s apartment in April 2021.

He indicated that it was because the mother had threatened to take the child away. His anger intensified when he was told the mother had called the police. [ 96 ] As previously stated, the father must realize that by hurting the mother, he is hurting the child. L. loves both of her parents and does not want to see either of them being inflicted any pain (emotional or otherwise) by the other parent. Placing the child in the middle of conflict poses a significant risk to her emotional well-being. [ 97 ] Recently, in Barendregt v.

Grebliunas , 2022 SCC 22 , Karakatsanis J., writing for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated the following: 143 The suggestion that domestic abuse or family violence has no impact on the children and has nothing to do with the perpetrator's parenting ability is untenable. Research indicates that children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives: Department of Justice, Risk Factors for Children in Situations of Family Violence in the Context of Separation and Divorce (February 2014), at p. 12.

Harm can result from direct or indirect exposure to domestic conflicts, for example, by observing the incident, experiencing its aftermath, or hearing about it: S. Artz et al., "A Comprehensive Review of the Literature on the Impact of Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence for Children and Youth" (2014), 5 I.J.C.Y.F.S. 493, at p. 497. [Emphasis added] [ 98 ] Under the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to make an order that would require these parents to cooperate because there is no evidence that they can.

More importantly, it would not be appropriate for this Court to make an order that would potentially place the child in the middle of further conflict. [ 99 ] The mother has requested an order that her mother or step-father be allowed to complete exchanges on her behalf. I agree that she should not be required to subject herself to further harm, nor should the child have to witness further conflict. Similarly, the mother requested that pick ups take place at daycare on Thursdays.

Again, that will form part of my order but I note that this will not always be possible. [ 100 ] The father appears to cherish his role as a parent. He appears to have suffered his share of trauma growing up. However, he needs to break the cycle and become a better parent and a better role model. The father has successfully sought therapy in the past in order to address issues with addiction. I urge him to seek counseling to address his anger and to be able to regulate his response to emotions.

This will allow him to become the best parent he can be for the child. - any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child. [ 101 ] There was no evidence of any such orders or proceedings. Conclusion with respect to parenting time and decision making: [ 102 ] When trying to determine an appropriate parenting schedule, the focus is not on what would be fair for each parent. Rather, the focus is on what would be best for the child. In F. B.A. v.

N.J.A. , 2018 NBQB 215 , Walsh J. stated as follows at para. 14: Sharing the custody of children in today's society is, in my judicial experience, all too often wrongfully but perhaps understandably viewed by litigants as a matter of parental fairness. I say that despite the extent to which some litigants go to hide that belief from the courts. Shared custody requires more than love and hope and parental ability. At its heart is the need for a reasonably effective working relationship between parents for the sake of the child or children.

It is hardly an old fashioned idea, even in the seemingly entitlement based belief system of modern society. In fact, it requires a multi-faceted determination. [Emphasis added] [ 103 ] Shared parenting requires a high degree of communication and cooperation. In F. M. v.

T.H. , 2016 NBCA 29 , Baird J.A. stated as follows (at para. 21): (…) The quality of the relationship between parents is an important consideration when deciding under what circumstances a joint custody order is appropriate (…) A shared parenting relationship requires parents to be flexible, and to interact with one another on all matters which affect their children in an open and a cooperative way.

[ 104 ] More recently, in J.H. v. T.H. , 2017 NBCA 17 , Baird J.A. further stated (at para. 20): (…) A shared parenting or a shared custody arrangement requires parents not only to have the ability to communicate in an effective manner, it also requires them to cooperate in the decision-making process in order to protect the health, safety and emotional well-being of their children. [ 105 ] In this case, the age and stage of development of the child, the lack of cooperation and poor communication between the parties, the father’s unpredictable work

schedule and work hours, the distance between the parties’ residences and more importantly, the father’s disparaging views vis-à-vis the mother render an equal sharing of parenting time inappropriate. I find that it is in the child’s best interests to remain in the primary care of the mother. Both parties confirmed that she is thriving and I see no reason to jeopardize her development by substantially altering her day-to-day care. [ 106 ] The father shall have parenting time every other weekend from Thursday at 4:00 pm (or as soon as possible once he is done work) until Sunday at 5:00 pm.

In addition, he shall have parenting time on Monday of that week and on Thursday of the following week. This will ensure that the child sees the father regularly and does not go long stretches without seeing him. Breaking it down into a 2-week rotation, the

schedule will be as follows: (

i) Week one: a. Monday from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (or as soon as practicable after the father’s workday). Such visits shall be exercised in or around the Saint John area. If the father’s work hours do not allow this visit to occur, he shall have a 10-minute videocall with the child, to be exercised at 7:30 p.m. (or such other time as the parties may agree); and b. Thursday at 4:00 p.m. (or as soon as practicable after the father’s workday) until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. (ii) Week two: a.

Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (or as soon as practicable after the father’s workday), such visits to be exercised in or around the Saint John area. If the father’s work hours do not allow this visit to occur, he shall have a 10-minute videocall with the child, to be exercised at 7:30 p.m. (or such other time as the parties may agree). [ 107 ] Several holidays and parenting clauses were agreed upon at trial. They shall be included in the final order of the Court. [ 108 ] With regard to the Christmas holiday, the father has requested parenting time every other Christmas morning.

He testified that he usually spends some time with his father and grandparents over the Christmas holiday. He said they usually have a family dinner, although it is not held on any particular day. He indicated he does not put up a Christmas tree at his apartment but would do so if the child was with him. As the mother pointed out, he already had the child every other weekend which should have been enough to encourage him to have a Christmas tree. [ 109 ] The mother testified that her family has a tradition of celebrating Christmas Eve. They have friends and family over. They exchange gifts and play games.

She wants the child to experience this tradition. [ 110 ] These traditions are for the benefit of the child, not the parents. Therefore, the child shall be in the care of the mother from 2:00 pm on December 24 th until 2:00 pm on December 25 th .

The child shall then be in the care of the father from 2:00 pm on December 25 th until 6:00 pm on December 26 th at which point the parties shall return to the usual schedule. [ 111 ] The parent who does not have the care of the child on the child’s birthday will be allowed to spend two hours with her that day, specifically from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. [ 112 ] The child shall spend Father’s Day with the father and Mother’s Day with the mother, regardless of the usual parenting schedule, and that parent shall have the child from 5:00 pm the day prior until 6:00 pm on Sunday. [ 113 ] Every Thanksgiving, the usual parenting

schedule shall be suspended from the Saturday before Thanksgiving until Thanksgiving Monday. The father shall have parenting time on the Saturday before Thanksgiving until 2:00 pm on Sunday and the mother shall have parenting time from 2:00 pm on Sunday to 7:00 pm on Monday. [ 114 ] In the summer, each parent shall be allowed to have two non-consecutive weeks (7 days) of uninterrupted parenting time with the child. In 2023, the parties shall advise each other of their preferred weeks no later than July 1 st .

In subsequent years, the parties shall advise each other of their preferred weeks no later than June 1 st of each year. [ 115 ] A few other parenting issues remain outstanding. The mother has requested that she be allowed to travel without the father’s consent. She does not anticipate doing so for a number of years but in any event, she believes it is unlikely the father would ever consent. I am not, at this time, prepared to make a blanket order allowing either parent to travel anywhere, anytime, without the consent of the other parent. I therefore decline to make this order.

The mother suggested in her written submission that the father should obtain the mother’s consent if he travelled outside the Maritime Provinces with the child. The same will apply to both parties. Consent shall not unreasonably be withheld. [ 116 ] The mother shall be authorized to apply for the child’s passport without the father’s signature or consent. [ 117 ] With regards to decision making, the mother has requested sole decision-making responsibility with regard to major decisions or

in the alternative, final decision-making ability. The evidence confirms that the parties are unable to communicate effectively. Under the circumstances, and in order to avoid difficulties and conflicts going forward, I order that the mother have final decision-making responsibility for significant matters relating to the child. Nevertheless, the mother shall first be required to consult the father on these matters (either by herself or through an intermediary) and the parties shall use their best efforts to reach an agreement.

If after such consultation they are unable to reach an agreement, the mother shall have final decision-making responsibility. VI. CHILD SUPPORT: Retroactive child support and s.7 expenses [ 118 ] The parties separated in April 2021. However, the father did not pay any child support in 2021. During this period, he earned $29,221.00. He said that he tried to give the mother money but she refused out of kindness. She told him to focus on getting back on his feet. From time to time, he assisted with gas money. The mother acknowledged that at times, she declined his attempts to pay support.

She felt that she was more stable than he was and she wanted him to focus on getting his license back and getting an apartment. [ 119 ] Under the circumstances and, given that the status of their relationship was unclear at times in the Fall of 2021, child support shall only be retroactive to January 1, 2022. [ 120 ] In 2022, the father earned employment insurance benefits totaling $16,065 covering the period of January 1, 2022 to July 3, 2022. For the rest of the year, he earned employment income from Coastal Transport Limited.

He submitted a paystub which reflected a year-to-date income of $22,521.00 as of December 1, 2022. Further, it was anticipated he would earn another $3,300.00 in employment income in December 2022 ($20.63 /hr x 10 hrs/day x 4 days/week x 4 weeks). This results in a total income of $41,886.00 for 2022 and a child support obligation of $345 per month. [ 121 ] The father should have paid monthly child support totaling $4,140 in 2022 (i.e. from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022). The evidence before the Court is that the father transferred a total of $2,500 to the mother in 2022 (Exhibit R-5).

In addition, he paid $120 on the eve of trial, for a total of $2,620. There was suggestion by the mother that some of the transfers were for medication. However, that evidence was vague and was insufficient to convince the Court that certain payments or transfers were for something other than child support. Further, I note that only health related expenses in excess of $100 annually can properly be categorized as a

section 7 expense. [ 122 ] Therefore, based on the foregoing, I find that as of December 16, 2022, the father’s arrears of monthly child support totaled $1,520 ($4,140 - $2,620). [ 123 ] In addition, the child started going to a private daycare in January 2022 when the mother returned to school. The mother is making a claim for a proportionate sharing of daycare expenses under

section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines . She provided evidence of these payments by way of electronic transfers (Exhibit R-3). These payments total $3,370. I accept that these child care expenses were incurred by the mother when she was either in school or when she was working. This is a proper

section 7 expense and, pursuant to s.7(

b) of the Guidelines , both parties are responsible to pay a proportionate share. That the father was not informed until trial is not a valid defence and does not absolve the father from having to pay his share. [ 124 ] Based on the available evidence before the Court, the mother’s anticipated income for 2022 was $19,855.00 and the father’s anticipated income for 2022 was $41,886.00. This results in the father being responsible for 68% of this expense and the mother being responsible for 32% of this expense.

The father therefore owes $2,292 for his share of daycare expenses for 2022. [ 125 ] Therefore, total arrears are set at $3,812 as of December 16, 2022. [ 126 ] No payment proposal was put forth by the father at trial. In her brief, the mother suggested that he pay $200 per month toward arrears. [ 127 ] The father appears to be in a precarious financial situation. He provided an updated Financial Statement which was sworn in December 2022. It listed debts totaling $69,448.00. He testified that he owes roughly $60,000 on a personal line of credit which is now in collections.

He is not making any payments toward this indebtedness at the moment. He also owes $8,200 on a Capital One credit card. Again, at the time of trial he was not making any payments toward this indebtedness but it was his intention to start chipping away at it soon. He also owes $1,248 to Bell Services but again, was not making any payments on this debt at the time of trial. Thus, while these debts exist, the father is not making any payments toward these debts. [ 128 ] I note however, that the father incurs large transportation expenses. He incurs high expenses for gas and for auto insurance.

As well, he is obligated to pay $130 per month for a mandatory interlock system on his vehicle. At trial, he testified that he had approximately 15 months left to pay. At this time, I estimate he should be done in approximately 9 months. [ 129 ] Taking these transportation expenses into consideration, the father shall pay $75 per month toward his arrears commencing July 1, 2023. Commencing April 1, 2024, that amount shall be increased to $205 per month ($130 + $75). Ongoing child support and s.7 expenses [ 130 ] The father commenced his current employment in July 2022.

The evidence before the Court is that he works an average of 40 hours per week, at a rate of $20.63 per hour. Based on this evidence, I estimate that he will earn an income of $42,900.00 in 2023. This is in line with his 2019 income of $41,368.00, his 2020 income of $42,830.00 and his 2022 income of $41,886.00. On that basis, the father shall pay ongoing child support of $355 per month, from January 1, 2023 onward. [ 131 ] In 2023, the child has been accepted into daycare and she was scheduled to start on February 20, 2022. The cost of daycare is

$18 per day but the mother advised that she would be applying for a subsidization. Once the cost is determined, the parties shall share childcare expenses (net of any subsidy), on a proportionate basis, pursuant to

section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines . VII. CONCLUSION AND DISPOSITION: [ 132 ] Based on these reasons, it is ordered as follows: (

i) The child’s primary residence shall be with the Respondent who shall have the majority of parenting time. (ii) Pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Family Law Act, S.N.B. 2020, c.23 , the Applicant shall have parenting time as follows: Week one: a. Monday from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (or as soon as practicable after the father’s workday). Such visits shall be exercised in or around the Saint John area. If the father’s work hours do not allow this visit to occur, he shall have a 10-minute videocall with the child, to be exercised at 7:30 p.m. (or such other time as the parties may agree); and b.

Thursday at 4:00 p.m. (or as soon as practicable after the father’s workday) until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. Week two: c. Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (or as soon as practicable after the father’s workday), such visits to be exercised in or around the Saint John area. If the father’s work hours do not allow this visit to occur, he shall have a 10-minute videocall with the child, to be exercised at 7:30 p.m. (or such other time as the parties may agree). (iii) The regular parenting

schedule shall be suspended for the following holiday

schedule (unless otherwise agreed by the parties): a. Christmas: Every Christmas, the usual parenting

schedule shall be suspended from December 24 until December 26. The Respondent shall have parenting time from 2:00 pm on December 24 until 2:00 pm on December 25, and the Applicant shall have parenting time from 2:00 pm on December 25 until 6:00 pm on December 26; b. Child’s birthday : The parent that does not have the care of the child on the child’s birthday shall have the option of a 2-hour visit with the child, specifically from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. If the child’s birthday falls on a weekend, this visit shall be extended to a 3-hour visit from 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm. c. Easter: Every Easter, the usual parenting

schedule shall be suspended from the Saturday before Easter until Easter Monday. The Applicant shall have parenting time from 2:00 pm on the Saturday before Easter until 2:00 pm on Easter Sunday and the Respondent shall have parenting time from 2:00 pm on Easter Sunday until 2:00 pm on Easter Monday. d. The child shall spend Father’s Day with the Applicant and Mother’s Day with the Respondent, regardless of the usual parenting schedule, and that parent shall have the child from 5:00 p.m. the day prior until 6:00 pm on Sunday. e. Thanksgiving: Every Thanksgiving, the usual parenting

schedule shall be suspended from the Saturday before Thanksgiving until Thanksgiving Monday. The Applicant shall have parenting time on the Saturday before Thanksgiving until 2:00 pm on Sunday and the Respondent shall have parenting time from 2:00 pm on Sunday to 7:00 pm on Monday . f. Summer: During the summer, each parent shall have two non-consecutive 7-day periods of uninterrupted parenting time with the child. In 2023, the parties shall advise each other of their preferred weeks no later than July 1 st .

In subsequent years, the parties shall advise each other of their preferred weeks no later than June 1 st of each year. (iv) Exchanges of the child shall take place at the Rothesay Avenue Superstore, unless the child is at daycare in which case, the exchange shall take place at daycare. (

v) The Respondent’s mother, S.D., or her step-father, J.G., shall be authorized to complete exchanges of the child on behalf of the Respondent. (vi) The parties shall share decision-making responsibility in respect of the child, including decisions in respect of the child’s health, education, culture, language, religion, spirituality and significant extra-curricular activities, pursuant to ss. 52(2) and s. 54 of the Family Law Act .

The Respondent shall be required to consult the Applicant on these matters (either by herself or through an intermediary) and the parties shall use their best efforts to reach an agreement.

If after such consultation they are unable to reach an agreement, the Respondent shall have final decision-making responsibility. (vii) The parties shall give the children’s needs and interests primary importance, taking into consideration the child’s age, needs and level of development and the parties shall give their respective needs and interests secondary importance. (viii) The parties shall keep each other current with their respective civic, mailing and email addresses and their respective telephone and cell phone numbers. (ix) Pursuant to s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act , both parties have the right to make enquiries and receive information from medical

and/or educational professionals and caregivers involved in the child’s life and they shall provide each other with the names and complete contact information of any such individual involved in the child’s life. (

x) Neither party shall speak negatively about the other parent in the presence of the child, nor shall they permit the child to remain in the presence of anyone who is speaking negatively about the child’s parents. (xi) In the event of any medical emergency or accident involving the child that requires medical treatment, the parent in whose care the child is at the time of such medical emergency or accident shall notify the other parent immediately. (xii) Neither parent shall travel with the child outside of the Maritime Provinces, being New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island, without the prior written consent of the other parent.

Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. (xiii) If either party intends to travel with the child outside of the Greater Saint John area for a period of more than twenty-four (24) hours, the party traveling with the child shall provide an itinerary, telephone and electronic contact information and address(es) to the other party in advance of the travel being undertaken. (xiv) The Respondent shall be authorized to apply for the child’s passport without the father’s signature or consent.

Upon receiving the passport, the Respondent shall immediately inform the Applicant. (xv) Commencing on January 1, 2023 and continuing on the 1 st day of each month thereafter until further Order of the Court, the Applicant shall pay child support of $355 per month for the child, based on an estimated income of $42,900 for 2023. (xvi) In addition, the Applicant shall pay his proportionate share of net childcare expenses incurred by the Respondent as a result of her employment or education, pursuant to section 7(1)(

a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the Child Support Guidelines Regulation – Family Law Act . (xvii) Total arrears for child support and childcare are set at $3,812 as of December 16, 2022. Any payments made by the Applicant during the period of December 17, 2022 to December 31, 2022 shall be deducted from these arrears. (xviii) Commencing on July 1, 2023 and continuing on the 1 st day of each month thereafter, the Applicant shall make a minimum payment of $75 towards all outstanding arrears.

Commencing on April 15, 2024, that amount shall be increased to $205 per month until further Order of the Court or such time as all arrears have been paid in full. (xix) The Applicant shall pay his proportionate share of the child’s health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, pursuant to paragraph 7(1)(

c) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the Child Support Guidelines Regulation – Family Law Act . (xx) For the purposes of this Order, based upon the Applicant’s income of $42,900 and the Respondent’s income of $19,885.00, the Applicant’s proportionate share of special expenses is 68% and the Respondent’s proportionate share is 32%. (xxi) The Respondent and the Applicant shall immediately advise the Court and the Director of Support Enforcement, of every change in civic and mailing address, telephone number, and change in employment status and the name and address of their current and every subsequent employer, as the case may be. (xxii) The parties shall file with the Director of Support Enforcement and exchange with each other their respective T-1 General Income Tax Return, inclusive of all attachments and schedules and their respective Notice of Assessment no later than July 1, of every year commencing on July 1, 2023.

At the request of either party, the Director of Support Enforcement shall provide to the requesting party a copy of the other party’s income information, pursuant to section 14(2)(

c) of the Support Enforcement Act . (xxiii) This Order may be subject to recalculation by the New Brunswick Child Support Recalculation Service if the New Brunswick Child Support Recalculation Service determines that recalculation is permissible and appropriate under the Family Law Act and the Child Support Recalculation Service Regulation under that Act . If a party fails to comply with the income disclosure requirements of the New Brunswick Child Support Recalculation Service, the party’s income may be deemed to have increased as set out in the Child Support Recalculation Service Regulation . (xxiv) Pursuant to section 81(1) (a), (

b) and (

c) of the Family Law Act , both parties shall be restrained from molesting, annoying, harassing or interfering with the other at any time, including entering the other party’s premises. DATED at Saint John, New Brunswick this ___day of June, 2023. ___________________​​​​​​​​​_____________ Justice Chantal N. Daigle Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick Family Division