T.M.L. v. C.J.S. Date:, 2016 BCPC 117

Citation: T.M.L. v. C.J.S. Date: 20160114 2016 BCPC 0117 File No: F15625 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: T.M.L. APPLICANT AND: C.J.S. RESPONDENT ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.I. SOLOMON Appearing in person: T.M.L. via telephone

Counsel for the Respondent: E. Chapman Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Dates of Hearing: January 11, 12, 13, 2016 Date of Order: January 14, 2016 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Before me there are competing applications. There is a February 17, 2015 application filed by T.M.L. to vary the order of Judge Skilnick from September 29, 2014 to limit C.J.S.'s parenting time to every second weekend. The basis for this is threats to her well-being and an assault against her and the brainwashing of their child. This is number 33 on the list.

In light of the decision that follows, I will be adjourning this application and reviewing parenting time issues when I obtain an update as to the status of the matter from the parties in early February 2016. [ 2 ] Number 34 on the list is another application by T.M.L. filed February 17, 2015 requesting full custody of the child and cancelling C.J.S.'s parenting time. The evidence heard over the last three days does not support the order sought and it was not pursued by T.M.L. at this hearing.

Accordingly, that application is dismissed. [ 3 ] Number 39 on the list is C.J.S.'s reply and counterclaim to T.M.L.'s application to vary parenting time and is noted as number 33 above. In the counterclaim C.J.S. also seeks a review of parenting time and parenting responsibilities and a variation of the order of Judge Skilnick from September 29, 2014. The issues relating to parenting time and parenting responsibilities will be adjourned as per my comments above regarding T.M.L.'s application.

However, one aspect of the counterclaim is a request for an order that T.M.L. be prohibited from relocating outside the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Mission or Maple Ridge.

This part of his counterclaim will be dealt with in these reasons. [ 4 ] Number 49 on the list is C.J.S.'s application to prohibit the relocation of the child and related orders such as granting him sole guardianship of the child, giving him sole parenting responsibilities and the primary residence of the child and an enforcement order and a prohibition against relocation by T.M.L. [ 5 ] The application for sole guardianship, parenting responsibilities and to change the primary residence to his residence is all dismissed.

Those issues were decided by Judge Skilnick in the hearing on September 29, 2014 and I am not satisfied that those issues should be revisited at this time. However, as indicated above, I am prepared to hear the parties further on the issue of parenting time in early February 2016 and I will ask the parties to obtain a half hour hearing before me upon conclusion of these reasons and I pause to note that the order which is in place now gives C.J.S. all weekends and T.M.L. would like some weekend time with the child to spend and to do some activities and I think that is a reasonable position.

I also note that the order of Judge Skilnick did not deal with spring break, summer break and Christmas break and I think the parties should have an opportunity to resolve those issues to avoid further conflict on that, so I will be prepared to hear further in early February from the parties regarding parenting time and how to fairly deal with that in light of the rest of the ruling that is to follow. [ 6 ] Accordingly, in these reasons I will address the relocation issue and the child and spousal support issues and anything that might be related to those issues.

I note that these reasons are being prepared after three days of hearing evidence. Perhaps it would be preferable to have taken more time to organize these reasons, however, I feel it is important for a decision to be rendered today and it will become evident why shortly. [ 7 ] The parties have been in a relationship since 1993 and I believe have cohabited since that time. They are from Ontario and that is where their extended families reside. They have no family in British Columbia. They moved to British Columbia in 1998 and there is one child of the relationship, M.S., born (omitted for publishing].

The parties separated on May 15, 2013 and have been in an acrimonious state since that time. [ 8 ] I do not intend to assign more blame to one party or the other in these reasons and there is no winner in this case; however, it is clear to me that both parties are responsible for the present state of affairs and have done a disservice to their daughter by their actions. It is clear to me that T.M.L. has suffered trauma by the events subsequent to the separation and C.J.S. bears some responsibility for this.

Subsequent to the separation C.J.S. has been charged with assault and harassing T.M.L., however, all charges against him were stayed. I am not able to determine whether anything criminal occurred between these parties, however, it is clear to me that some of the actions of C.J.S. have contributed to T.M.L.'s trauma and in

part led to her actions in relocating with M.S. to Sooke, British Columbia in contravention of a previous court order and the process that was required to be undertaken before relocating. [ 9 ] I should note that the order of Judge Skilnick from September 29, 2014 is a final order after what I am told was a short trial wherein T.M.L. and C.J.S. were deemed to be guardians of the child and due to the high conflict between the parties, T.M.L. was given all parenting responsibilities.

C.J.S. was given parenting time with the child from Fridays at noon on non-school days or after school on school days with a return to school Monday morning or noon if a non-school day. This order recognized C.J.S.'s active involvement in the child's life and the conflict between the parties. The court attempted to achieve a balance that would hopefully improve relations between the parties over time. Unfortunately, that has not occurred. [ 10 ] Subsequent to the order of Judge Skilnick the following occurred. T.M.L. obtained employment in Sooke, British Columbia in January 2015.

The child was taken out of elementary school on January 26, 2015 for home schooling. Since the second week of February 2015 C.J.S. has had to access his daughter, M.S., from Vancouver Island to exercise his parenting time. T.M.L.'s lease on her apartment in Maple Ridge ended in or about March 2015. T.M.L. rented a house in Sooke in September 2015 and also M.S. was enrolled in school in Sooke at that time, contrary to the wishes of C.J.S.

At all material times T.M.L. was aware of C.J.S.'s objection to any relocation outside the greater Maple Ridge area. [ 11 ] T.M.L. testified that she removed M.S. from [omitted for publishing] School because of significant concerns she had with M.S.'s

education and the physical environment of the school. Also, she says that M.S. was having difficulties with establishing friendships and appropriate boundaries with other students. Although there is some merit to what she says, and this was in

part confirmed by the principal, Mr. Obert, I am unable to accept this reason for removing M.S. from school after hearing the evidence of the principal, Mr. Obert. Mr. Obert testified that [omitted for publishing] School is a small school and he was actively involved in the school as the principal and as a teacher.

In the spring of 2014 he met the parents to discuss some issues that M.S. was having, but in his view it was not so significant that it should lead to the removal of the child from the school; he simply wanted to advise the parents of the issue and to try to put her on a better path for friendship with other students. This was her kindergarten year. He testified, as indicated above, that there was no physical problems with the school the following year, however, renovations were completed in the summer of 2014. He added that C.J.S. was not disruptive at the school as suggested by T.M.L.

His view on the removal of M.S. from school in January 2015 is that he was concerned that she had started to develop better friendships and he did not think it was best for her to be removed at that time. [ 12 ] The transcript of the hearing before Judge Skilnick was before me by way of an affidavit of C.J.S. sworn April 15, 2015 and marked as Exhibit 8 in this proceeding. I note in the decision of Judge Skilnick he is concerned about the hostility and harshness of words between the parties and, unfortunately, that has not really abated over time.

Importantly, regarding the relocation issue and which is squarely before me, I note that at page 40 of the transcript the court said the following: As I have mentioned earlier, I am not going to make any order with respect to the Mother's concerns about relocation because she has to notify C.J.S. properly. I found him to be a guardian and she has to follow the requirements of the Family Law Act with respect to relocation. Also, at page 32 of the transcript, counsel for T.M.L. made the following comments at lines 32 to 36: MS.

MASER: The issue of relocation is not before the court today so -- THE COURT: I am not going to deal with that. That's -- I think she's got to make -- give proper notice and -- deal with that. I point out this part of the transcript at this time because the issue of relocation without proper notice and without court approval is front and centre in this hearing. [ 13 ] In this case I must struggle with the fact that T.M.L. relocated with the child to Sooke, British Columbia, in my view, without proper notice and without court approval or the consent of C.J.S.

When notice was given in March 2015 an objection was filed by C.J.S. and at that time, unfortunately, no effort was made by T.M.L. to return the child to the Lower Mainland and remedy the obvious disregard for the clear provisions of the Family Law Act and the comments of Judge Skilnick at the September 29, 2014 hearing. [ 14 ] Even though there has been an order in place after the hearing in September 2014 which essentially splits the parenting time between the parties quite evenly, but perhaps slightly in favour of T.M.L., C.J.S. has exercised all of his parenting time.

It appears that C.J.S. has had every weekend with the child for a considerable period of time and he is available to carry on with this due to his self- employment and a substantial part of his income being derived from online sales. It is clear he is very active in the child's life and has participated in school activities as well as recreational activities. Of course, and this goes without saying, T.M.L. has been also actively involved in the child's life and the primary caretaker of the child since her birth.

There is no doubt that both parties care deeply about this child and wish to spend as much time with her as possible and from what I heard from T.M.L., the child also wants to spend as much time with each parent as possible. It is also apparent to me that both parents are equally capable of parenting this child and will remain active in the child's life regardless of the decision I must make in this case. [ 15 ] Division 6 of the Family Law Act sets out the rules regarding relocation.

Relocation is defined as a change in the location of the residence of the child that can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on the child's relationship with a guardian, so the first question that must be answered in this case is whether the proposed relocation to Sooke, British Columbia comes within the definition of a significant impact. In my view, this relocation does have a significant impact on the child's relationship with C.J.S.

I find that the impact is significant because it is now reducing C.J.S.'s parenting time by at least one night a week and there is a lot more travel time involved in exercising parenting time and, further, there is a considerable expense involved as well.

I find the de facto move or relocation to Sooke, British Columbia falls within the definition of relocation pursuant to s. 65 of the Family Law Act . [ 16 ] Pursuant to s. 66 of the Act , a guardian who plans to relocate must give all other guardians and persons at least 60 days written notice of the date of the relocation and the name of the proposed relocation. Based on the evidence I have heard, it appears to me that the relocation commenced in or about January or February 2015 and notice was not given until March 2015 by text and email.

The relocation was not complete until September 2015 when T.M.L. rented premises and enrolled M.S. in elementary school, however, it did commence in January and February 2015 prior to the notice being given.

I appreciate that T.M.L. was in a state of flux at the time and was suffering trauma related to the breakdown of the relationship and this, in part, led to what I would consider ill-advised decisions regarding how to proceed in improving and moving forward with her life. [ 17 ] As indicated above, T.M.L. testified that in January 2015 she had already obtained employment in Sooke, British Columbia at the [omitted for publishing] gas station and was staying with her Aunt J.'s boyfriend, who had a house there.

Her only connection to Sooke, B.C. was her Aunt J., who has been an important part of her life since a very young age. I note that J. is not her biological aunt but she refers to her as an aunt due to the close relationship they have shared their entire life. [ 18 ] I have no doubt that T.M.L. was aware that she was required to give written notice of her intended move but for reasons that are not well explained, in my view she proceeded with the relocation in any case.

I have no doubt that T.M.L. was aware that C.J.S. opposed the relocation as per his reply and counterclaim filed March 27, 2015 where he seeks an order prohibiting the relocation outside the Greater Vancouver area and his April 22, 2015 notice of motion where he seeks an order prohibiting relocation. [ 19 ] In the affidavit of T.M.L. dated June 12, 2015 at paragraph 26 she states, and I will be paraphrasing somewhat, "So now I lived with my friend in Mission until the relocation hearing. I spent a great deal of time in Sooke with my family. M.S. just thriving now since we spend a lot of time here.

She has made friends with the children in our area. She loves to spend time with her Aunt J. She

thinks it's so awesome that we could maybe live here and may be able to walk to school with her new friends and be able to ride her bike to the ocean." [ 20 ] Also, there is an affidavit of September 29, 2015 which is Exhibit 12. This affidavit refers to accommodating C.J.S.'s parenting time and discusses the enrollment of the child at a school in Sooke. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the affidavit are of interest and I quote: 10. I discussed the issue of enrolling M.S. in school with the respondent.

While the respondent was agreeable to M.S. attending a regular school as opposed to home school the respondent and I could not agree which school M.S. should be enrolled in. The respondent advised that he wanted M.S. to be enrolled in a private school in Maple Ridge, B.C. 11. As the respondent and I were unable to come to an agreement despite discussion, I made the decision to enroll M.S. in Sooke Elementary commencing September 2015. Pursuant to paragraph 1(

d) to the order of The Honourable Judge Skilnick September 29, 2014 I have the sole parenting responsibility for making decisions respecting M.S.'s education and participating in extracurricular activities, including the nature, extent and location.

I pause to note that by the time M.S. is enrolled in public school in Sooke, T.M.L. was well aware of C.J.S.'s opposition to the relocation and that a hearing had been set or was in the process of being set to decide the issue. [ 21 ] In these circumstances, to go ahead and not only relocate based on the order of Judge Skilnick in September 2014, which did not support the move, and the provisions of the Family Law Act , it shows a blatant disregard for the process set out in law.

What is apparent from the evidence is that between January and September 2015, T.M.L. had established herself in Sooke, British Columbia by obtaining some employment as she discussed in her evidence and by renting premises. She did all of this knowing that the relocation was being effected and a court would have to unravel or potentially unravel what occurred to the likely detriment of the child.

In short, she took a chance, hoping that either C.J.S. would accept her relocation or the court would have sympathy for her position and her decision to relocate to Sooke and find that to be in the best interests of the child. I appreciate that T.M.L. was distraught over the behaviour of C.J.S., who she described as controlling during their relationship and abusive subsequent to their separation.

It struck me that her feelings were justified and that it was likely that C.J.S. had behaved inappropriately and not in the best interests of the child since the course of their separation; however, that does not explain taking unilateral action contrary to the clear requirements of the law and clearly interfering with the order of Judge Skilnick that recognized C.J.S.'s active involvement in the child's life. [ 22 ] I pause to note that going forward C.J.S. must recognize that during T.M.L.'s parenting time, it is her parenting time and that cannot be interfered with by trying to direct what babysitters will be used or what activities the child will be participating in.

His parenting time is his parenting time and her parenting time is her parenting time and perhaps if there was a bit more understanding of that we would not be here today. [ 23 ] T.M.L. filed further affidavits from January 11, 2016. Exhibit 6 is the first one. In that T.M.L. explains the history that has repeated in previous affidavits and provides some further details of her life in Sooke and the school where her daughter has been attending since September 2015. Since moving to the Island T.M.L. is no longer on social assistance, she is able to support herself and the child.

They go to the library on Tuesdays, Wednesdays they go swimming with neighbourhood children and yoga on Thursdays. She works part time for [omitted for publishing] making $32 per hour. This is an on-call job. She also has a full-time position as a nanny, allowing her to work earning 900 to $1400 a month in a way that does not interrupt her time with M.S. She earns 300 to $320 per week at this job. She lives in a two-bedroom house that has a yard on a non-busy street so M.S. can play outside safely. In Mission they lived in a lower apartment with no yard and on a busy street.

She proposes that the simplest way for ongoing parenting time with C.J.S. is by flying from Victoria to Abbotsford; however, C.J.S. chooses the most difficult mode of transportation, being by ferry.

Both parties testified, I pause to note, that M.S. likes the ferry, she enjoys the ferry ride, and it seems to me that allowing the child to choose the form of transportation is reasonable since the relocation, really, in February 2015 to ease the transition that she had to endure by the relocation. [ 24 ] In any case, T.M.L. in this application complains about having no leisure time with M.S. because the order of Judge Skilnick did not give her any weekends. She proposes summer time as one week on and one week off in her affidavit.

I find that a reasonable proposal and that is something I will entertain when I deal with the parenting time issue in February. [ 25 ] As indicated above, the only connection T.M.L. has to Sooke is her Aunt J., who has now relocated there from the Lower Mainland and works at the hospital in Nanaimo. T.M.L. testified to having a boyfriend who has a connection to Sooke but he works in Alberta three weeks a month and he would visit her wherever she lived and that was not a reason she chose to relocate to Sooke.

T.M.L. was specifically asked why she did not follow the proper procedure in seeking a court order for relocation prior to going ahead with the relocation. She accepts very little responsibility for following this course. She says she did give C.J.S. notice, she was traumatically harassed, she tried to come back and forth to the Lower Mainland but every time she came back here something bad would happen so she ended up spending more and more time in Sooke and ended up relocating there. She also says Judge Raven in her previous hearing gave her tacit approval for the relocation. In my view, that is not correct.

Judge Raven dealt with this matter on an interim basis and did not want to prejudge the issue so did not interfere with the status quo that had been created by T.M.L. without consent or court approval. It is clear from T.M.L.'s evidence that M.S. is very happy in Sooke with some new friends and established herself in her new school. [ 26 ] I agree with Mr. Chapman on behalf of C.J.S. that this situation goes beyond just looking at the best interests of this individual child.

The relocation provisions that require notice and if there is an objection, court approval for relocation prior to the relocation, protects all children and not just one particular child involved in one incident. [ 27 ] In terms of the best interests of this child, in my view, it is in the best interests of M.S. to be close to both parents and that is why she must be returned to the Lower Mainland. I will deal with the orders to be imposed shortly. [ 28 ] I do note I am relying on the case of L.G.R. and S.W.R.

(2013) BCSC 1344, a decision of Mr. Justice Betton. Paragraph 62 of that decision on page 13 he states: Not surprisingly, both s. 46 and Division 6 clearly contemplate dealing with issues of relocation in advance of it actually occurring.

Division 6 is more specific in that respect.

Section 66 requires notice of relocation, and s. 67 requires the guardians and those having contact with the child to use their best efforts to resolve any issues relating to the proposed relocation. This is consistent with the language used in

Part 2 - Resolution of Family Law Disputes. These provisions govern the resolution of all disputes within the scope of the Act including relocation... [63]

Section 69 deals with applications for relocation that may follow. It does not preclude applications where notice is not given or where best efforts to cooperate with each other have not been undertaken between the parties, but the failure to satisfy these requirements is part of the good faith analysis required in s. 69(4). Good faith is defined in s. 69(6)... [64] As noted, whether s. 69(4) or (5) is applicable, the relocating guardian must satisfy the court that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and that they have proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the relationships between the child and other enumerated parties. [70] Section 69(4) (a) (

I) requires the applicant to show that the proposed relocation is made in good faith. The phrase “good faith” is defined in s. 69(6) to include...four considerations. Those are: (

a) The reasons for the proposed relocation;

b) Whether the proposed relocation is likely to enhance the general quality of life of the child and, if applicable, of the relocating guardian, including increasing emotional well-being or financial or educational opportunities; (

c) Whether notice was given under

section 66...; (

d) Any restrictions on relocation contained in a written agreement or an order. [71] Good faith is a subjectively held state of mind. Yet, some of the above characteristics are undoubtedly objective. I find that to the extent a factor listed in s. 69(6) is objective, a positive or negative finding suggests an inference that the relocating guardian either possessed or did not possess the required subjective good faith.

I pause to note in this case the applicant who wished to relocate had already relocated with the child to Texas. [ 29 ] In the L.J.R. case the court found proper notice was given of the relocation; however, in my view, in the case at bar proper notice was not given and that impacts the good faith analysis. However, firstly dealing with the reasons for the proposed relocation, in the case at bar the reasons for the proposed relocation to Sooke have been set out above in my judgment.

They include the environment created by living in Sooke, the ability to walk to school, the fresh air, being close to the ocean, and being close to her closest friend or relative, Aunt J., in that area. Also, T.M.L. is able to make a better life for herself in terms of employment and reduce trauma that appears to be related to being further away from the respondent, C.J.S., who resides in Maple Ridge. [ 30 ] I find that the reason for the applicant's move do support a finding of good faith. T.M.L. was clearly trying to carve out a better life for herself and the child due to the trauma she was suffering from.

I do not attribute the entire trauma she is suffering from C.J.S. At some point we all must take responsibility for ourselves and that is what she was trying to do. She was trying to improve her life and the child's life by living in a better environment and being in a more supportive situation and for those reasons, the reasons for the proposed relocation, I find, are evidence of some good faith and weigh in favour of finding good faith in this case. [ 31 ] "(

b) Whether the proposed relocation is likely to enhance the general quality of life of the child and, if applicable, of the relocating guardian, including increased emotional well-being or financial or educational opportunities." In my view, this has two aspects to it. In one sense it does improve the general quality of the life of the relocating guardian which would impact the general well- being of the child as well. There also appears to be financial and educational opportunities available to her.

However, there are financial and educational opportunities available in the Lower Mainland and overall the disruption of the parenting time of the father as the result of this relocation, in my view, does not increase the well-being of the child. The child, in my view, is better off residing close to both parents due to their essentially shared parenting time, so in my view this factor is not supportive of a finding of good faith. [ 32 ] (

c) Is whether notice was given under s. 66? Although notice was given in this case, in my view it was not the type of notice one would expect. The notice should have been prior to the relocation and in my view the relocation had already started prior to the notice. Accordingly, this does not support a finding of good faith. [ 33 ] Lastly, here (

d) is any restrictions on relocations contained in a written agreement or an order. In my view, as in the L.J.R. case, T.M.L. has effectively relocated prior to the hearing that is being concluded today. Reasons are articulated by T.M.L. for the move but the fact that remains in the face of an outstanding application and an order dealing with parenting time in favour of C.J.S. the relocation occurred.

As in the L.J.R. case, the only conclusion that could be drawn from that is that this is a significant factor weighing against a finding of good faith. [ 34 ] In all the circumstances I am not satisfied that the applicant has established that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and, therefore, the relocation cannot be allowed. [ 35 ] I note that there is a discussion in the L.J.R. case about where you go from there if there is a finding of a lack of good faith. The conclusion reached by Mr.

Justice Betton in L.J.R. is that if there is no good faith then the provisions of the Act do not provide for considering the best interests of the child in allowing the relocation in any case.

I feel that I am bound by that analysis and I accept it; however, if I was permitted to go on to discuss best interests of the child, in my view, it is in the best interests of the child considering the factors in s. 37 to be in the same locality of her father and both parents and, accordingly, if the best interest analysis was required I find it is in the best interests of the child to be relocated back to the Lower Mainland. [ 36 ] The other issue I am dealing with is child and spousal support and I will discuss that at this time.

I accept that C.J.S. did not intentionally miss the December 2014 hearing where he was imputed with income of $40,000 per year and ordered to pay $374 in child

support and $400 in spousal support. At this hearing C.J.S. relies on financial statement that he filed that he says indicates $41,000 net income for the 2015 tax year. That is based on gross income of $70,000 and claimed expenses of $29,000. I note that no financial statements are provided so there is no basis to challenge his numbers. I am concerned that the numbers might not be accurate since he is self-employed and runs a retail business where he is the only one who knows about the actual income and actual expenses.

Accordingly, I am skeptical of the number provided in light of the deficiencies in the evidence, that is, in C.J.S.'s control. [ 37 ] I find that T.M.L. has been economically disadvantaged by the marriage and by the separation. She was a homemaker for a period of time after the separation and was essentially shut out of the family business by C.J.S. In my view, considering T.M.L.’s education and limited work history, an extended period of spousal support should be ordered. I rely on Division 4 of the Family Law Act - Spousal Support and provisions, and ss. 160 and 161 and 162.

I recognize the economic disadvantage arising from the relationship for T.M.L. and the advantage to C.J.S. from the relationship and the breakdown. I also note in his evidence he testified to selling off some assets that totalled, if my recollection is correct, over $35,000 and there was no indication that that money was shared with T.M.L.

And so there has been financial consequences to the detriment of T.M.L. and an extended spousal support order will promote economic self- sufficiency of each spouse and T.M.L. indicated that it is her goal to become self-sufficient as soon as possible and she was on that track in Sooke; however, now that she will likely be returning to the Lower Mainland that will be interrupted. [ 38 ] In my view, considering all of the above, a period of five years for spousal support is warranted and that will run, subject to any further submissions, from December 2014 to December 2019.

The child support will remain as it is, based on an income of $40,000 per year, and that I find an appropriate amount of spousal support considering all the evidence I heard is $400 per month. I will make the order that each party will provide their tax returns and notice of assessments to the other party by July 1 of each year. [ 39 ] Keeping with the financial issues, the arrears of $1490 are cancelled.

I recognize that this amount includes both spousal support and child support; however, C.J.S. has had to use his child support payments to access his child due to the actions of T.M.L., who relocated without leave of the court. I also recognize that Judge Raven made an order in September 2015 directing that T.M.L. compensate C.J.S. $240 per week for travel expenses related to accessing M.S. To date $900 in contributions have been provided by T.M.L. to C.J.S. for this travel.

Accordingly, at this time there leaves a balance of $730 owing, taking into consideration the $900 that has been paid and the $1490 that is in arrears that has been cancelled. These figures will have to be brought up to date as time proceeds until the child is returned to the jurisdiction. I will maintain the order that there will be an ongoing contribution of $240 per week for travel expenses until the relocation back to the Lower Mainland is affected. I will leave the calculation to counsel to put properly in an order. [ 40 ] Accordingly, the orders that I make regarding the relocation will be as follows.

I make an order prohibiting the relocation of the child from the Mission, Abbotsford, Maple Ridge area. Pursuant to the Family Law Act , the child shall be returned to the Mission, Abbotsford, Maple Ridge area as soon as practicable, but no later than January 31, 2016. [ 41 ] Now, are any further orders needed at this time? I am adjourning the parenting time issues to -- I am going to ask that Mr.

Chapman obtain the date for early February because I want to be updated as to what has occurred between now and January 31st and I want to deal with parenting time going forward so that T.M.L. has some weekend time and we deal with the spring breaks, summer breaks and winter breaks. Mr. Chapman, do we need any further orders at this time? [ 42 ] MR. CHAPMAN: I don't believe we need any further orders. Just one clarification on the arrears owing. I think you had said 490, I think it's 1490. [ 43 ] THE COURT: 1490 arrears are cancelled. [ 44 ] MR.

CHAPMAN: That's the only thing at this point, Your Honour. [ 45 ] THE COURT: Right. There is a set-off. That amount is set off as to what is owed. [ 46 ] MR. CHAPMAN: Okay, 1490 set off against -- [indiscernible] I can calculate the net. [ 47 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 48 ] MR. CHAPMAN: Okay, I will do that. [ 49 ] THE COURT: Which I believe was $730. [ 50 ] MR. CHAPMAN: Yes. [ 51 ] THE COURT: Right. And now one question I did have. I did say the Mission, Abbotsford, Maple Ridge area.

Would it be simpler if we did a kilometre basis, like, I am thinking within -- T.M.L. has parenting responsibility, she has the right to choose a residence and the location of the residence. I do not want to unduly restrict her, I am thinking. I did say Mission, Maple Ridge and Abbotsford. Perhaps that is unduly restrictive. Do you have any comments on that Mr. Chapman? (DISCUSSION) [ 52 ] THE COURT: Chilliwack would certainly be within the reasonable jurisdiction, so I am going to say within 65 kilometres, we will keep it as that.

It is within 65 kilometres of the residence on Lougheed Highway of C.J.S., and obviously that is subject to a further application or review, T.M.L., since you have the right to choose a residence, but the next one will be done with approval of the court, I assume. [ 53 ] T.M.L.: Of course. [ 54 ] THE COURT: Yes. All right, so let's do it that way.

[ 55 ] And I did not make this part of the order, but in my view it probably would be a good thing to enroll your child in the public school system if you are moving to Chilliwack, but obviously Judge Skilnick gave you that authority to decide so I am going to leave it with you. [ 56 ] T.M.L.: And when we come back to court is that when you want to discuss that or -- [ 57 ] THE COURT: No, that's not on the table. On the table is parenting time. That's what I want to discuss at the next hearing.

I want to know what has happened since my order and I want to know if there is some resolution we could achieve regarding parenting time. I do not intend to interfere with Judge Skilnick's order giving you parenting responsibilities. [ 58 ] T.M.L.: Okay. [ 59 ] THE COURT: So you are going to be the one who decides what school the child attends. [ 60 ] T.M.L.: Okay. [ 61 ] THE COURT: But I think as part of this order I am prepared to order that C.J.S. be given parenting responsibilities under s. 49, is it (f), as this was by consent.

I am going to order a variation of Judge Skilnick's order of September 29, 2014 giving C.J.S. parenting responsibilities under 41(

j) of the Family Law Act which allows him to request and receive from third parties health, education or other information respecting the child. I know you do that already but C.J.S. will have that formally in case any school asks him for proof that he is allowed to get that information directly. All right? [ 62 ] T.M.L.: Yes. I just have one question. [ 63 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 64 ] T.M.L.: [Indiscernible] happens. I just want to check the date that I am to move back.

Is that January 31st? [ 65 ] THE COURT: It is as soon as practicable, but no later than January 31st. [ 66 ] T.M.L.: I don't know if I can find a place in that time, Your Honour. [ 67 ] THE COURT: I know it is short notice but this situation has created an unfairness to C.J.S., in my view, and so you are going to be required to make your best efforts and if -- we are setting a date for early February so if issues arise, you will address it with me early February.

I am not making an order sending the police out to take the child from you, I decline to make any such order at this time, so it's -- I expect you to do all that you can to attempt to comply with the terms of this order and I am hoping C.J.S. is reasonable in perhaps assisting you in any way he can to facilitate your move back to the Lower Mainland. I am sure he is anxious to have that accomplished and perhaps if some assistance is needed he will be there to assist you, leaving aside what has happened in the past. [ 68 ] T.M.L.: Okay.

I have one more question. [ 69 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 70 ] T.M.L.: It's about pick-up and drop-off. [ 71 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 72 ] T.M.L.: Is it possible that we have a terminal or some sort where there's [indiscernible] security for pick-up and drop-off? [ 73 ] THE COURT: Well, I am prepared to deal with those issues on the next time we meet here in person; however, I am going to suggest if there -- the pick-up and drop-off would have to be at a location that is not -- I am not making any order today, but that is not inconvenient to you or C.J.S.

A local police station, there's police stations everywhere and, you know, the parking lot of a police station has cameras everywhere, or at a courthouse. That's also a public place. I don't think it needs to be a ferry terminal or an airport. [ 74 ] T.M.L.: Okay. I have -- [ 75 ] THE COURT: And I assume C.J.S. absolutely does not want any further problems, does not want to be arrested again, and does not want any criminal charges.

I assume by this point, getting his child back here he is going to be very relieved at the situation and is going to do everything he can to avoid conflict with you. [ 76 ] T.M.L.: Okay. I have two more questions about costs. [ 77 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 78 ] T.M.L.: Both about [indiscernible] payments that C.J.S. applied for and received. [ 79 ] THE COURT: Yes. How much was that? [ 80 ] T.M.L.: It was for $500, I believe, around and about. [ 81 ] THE COURT: Right. Mr. Chapman, do you agree that that money should have gone to T.M.L.? [ 82 ] MR.

CHAPMAN: I am not sure of the circumstances in which it came to C.J.S. but there's no issue that T.M.L. had primary control of the child at that time, so perhaps if this --

[ 83 ] THE COURT: That 500 should be credited to -- [ 84 ] MR. CHAPMAN: Against the 730. [ 85 ] THE COURT: Yes. So, yes, T.M.L., that $500 will be credited to you. (DISCUSSION) [ 86 ] THE COURT: I also think it is appropriate to impose a conduct order, and I will read this to both parties: The parties will: (

a) put the best interests of the children before their own interest; (

b) encourage the child to have a good relationship with the other party and speak to the child about the other parent and that parent's partner in a positive and respectful manner; and (

c) make a real effort to maintain polite, respectful communications with each other, refraining from any negative or hostile criticism, communication or argument in front of the child. The parties will not: (

a) question the child about the other parent or time spent with the other parent beyond simple conversational questions; (

b) discuss with the children any inappropriate adult, court or legal matters or see blame, criticize or disparage the other parent to the child. Do you understand that? [ 87 ] T.M.L.: I do. [ 88 ] THE COURT: C.J.S., do you understand that? [ 89 ] C.J.S.: I do. [ 90 ] THE COURT: All right. That is going to be part of this order as well. And I am going to remain seized of all matters between the parties going forward as long as I am a resident judge here in Abbotsford. J.I. SOLOMON Provincial Court Judge