K.W. v. N.Q, 2019 BCPC 278

Citation: K.W. v. N.Q 2019 BCPC 278 Date: 20191011 File No: F40446 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: K.W. APPLICANT AND: N.Q. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE R.N. HAMILTON

Counsel for the Applicant: S. Bobb Counsel for the Respondent: M. Dyonisius Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: May 13, 14, 16, 2019; September 3, 4, 6,19, 20, 2019 Date of Judgment: October 11, 2019 Introduction [ 1 ] At the heart of this relocation application is a perfectly adorable two-year-old toddler, A.W. (“A.”), born [omitted for publication]. [ 2 ] A.'s parents are K.W. (“Mr. W.”) and N.Q. (“Ms. Q.”). Mr. W. hails from Coquitlam and Ms.

Q. has lived in a number of different communities through her childhood, adolescence and adulthood; Smithers, Hazelton, Nunavut, [omitted for publication], Alberta and Edmonton. [ 3 ] Mr. W. and Ms. Q. had what I would describe as a relatively short relationship. They met in the spring or summer of 2016 when Ms. Q. was attending the British Columbia Institute of Technology. They moved in together in the spring of 2017 when Ms. Q. was pregnant with A. and they separated on [omitted for publication] when A. was less than five weeks old. [ 4 ] On this application Ms.

Q. applies for a final order permitting her to relocate A. from British Columbia to [omitted for publication], Alberta, where she resides with her father and step-mother on a 350-acre farm. Mr. W. opposes A.'s relocation and proposes that he provide A.'s primary residence in South Surrey, where he lives with his current partner, S.G., and her five-year-old son J. [ 5 ] As I said to the parties at the end of their counsel's submissions, relocation cases like this, where the court is faced with two capable and invested parents, present one of the most difficult cases the court must decide.

No matter how I decide this case, A.'s relationships with both of her parents will be materially affected. Nonetheless, this case is before me for decision, and these are my reasons for allowing A.'s relocation to [omitted for publication], Alberta. Background [ 6 ] Mr. W. is 28 years old; Ms. Q. is 25 years old. They met in 2016 while Ms. Q. was attending BCIT to further her qualifications as an electrician. On the evidence before me in this hearing, Ms. Q. has only ever worked in Alberta as an adult. In particular, she has worked in the oil fields in Northern Alberta.

Following her education at BCIT she obtained a job with an oil company in Northern Alberta where she was flown in to the camp to work for two weeks and then returned to the Lower Mainland for one week. She obtained this job in the very early stages of her relationship with Mr. W. By early 2017 Ms. Q. was pregnant with A. [ 7 ] While both parties led evidence that one or the other raised the issue of aborting A., that evidence was irrelevant, because little A. is with us today and both her parents love her dearly.

Why it is that either party thought that evidence concerning thoughts of aborting A. would be relevant now is difficult to understand in light of the clear love and affection both parents cherish with their little daughter. I suppose that evidence was led in an ill-advised attempt to make the other parent look bad with thoughts of terminating the fetus, but if both parties could just step back from this fight for even a moment, I believe they would recognize that given their undeniable love and affection for A., any doubts about the other party's desire to become a parent are irrelevant.

Unfortunately, the focus of these parties on this fight clouded their judgment, leading them to lead evidence and dwell on irrelevant matters such as the formula issue and S.N. (“Mr. N.”), both of which I will return to later in this decision. [ 8 ] As I have indicated, following her education at BCIT Ms. Q. obtained employment in the oil fields in Northern Alberta. She became pregnant and ultimately moved in with Mr. W. into the basement of his family home in Coquitlam. These two young adults, expecting their first child, struggled with living in the W. family home.

Also living in the home were B.W. and P.W., Mr. W.'s parents, and N.W., Mr. W.'s sister. On top of all that, B.W. was operating a daycare out of her home, with five to seven children ranging in age from one to 12 years old coming to the home each day. [ 9 ] To put this into perspective, within the first year of their relationship K.W. and N.Q. met, got pregnant, Ms. Q. finished her education at BCIT and found work in Northern Alberta, they moved into the basement of Mr. W.'s family home where his mother ran a daycare, and Ms.

Q.'s immediate family lived far away, either in Northern B.C. or in Northern Alberta. [ 10 ] In [omitted for publication] 2017, Ms. Q. went on maternity leave. On [omitted for publication], A. was born, and on [omitted for publication] K.W. filed this lawsuit and arranged for his father to serve the lawsuit on Ms. Q. while they were still living together in the W. family home. Not surprisingly, Ms. Q. chose to leave the relationship with Mr. W. after being served with the lawsuit, but she had nowhere to go.

She asked for, and received assistance with, living quarters for herself and one-month-old A. from a cousin, J.J. (“Ms. J.”), who gave up a room in her home for Ms. Q. and A. with the result that Ms. J.’s son was relegated to sleeping on the floor. So it started what has turned out to be a protracted court case that, since January of 2018, has occupied six days before Judge Weatherly and eight days before me. [ 11 ] Judge Weatherly presided over a combined interim parenting time application brought by Mr. W. and an interim relocation application brought by Ms. Q.

In his decision given October 16, 2018, Judge Weatherly dismissed Ms. Q.'s interim relocation application and ordered these parents to share parenting time with A. equally on a two week on/two week off schedule. At the time of Judge Weatherly's decision Ms. Q. had moved back to Alberta, and so since October 16, 2018, A. has been travelling between [omitted for publication], Alberta, some three-and-a-half hours north of Edmonton, to Vancouver, and back again, every two weeks.

To ask that kind of travel from an adult is a tall order, but to expect a one-year-old child to cope with that kind of travel is exceptional. [ 12 ] To be fair, A. has endured this arduous travel/parenting relationship because Ms. Q. moved back home to [omitted for publication] with her father and step-mother, and she did so in the face of Mr. W.'s objection and without the court's approval. Having

said that, Ms. Q. was coming to the end of her maternity benefits in [omitted for publication] of 2018. She had sent out job applications in British Columbia, but had not succeeded in securing local employment. Her employment background was entirely in Alberta. She applied for and secured a job in Edmonton; she returned to Alberta. [ 13 ] While it is easy to dissect that narrative and criticize the choices made by Ms. Q., taking a more global view of her predicament it is understandable why she moved back to Alberta. That is where she had a history of gainful and well-remunerated employment.

She had never held a job in B.C., and the cost of living in B.C. for a 24-year-old mother with a one-year-old child and no roots in the Lower Mainland was prohibitive. She applied for jobs here, unsuccessfully. [ 14 ] Mr. W. argues that Ms. Q. did not try hard enough and that Ms. Q.'s goal all along was to relocate A. back to Alberta. I am not sure I agree with the assertion that Ms. Q. did not try hard enough to find employment in B.C. She is an intelligent, well-educated, professionally trained electrician, whose only work experience was in the oil fields in Northern Alberta.

She adduced evidence of a number of jobs she unsuccessfully applied for in British Columbia. [ 15 ] Mr. W. has had stable employment for many years with the same employer. He has not had to search the internet for a job for a long time. In addition, he has the strong support of his family; in fact, he was living at home with his parents until January 2019 when he moved in to his new partner's home. In short, Ms. Q.'s and Mr. W.'s employment and living circumstances between October 2017 and October 2018 were very different. [ 16 ] Ms.

Q.'s circumstances could fairly be described as verging on desperate; however, throughout she ensured that A. was available for her court-ordered visits, even calling on her family in Smithers to take shifts living in the Lower Mainland while Ms. Q. was working in Alberta to ensure Mr. W. and A. had their court-ordered time together. [ 17 ] On October 16, 2018, Judge Weatherly ordered the two weeks on/two weeks off parenting schedule. He also ordered that all of the costs associated with Mr. W. exercising his parenting time with A. were to be borne by Ms. Q.

To her credit, and despite some job changes since returning to Alberta, Ms. Q. has fully complied with Judge Weatherly's court order. [ 18 ] In contrast, Mr. W. has been subject to a court order to pay child support to Ms. Q. since November 2017. As of October 2018, Mr. W. stopped paying child support in contravention of that court order. Mr. W.'s counsel told me that an agreement was reached between the parties to stay the payment of child support pending a full-day child support hearing scheduled for today. Counsel for Ms. Q. denied any such agreement to stay the child support payments. [ 19 ] Ms.

Q. testified that she contacted the Alberta Family Maintenance Enforcement Program equivalent and was told they could not just ignore an ongoing support obligation, so to effect a suspension of their collection efforts, Ms. Q. would have to withdraw from their program, which either came with a cost or re-entering the program would come with a cost. [ 20 ] I have no criticism of Mr. W. looking to adjust his child support obligation in light of Judge Weatherly's 50/50 parenting regime decision, but I am critical of Mr.

W. unilaterally defying a court order with no steps taken to obtain the court's approval to completely stop all child support payments. Even if Ms. Q. and/or her counsel were unresponsive to proposed changes to the child support payments, it was incumbent on Mr. W. to do something to ensure that his conduct complied with the court order. Oddly, if Ms. Q.'s interim relocation application had been granted it would have been open to Mr.

W. to bring an undue hardship claim to reduce his child support obligation given the cost of exercising parenting time with A. living in [omitted for publication], Alberta, but under the current arrangements, Ms. Q. has no ability to advance an undue hardship claim because she is not liable for child support payments, she is receiving no child support, and bears 100 percent of the cost of delivering A. to Vancouver for her parenting time with Mr. W. [ 21 ] In a rather shocking text message exchange, Ms. Q. asks Mr. W. if he would consider coming to Alberta to visit with A. if Ms. Q. paid for his flight.

He asked the rather hard to understand question, "Why would I do that?" To which Ms. Q. replied, to take some of the strain off of her and A. travelling to Vancouver. That is where the communication on that topic ended, and I gather Mr. W. declined Ms. Q.'s generosity, which she offered with a view to making the travel easier on A. [ 22 ] I pause here to make two points. I appreciate that with the 50/50 parenting regime Mr. W. felt that he was released from his financial obligation to Ms. Q. to some degree, but he was still bound by a court order that he defied.

The situation this couple faced as of October 16, 2018 was expensive, with Ms. Q. and A. living in Alberta and Mr. W. living at home in Coquitlam. I understand that Ms. Q. was ordered to bear all of the financial costs of their expensive circumstances, but knowing that all of the time and cost of travelling was born by Ms. Q. and A., it would have been nice to see Mr. W. step up and provide even modest relief by accepting Ms. Q.'s offer to fly him to Alberta to visit A.

But as we see all too often in these cases, the parties' judgment is blinded by the litigation they are involved in, and at times, and in this case, that blinded judgment takes a toll on the child at the centre of the fight. [ 23 ] My second point: It is not lost on me at all that Ms. Q. could be fairly described as the author of her own misfortune, but that was being an author out of necessity rather than poor judgment, and so while the cost to both Ms. Q. and A. has been high, I do not view Ms. Q.'s move to Alberta to have been a tactic to remove Mr. W. from A.'s life.

For reasons I have already articulated, there were many very good reasons why it made sense for Ms. Q. to move to Alberta, and so while she was and is the author of the fallout from Judge Weatherly's decision, I do not find that her decision was contrary to A.'s best interests. Indeed, Ms. Q. has gone to extraordinary lengths to remain compliant with Judge Weatherly's court order pending the decision on her application for a final order permitting her to relocate to Alberta.

Discussion and Analysis [ 24 ] Before turning to the relocation issue I wish to return to the two issues I mentioned earlier: the formula issue and S.N. A. The Formula Issue [ 25 ] This issue occupied a considerable amount of time in the evidence both in direct and in cross-examination of both Mr. W. and Ms. Q. The issue was, and is, irrelevant to the decision I have to make on this relocation application.

[ 26 ] To put this issue at its simplest, following A.'s birth, Ms. Q. was nursing their daughter with breast milk. She formed the view that feeding A. formula was causing A. discomfort and vomiting, so she believed A. was allergic to formula. Mr. W., while not outright saying this, has led me to believe that he feels Ms. Q.'s objection to formula had nothing to do with the suspected allergy, but rather was used by Ms. Q. to restrict or limit Mr. W.'s parenting time with A., especially overnight visits. But as I pointed out during closing submissions, Mr. W.'s parenting

schedule was set pursuant to a consent order at their family case conference on November 28, 2017, and was further adjusted following a contested hearing before Judge Weatherly on January 19, 2018. While the parties had several further days of hearing before Judge Weatherly between January 2018 and August 2018, Mr. W.'s parenting

schedule was secured by a court order following the hearing on January 19, 2018. [ 27 ] It turns out that A. was not allergic to formula as determined by the paediatrician, Dr. Prevost, as set out in his letter dated July 17, 2018, but he also said the feeding regime A. was on was "an entirely acceptable practice." So with this four to 10-month-old child on an acceptable feeding practice and two parents fighting each other in court over multiple days before Judge Weatherly, I believe they both lost sight of compromises they could have made to reduce the conflict while still looking out for A.'s best interests.

Regardless, as of July 17, 2018 the formula issue was resolved, and certainly, by October 16, 2018, with the release of Judge Weatherly's decision, the formula issue was resolved. That issue is now irrelevant and should never have occupied as much time as it did in this hearing. B. S.N. [ 28 ] Mr. N. came and testified for Mr. W. These two men had never sat down and had a conversation with each other prior to Mr. N.’s appearance in court before me. [ 29 ] Mr. N. and Ms. Q. were in an intimate relationship between August 2018 and some point in 2019. Ms. Q. described the relationship as casual. Mr.

N. described the relationship as serious. I have not been able to decipher why Mr. W. thought calling Mr. N. to testify was either relevant or a good idea. Mr. N. is clearly angry. His reference to Ms. Q. in a text message or Facebook message to some unknown Mr. L., referring to her as a whore, speaks volumes about his perspective and immaturity. He went so far as to state in court that he came to court to testify for Mr. W., having never spoken to the man, because Mr. N. objects to Ms. Q.'s application to relocate A. to Alberta. I was left with the impression that Mr. N. objects to Ms. Q., period.

He is clearly a jilted ex-lover who thought there was more to his relationship with Ms. Q. than was actually there for Ms. Q. [ 30 ] I also formed the view that Mr. N. came to court to testify, not because he had anything of value to add to this case, but in a poorly-constructed attempt to exact some revenge against Ms. Q. for whatever she did; that justified, in Mr. N.’s world, calling her a whore. Shortly put, Mr. W.'s decision to call Mr. N. as a witness was, at best, ill-advised. Mr. N. only added his anger with Ms. Q. into the evidence in this case which was neither relevant nor helpful. C.

Relocation [ 31 ] Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Family Law Act (“ FLA ” ) govern my decision in this case. In fact, the parties agree that those sections govern my analysis; they just disagree on the outcome of this case when considering and applying s. 37 of the FLA which sets out the factors to consider when determining which decision meets the best interests of A. [ 32 ] The leading case on a relocation application pursuant to s. 46 of the Family Law Act is the British Columbia Court of Appeal's decision in K.W. v.

L.H. , 2018 BCCA 204 , which states clearly at paragraphs 91 and 92 that in a relocation application where there is no separation agreement or parenting agreement between the parties, then the relocation application is to be decided pursuant to s. 46, regardless of whether there have been interim parenting time orders made in advance of the substantive hearing. [ 33 ] The relevant provisions of s. 45 and 46 of the Family Law Act say this: 45(1) On application by a guardian, a court may make an order respecting one or more of the following: (

a) the allocation of parental responsibilities; (

b) parenting time; [ 34 ] Section 46(1) says this: This

section applies if all of the following circumstances exist: (

a) no written agreement or order respecting parenting arrangements applies in respect of a child; (

b) an application is made for an order described in section 45 (1) (

a) or (b) [orders respecting parenting arrangements] ; (

c) the child's guardian plans to change the location of that child's residence and the change can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on that child's relationship with another guardian.

(2) To determine the parenting arrangements that would be in the best interests of the child in the circumstances set out in subsection (1) of this section, the court (

a) must consider, in addition to the factors set out in section 37 (2) [best interests of child] , the reasons for the change in the location of the child's residence, and (

b) must not consider whether the guardian who is planning to move would do so without the child. [ 35 ] While I agree that ss. 37, 45 and 46 will guide my analysis and decision in this case, I must point out that A.'s residence, while on paper, and this is in reference to Judge Weatherly's order of October 16, 2018, is British Columbia. In reality, her residence is divided between Surrey, British Columbia and [omitted for publication], Alberta.

[ 36 ] Turning to the applicable tests, I will first consider the factors set out in s. 37(2) of the Family Law Act : (

a) The child's health and emotional wellbeing [ 37 ] As of today, I find that A.'s health and emotional wellbeing are met in both parents' care. Ms. Q. emphasized that A.'s weight fluctuates or increases by one to two pounds while she is with Mr. W. for his two weeks of parenting time. What I find to be significant on this factor is that this two-year-old child's weight changes by one to two pounds every two weeks. That kind of regular weight fluctuation is of some concern. The fact of the weight fluctuation is not in dispute; Mr. W., however, disagrees that the weight fluctuation is a significant factor.

To be clear, A.'s health and emotional wellbeing, if she resided primarily with either parent, would be met satisfactorily, but a two-year-old child's weight changing by one to two pounds every two weeks is a concern for me. I find that she needs a more stable living regime to stabilize her weight. There is no doubt that she is a big child, but many, if not most, large babies and toddlers fill out as they grow so I do not find that her weight, per se , is a health issue. Rather, the fluctuation or instability of her weight concerns me. A consistent diet and weight, in my view, are important for an infant child.

All children, as they grow older, will gain weight, that is to be expected, but the weight change every two weeks concerns me and needs to be addressed with a more stable living arrangement. I acknowledge I have no medical evidence that the weight fluctuations are unhealthy for A.; my concern is that the weight fluctuations show a significant difference in her diet when she is with Ms. Q. and Mr. W. Stability in her diet is in her best interest. [ 38 ] Both parties told me about some angry outbursts A. has, at times striking out at animals.

I am less concerned about those outbursts, because I am of the view that anyone, and especially a one-year-old child, would be frustrated and angry with the travel

schedule one-year-old A. has endured over the past year. Stabilizing her living circumstances, I believe, will stabilize those emotional outbursts. (

b) The child's views unless it would be inappropriate to consider them [ 39 ] I have no evidence of A.'s views, and at two years old, her views would be inappropriate to consider. (

c) The nature and strength of the relationships between A. and significant persons in her life [ 40 ] A. has a very strong relationship with both of her parents and each of their immediate families. I heard testimony from family members on both sides of this dispute, and everyone in A.'s life cares deeply for this little girl. This factor I find weighs equally in favour of both parents. (

d) The history of A.'s care [ 41 ] In my view, this factor weighs in favour of Ms. Q. Until October 16, 2018, Ms. Q. was A.'s primary caregiver by court order. Mr. W. complains that Ms. Q.'s primary care of A. was based on a ruse that A. was allergic to formula, so she could not be away from Ms. Q. for extended periods of time, thus limiting Mr. W.'s parenting time with A. I am not prepared to re-visit the earlier consent order or court order following the contested hearing before Judge Weatherly on January 18, 2018. The fact of the matter is that A. was cared for primarily by Ms.

Q. during her first year of life and equally by both parents during her second year of life. I will, however, note that over the past year on the two week on/two week off parenting regime, combined with the difficult travel for A., was accomplished by Ms. Q. alone and, after, Mr. W. refused to accept an opportunity to visit with A. in [omitted for publication] in order to reduce the travel stress on A. In my view, Ms. Q. has gone above and beyond what could, or should, be expected of a parent in these circumstances. (

e) A.'s need for stability given her age and stage of development [ 42 ] A. is no different from any young child; she needs a stable living arrangement. Ms. Q. and Mr. W. have placed before me a proposed parenting arrangement that each believe would bring more stability to A.'s life. I will review each parent's parenting proposal shortly, but for reasons I will give, stability in A.'s life is best achieved by the parenting proposal put forth by Ms. Q. (

f) The ability of each person who is a guardian or seeks guardianship of A. or who has or seeks parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact with A. to exercise his or her responsibilities [ 43 ] Neither Ms. Q. nor Mr. W. has any deficits or flaws in their ability to exercise their parental responsibilities or parenting time with A. Mr. W. complains that Ms. Q. fails to keep him informed of events affecting A. when she is in Ms. Q.'s care, and while I share Mr.

W.'s concern, I do not view that concern as an ability or capacity concern; rather, that is a communication concern and I will address that concern in the terms of the order I am making in this case. [ 44 ] Subparagraphs (g), (

h) and (

j) are all irrelevant; there is no allegation of family violence in this case. (

i) The appropriateness of an arrangement that would require A.'s guardians to cooperate on issues affecting A. including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or wellbeing of A. or other family members [ 45 ] To start, there are no risks between Ms. Q. or Mr. W. to A.'s safety or security. These two parents have struggled with their communication. Ms. Q. has kept from Mr. W. where A. is living in terms of a specific address.

I would like to think that all parents would feel that it is imperative to know where their child is living, so keeping that vital information from the other parent is depriving that other parent of information the non-disclosing parent would insist on knowing. The hypocrisy is hard to understand, but again, that problem in the communication in this case can be addressed by way of a court order. Otherwise, communication between Ms. Q. and Mr. W., while not ideal, does not raise issues respecting A.'s wellbeing. Accordingly, I find that requiring ongoing communication between Ms. Q. and Mr.

W. is not contrary to A.'s best interests. D. Section 46(2)(a) – The reasons for the change in the location of A.’s residence [ 46 ] Ms. Q. proposes to change A.'s principal residence to be with her in [omitted for publication], Alberta. Her reasons for this proposed relocation are that she has secured gainful employment, and she has the support of her father and step-mother who can help Ms.

Q. with her care of A. Ms. Q.'s step-mother provides care for A. two days each week. Ms. Q. has fulltime employment, working eight hours a day, Monday to Friday each week in her hometown. That is an important improvement from her previous employment when she was flying from B.C. to Northern Alberta to work as an electrician in the oil fields. [ 47 ] Ms. Q.'s employment history since A. has been born has been somewhat unstable. She has had a few different jobs in Alberta prior to securing her employment in [omitted for publication]. Mr. W. argues that Ms.

Q.'s employment instability should be a factor that weighs against her relocation application, but what Mr. W. does not seem to recognize is that he has been continuously employed in B.C. and Ms. Q. has never been employed in B.C. Mr. W. did not leave the workforce for one year following A.'s birth, so he never had to search to find a job while being primarily responsible for the care of his infant daughter, and the notion that a new parent could be expected to travel between B.C. and Northern Alberta for two weeks in camp and one week back at home is, in my view, unreasonable. The fact that Ms.

Q. has found stable employment in [omitted for publication], Alberta that allows both her and her family to play significant roles in raising A. is important. However, Mr. W. has stable employment. His mother runs a daycare and can play a significant role in raising A., and he has immediate family and his new partner available to help him raise A. [ 48 ] I find that Ms. Q.'s reasons for relocating A. are legitimate and are not contrary to A.'s best interests.

As I indicated earlier, both these parents provide parenting plans for A. that they believe are in A.'s best interests if her primary residence is declared to be with either parent. I have to choose one. [ 49 ] In my view, the parent who has demonstrated that she will do whatever it takes to ensure A. has a fulsome relationship with both of her parents is Ms. Q. She has shepherded A. between [omitted for publication], Alberta and Vancouver, British Columbia every two weeks for the past year. She has done so all at her own cost, and while Mr. W. will point to Judge Weatherly's order obliging her to do so, Mr.

W. has chosen not to provide court-ordered child support to financially assist his daughter on these expensive trips for his parenting time. [ 50 ] Mr. W.'s parenting proposal is that his home be declared as A.'s primary residence, and that Ms. Q. have parenting time with A. every second week from Wednesday afternoon until Sunday afternoon, which would be extended to Monday afternoon on long weekends. What is not clear is whether his parenting

schedule contemplates A. travelling to [omitted for publication], Alberta on Wednesday afternoons and returning back to Vancouver on Sunday afternoons, or if his proposal is that Ms. Q.'s parenting time would be exercised in the Lower Mainland. Regardless, neither scenario is in A.'s best interests. If Ms. Q.'s parenting time was to be exercised in [omitted for publication], Alberta, with A. travelling back and forth within four days on alternate weekends is a worse plan than the current travel

schedule for A. If the proposal is that Ms. Q. exercises her parenting time in the Lower Mainland, she would likely have to quit her job in Alberta, which would be destabilizing, and that is the main complaint Mr. W. has about Ms. Q.; instability in her life. Also, Ms. Q. would either have to take A. to stay in a hotel for her parenting time on Mr. W.'s schedule. With no job I do not see how she could afford to pay for a hotel, and that means she would have to call upon the generosity of her cousin and/or friends to give her a place to stay for four nights with A. every 10 days.

That is not reasonable. [ 51 ] If the underlying thought in Mr. W.'s proposal is that his proposal would require Ms. Q. to move back to the Lower Mainland, again that introduces uncertainty and instability into Ms. Q.'s life, which is the main complaint about Ms. Q. raised by Mr. W. Ms. Q. has never worked in British Columbia, she has nowhere to live here, she has no job, and she has no family support in the Lower Mainland. [ 52 ] In contrast, Ms. Q. proposes that A. resides with her in [omitted for publication] for four weeks and then comes to Vancouver to spend a week with Mr. W., and that

schedule of four weeks with Ms. Q. and one week with Mr. W. would repeat itself. Ms. Q.'s proposal maintains stability in both parents' lives. They keep their jobs, they keep their residences and they remain close to immediate family. Ms. Q.'s proposal dramatically reduces the travel for A. and maintains frequent parenting time for Mr. W. despite the distance between their homes. [ 53 ] Accordingly, for all the reasons I have given, I grant Ms. Q.'s application to relocate A.'s primary residence to be with Ms. Q. in [omitted for publication], Alberta. Parenting Time [ 54 ] I order that parenting time will occur on the

schedule proposed by Ms. Q. A. will spend four weeks with Ms. Q. in Alberta, followed by one week with Mr. W. in Vancouver, and that

schedule will repeat itself. [ 55 ] Mr. W.'s week with A. will be from Saturday to Saturday. I am not sure where these parties are at in their two week on/two week off

schedule so I will leave it to the parties, with the assistance of their counsel, to determine the start date of this new parenting regime but that will be determined today. [ 56 ] A. will be flown between Alberta and British Columbia from Grande Prairie in Alberta to Abbotsford or Vancouver International Airport in British Columbia. Mr. W. will pick up A. in Grande Prairie on the Saturday at the start of his week of parenting time, and Ms. Q. will pick up A. at the Abbotsford Airport or Vancouver International Airport at the conclusion of Mr. W.'s parenting time. Mr.

W. will be responsible for his costs of travelling to and from Grande Prairie to pick up A. and Ms. Q. will be responsible for her costs of travelling to and from Abbotsford/Vancouver to pick up A. [ 57 ] In addition, Mr. W. may have up to three days of parenting time with A. in [omitted for publication], Alberta provided he gives Ms. Q. reasonable notice of his planned visit to [omitted for publication]. I am thinking that if Mr. W. wants to have parenting time with A. in [omitted for publication], Alberta on long weekends with statutory holidays, he can give Ms.

Q. reasonable notice of when he will come to [omitted for publication] to exercise this parenting time. [ 58 ] It is my view that Mr. W. should have A. for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day in 2019 to make up for the missed Christmas Eve and Christmas Day thus far in A.'s life. He should have A. for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day in odd-numbered years thereafter. [ 59 ] The parenting

schedule I have ordered into effect will be suspended in order to accommodate Mr. W. having A. on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Ms. Q. will have A. on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day in even-numbered years.

[ 60 ] In addition, Mr. W. will have three Skype or FaceTime calls with A. every week. I will leave it to the parties to arrange a

schedule for those Skype or FaceTime calls, and failing an agreement, the calls will happen on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. When A. is in Vancouver for her week with Mr. W., Ms. Q. will have two Skype or FaceTime calls with A. on a

schedule agreed upon by the parties and failing an agreement the calls will occur on Tuesdays and Thursdays. [ 61 ] I order that Ms. Q. is required to forthwith inform Mr. W. of anything of significance involving A.'s health or wellbeing. She shall forthwith inform Mr. W. of any change in A.'s daycare, residence, and treating health professional, which will include but is not limited to doctors and dentists. [ 62 ] As for what to do when A. starts school, I am of the view that it is too early to construct a different parenting time regime now for an event that will not happen for three years, so I decline to fix a school-time parenting

schedule now. [ 63 ] And lastly, I am not sure this is necessary, but I will do this nonetheless. I will, on this final order, declare that both Mr. W. and Ms. Q. are A.'s guardians. (PROCEEDINGS) [ 64 ] THE COURT: I appreciate you have done the work to sort out when the four week/one week rotation will start, and so I will order now that the four week/one week rotation will commence Saturday, October 19th. [ 65 ] I will, on an interim without prejudice basis, order that commencing October 1st, 2019, Mr. W. will pay to Ms.

Q. $662 per month in child support for A. [ 66 ] I will order that the Skype/FaceTime spent with A. will start at 5:30 p.m. Pacific Time, and that time will be for a period of up to 30 minutes. (ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)