G.L. v. R.L.F. Date:, 2015 BCPC 29

Citation: G.L. v. R.L.F. Date: 20150105 2015 BCPC 0029 File No: F51272 Registry: Nanaimo IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: G.L. APPLICANT AND: R.L.F. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.P. MacCARTHY Counsel for the Applicant: S. Gosh Counsel for the Respondent: M. Screech Place of Hearing: Nanaimo , B.C.

Date of Hearing: July 2 and 3, 2014 Date of Judgment: January 5, 2015 Introduction [ 1 ] THE COURT (Orally): This is a parenting time and child maintenance dispute between G.L. (the "Mother") and R.L.F. (the "Father") with respect to their child, R.W.F. (the "Child"), age eight, [DOB]. [ 2 ] In addition, the Mother seeks a court order to permit her to relocate the Child with her to Nova Scotia from British Columbia. That relocation is opposed by the Father. Background of Court Proceedings [ 3 ] This is a protracted family dispute that has continued since the fall of 2007.

On November 13, 2007, the Honourable Judge Iverson made an interim order by consent under the Family Relations Act (the "Original Order").

The written form of the Original Order was eventually submitted to the court registry and entered on July 18, 2008. [ 4 ] The Original Order granted the Mother sole custody of the Child and granted joint guardianship of the Child to the Mother and the Father, and reasonable and generous access to the Child in favour of the Father. [ 5 ] Specifically, the Original Order contained a provision that the Father's reasonable and generous access to the Child was to include, but not be limited to, three days per week for six hours at a time and two overnight visits per month, based on the needs, schedule, and health of the Child and the parties.

Provision was made for mediation in order to resolve any disputes arising out of the overnight access. [ 6 ] The Original Order also prohibited the Mother from moving the residence of the Child from Vancouver Island without the consent of the Father. [ 7 ] On January 20, 2010, the Mother filed an application under the Family Relations Act (" FRA ") to change or cancel an order, and sought to replace the Father's reasonable and generous access with supervised access, and she also sought to obtain sole guardianship of the Child.

She based that application on what she alleged to be serious mental health issues and erratic behaviour of the Father. [ 8 ] The Father opposed the changes sought by that application and subsequently, by way of his reply and a cross-application, sought joint custody of the Child and what can be characterized as a shared parenting arrangement on a week-on/week-off basis.

That relief claim for joint custody and a shared parenting arrangement was opposed by the Mother. [ 9 ] In her reply of April 4, 2011, she further sought to amend the Original Order, such that the Father's access was to be supervised by a professional individual. The Mother also sought the court's permission to relocate with the Child to Nova Scotia. [ 10 ] These applications were heard before me on July 4, 2011, and continued on September 15, 2011 (the "2011 Hearing"). Written reasons were rendered on October 31, 2011 (the "October 2011 Reasons").

The formal interim order arising out of those written reasons was prepared and entered on December 29, 2011 (the "October 2011 Order"). I will speak more about the 2011 Hearing and the October 2011 Order below. [ 11 ] On October 5, 2012, the Father filed an application to change or cancel an order. In that application, he sought to cancel the October 2011 Order's interim variation of the Father's reasonable and generous access provisions contained in the Original Order.

In particular, he sought to have the requirement of supervision contained within the October 2011 Order removed. [ 12 ] By way of a reply filed November 6, 2012, the Mother opposed the variation sought and, in a cross-application, again sought an order permitting her to move to Nova Scotia "with [her] husband who has to move for the purpose of work and to take over the family farm since his mother's stroke." [ 13 ] It is not disputed that the Mother was in fact seeking an order to permit her to relocate the Child to Nova Scotia.

The Mother also sought an order for child support in an amount commensurate with the Child Support Guidelines . [ 14 ] On June 21, 2013, the matter proceeded to a family case conference conducted by the Honourable Judge Gouge with the parties and counsel in attendance. An order (the "June 2013 Order") was made, providing the Father with supervised access to the Child for five and a half hours on Saturdays: June 22, 2013; June 29, 2013; July 6, 2013; and July 13, 2013.

The Father's sister, I.D., being the aunt of the Child (hereinafter referred to as the "Aunt"), was appointed to supervise the Father's access. [ 15 ] The matter was adjourned to the judicial case manager to obtain and fix a trial date. Upon the completion of the evidence and submissions in the Present Hearing, an interim order by consent was made on July 3, 2014 (the "July 3, 2014, Interim Order").

Pursuant to the terms of the July 3, 2014, Interim Order, the Father was granted parenting time with the Child every second Sunday from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., commencing July 16, 2014, and continuing each and every Sunday thereafter until further order of the court.

The Father had additional parenting time on Wednesdays from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., commencing July 9, 2014, and continuing every Wednesday thereafter until further order of the court. [ 16 ] The July 3, 2014, Interim Order provided that, commencing July 12, 2014, the Father was to have parenting time with the Child every second weekend from Saturdays at 3:00 p.m. through to Sunday at 5:00 p.m., and such overnight parenting time was to continue until further order of the court. [ 17 ] A separate provision was made for pickup and drop-off at the McDonald's Restaurant in Parksville, British Columbia, and the

Father was responsible for the pickup and drop-off for all parenting time exchanges. [ 18 ] The Father was ordered to pay the Mother $101 per month for the support of the Child, commencing August 1, 2014, and continuing on the 1st of each and every month thereafter until further order of the court. [ 19 ] It was further ordered that the Father would fulfil his child maintenance obligations to the Mother by way of bearing all of the pickup and drop-off costs for the Child.

The 2011 Hearing and the October 2011 Order arising therefrom [ 20 ] During the 2011 Hearing, the court heard a significant amount of evidence about the background of the parties and the Child and their respective relationships.

As will be noted below in the discussion of the evidence before the court at the most recent hearing (the "Present Hearing"), based on the evidence heard and accepted by the court at the 2011 Hearing, there are some significant changes from the circumstances that existed at the time of the 2011 Hearing. [ 21 ] To a large extent, the parties have relied upon the court's findings as set out in the October 2011 Reasons as it related to these background matters.

Thus it was not necessary for the parties to adduce a significant amount of additional background evidence predating the 2011 Hearing, since that background evidence, as it was summarized in the October 2011 Reasons, is accepted for the purposes of the Present Hearing. [ 22 ] Since the October 2011 Reasons are unreported, I will provide a

summary of the evidentiary findings in the 2011 Hearing for contextual purposes The Father's background as determined at the 2011 Hearing [ 23 ] At the time of the 2011 Hearing, the Father, a lifetime resident of Vancouver Island, was in his very late forties and had most of his immediate family living in the Vancouver Island area. He had been in receipt of Provincial disability pension payments for some 10 years due to an anxiety disorder and a back ailment, but was able to and had maintained stable employment driving taxi on a part-time basis for over 25 years.

He usually worked three or four days per week with 10-hour shifts. [ 24 ] At that time of the 2011 Hearing, he had received limited psychiatric and counselling treatment for his anxiety disorder and took no medication specifically for it.

He lived in stable housing. [ 25 ] According to the observation of the Father's sister, being the "Aunt", this anxiety disorder became increasingly apparent when the conflict between the Mother and the Father heightened over the issue of the Father's access to the Child, who was the constant centre of the dispute between the parents. [ 26 ] During the course of the second day of the 2011 Hearing, the Father abruptly left the courtroom in the midst of the Mother's testimony, leaving his legal counsel without instructions and without a client present in the courtroom.

Following a lengthy recess, the Father's legal counsel was able to obtain telephone instructions from the Father to the effect that the Father would not be returning to participate in the proceedings and he left it to the court to make any appropriate orders. [ 27 ] The Father's legal counsel was permitted to withdraw, and the hearing continued in the absence of the Father, as contemplated by Rule 6(10) of the Provincial Court (Family) Rules .

The Mother's background as determined at the 2011 Hearing [ 28 ] At the time of the 2011 Hearing, the Mother was approximately 37 years of age and had resided in Nanaimo since the early 1990s, having grown up in Nova Scotia, during which time, as a young person, she had been placed in the care of the Nova Scotia child protection authorities. [ 29 ] She had previously been in receipt but at the time of the 2011 Hearing was no longer receiving benefits from a British Columbia provincial disability program.

She had continuing health problems with her hand, wrist, and back, which required her to moderate her activities. She had previously been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and agoraphobia.

She previously underwent two weeks of residential treatment for alcohol abuse in 1994, but denied that she had any alcohol or drug abuse issues at that time and did not drink around the Child. [ 30 ] She was, at the time of the 2011 Hearing, a stay-at-home parent, home-schooling the Child, and therefore did not hold any employment outside of the home. [ 31 ] She had entered a new relationship in the early part of 2011 and was then engaged to K.K. ("Mr. K."), who was supporting her and the Child at the time of the 2011 Hearing. He is also from Nova Scotia.

They grew up in the same part of the Annapolis Valley and their families lived seven doors away from each other. [ 32 ] Mr. K. was then 44 years of age. He was previously married and has three adult children by that relationship and one other son approximately 10 years of age who lived in Nova Scotia and whom he supported. He was employed as a truck driver, which involved local, short-haul work on Vancouver Island and to the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. In addition, he was engaged in long-haul truck driving to Alberta from Surrey, British Columbia.

The Child's background as determined at the 2011 Hearing [ 33 ] The Child was five years old at the time of the 2011 Hearing. He was described by the various witnesses as an active, well-mannered child, and also as being inquisitive and intelligent. He had no significant health issues. He was prone to demonstrate temper tantrums. From the evidence, it was concluded that he was cherished and loved by both parents and he had the love, support, and

interest of the Aunt. [ 34 ] From the evidence, it was concluded that he had quite limited contact with his Nova Scotia-based maternal family. His contact with his Vancouver Island-based paternal family, other than the Aunt and her grandchild, was also somewhat limited. [ 35 ] The Mother indicated that she had made a choice to home school the Child, rather than enrol him in public school kindergarten programs. The Father's preference was to enrol the Child in the kindergarten "Head Start" program available through the public school system. This was opposed by the Mother.

As a resource for teaching the Child at home, the Mother utilized an online program for British Columbia students designed by the B.C. Ministry of Education. In her evidence, she indicated that she chose the home school option due to the fact the Child was advanced in some areas and would benefit from a self-paced program that allowed her to prepare him for kindergarten, and it permitted her to deal with what she described as "hyperactive" behaviour on the part of the Child.

The parents' relationship as determined at the 2011 Hearing [ 36 ] The Mother and Father met in 1997, lived together for a period of between three and four months, then had a consensual breakup, met again, and started cohabitating approximately one year prior to the Child's birth. They continued to cohabitate for approximately one year following the Child's birth, and then terminated their relationship around the end of April 2007. [ 37 ] The Child remained living with the Mother following separation.

The Father had generous access to the Child and was very much involved in the life of the Child following the separation. [ 38 ] The parties initially abided by the terms of the Original Order made November 13, 2007, for a period of time. The Father had access to the Child about 30 to 40 percent of the time. On overnight visits, the Father and the Child initially shared the single bedroom in his apartment, but slept in separate beds. As the Child got older, he was provided with the sole use of the bedroom in the apartment, and the Father slept in the living room.

The apartment had been completely outfitted with books, clothing, and a number of toys for the Child. At the end of the 2011 Hearing, it remained available for the use of the Child. [ 39 ] A significant pattern of dysfunction developed and continued in the relationship between the Mother and Father throughout 2008 and 2009, particularly as it related to the Child, and specifically as it related to the Father's access to the Child.

In the evidence at the 2011 Hearing, there were allegations and counter-allegations made by both of the parties blaming the other for the hostile environment that had developed and existed between them and the significant level of dysfunction. [ 40 ] In her evidence at the 2011 Hearing, the Aunt made the astute observation that each of the Mother and the Father knew how to antagonize the other in an effective manner.

In her words, they knew how to "push each other's buttons". [ 41 ] It was also clear on the evidence that when the relationship between the parents became very strained, the Mother denied or limited the Father's access to the Child, notwithstanding the intervention and assistance offered by the Aunt. [ 42 ] In the fall of 2009, the Father was having trouble with his access to the Child due to the actions of the Mother. He contacted the Ministry of Child, Family and Community Services (the "Ministry") about this concern.

Nothing material arose out of this contact. [ 43 ] Another incident did occur in the fall of 2009 that became the subject matter of a significant amount of evidence at the 2011 Hearing. That incident resulted in the involvement of the RCMP and thereafter by the Ministry. The Father testified he became concerned about the Child's overly aggressive behaviour, both towards the Mother and then towards him. [ 44 ] In or around December of 2009, he made an unfortunate decision and called the Ministry outside of regular office hours to report his concerns.

When he did not get any satisfaction, he contacted and reported his concerns to the RCMP. The Mother alleged that the Father reported to the RCMP that he was being assaulted by the Child, who was then three years of age at the time. The Father characterized his call to the RCMP as an attempt to get his concerns addressed. [ 45 ] In the October 2011 Reasons, this incident was referred to as the "Police Incident". At some point, likely based on the Police Incident, the Ministry became involved and started to have some concerns about the Child's situation. They proceeded to investigate, likely by way of inquiries.

No formal steps were taken by the Ministry with respect to the Child. However, a social worker from the Ministry did have an informal discussion with the Aunt. [ 46 ] In her evidence, the Aunt denied that she was asked by the Ministry social worker to provide supervision for the Father's access visits with the Child. She did indicate to the social worker that she and her own grandchild spent a significant amount of time with the Father and the Child during visitations.

She also testified that she told the Mother that she would never leave the Child in a situation where she thought the Child may be at risk as a result of any of the anxiety disorders displayed by the Father. She never thought it necessary to check up on the safety of the Child when he was with the Father.

She never promised to supervise those visits, as was asserted by the Mother in her evidence. [ 47 ] The Mother's evidence was that, as a result of the concerns expressed by the Ministry social workers arising out of the Police Incident and what the Mother alleged were the Father's "serious mental health issues", she filed her application to change or cancel an order on January 20, 2010, which gave rise to the 2011 Hearing.

There was no direct evidence from any representative of the Ministry about their alleged concerns arising out of the Police Incident or any evidence from a mental health professional about the seriousness of the Father's mental health issues at the 2011 Hearing. [ 48 ] Paragraph 70 of the October 2011 Reasons drew the following conclusions relating to the Father's mental health issues: Part of the underpinning of the Mother's case is that the Father does have serious mental health issues. From this I understand that I am to infer that there is a significant risk to the Child.

From the evidence it is clear that the Father has suffered from anxiety issues for a considerable period of time and such was the case when the [Original] Order was made. It is also clear that little has been done by the Father to seek or obtain treatment for his disorders. I have no evidence from a qualified professional as to the extent of the problem, the

seriousness of it or the potential risk to the Child. I have seen firsthand some unusual behaviour on the part of the Father when he abruptly left the courtroom in the middle of the proceedings and then refused to return. From the perspective of child safety, it raises a possible concern. However, I have little before me to assess the seriousness of the Father's mental health issues and the resulting level of safety concerns for the Child.

In my respectful view, the Father is doing a great disservice to himself and the Child by not seeking some treatment for his anxiety disorder from a qualified professional. [ 49 ] Notwithstanding the allegations of the Father's "serious mental health issues" contained in her application to change or cancel an order, the finding in the October 2011 Reasons was that there were periods of extended access and overnight access to the Child afforded to the Father, including a period of four or five days during the Christmas of 2010. [ 50 ] Access continued up until March 2011.

In some cases, the Mother allowed the Father to look after the Child when she had something which was a personal priority for her. However, after the Mother met Mr.

K., she took effective steps to eliminate the Father's access to the Child and to severely hamper the ability of the Father and the Aunt to make contact with her to arrange access to the Child. [ 51 ] It was further concluded at paragraph 71 of the October 2011 Reasons that the Mother's motive for restricting access to the Child was not about a safety concern, but more about the continuation of the strained relationship between the Mother and the Father. In addition, it was concluded that the Mother clearly saw Mr. K. as providing a more stable environment for herself and the Child, and she saw Mr.

K. as fulfilling a parental role for the Child. [ 52 ] It was further concluded that her actions did not further or foster the love, affection, and similar ties that were found to exist between the Child and the Father, and between the Child and the Aunt and her grandchild. Furthermore, the denial of the Father's access did not allow the Father to foster the considerable emphasis he placed on education and training for the Child. [ 53 ] Paragraph 72 of the October 31, 2011, Reasons summarizes the court's concerns as follows: In recent months, the Mother has done nothing to facilitate any access.

I am very concerned that if it is to be left up to the Mother's discretion, there will be little in the way of reasonable or generous access extended to the Father. The Father and the Child will not be able to maintain a meaningful relationship as they have in the past. Such a situation will not further the health and well-being of the Child.

This is not in the best interests of the Child. [ 54 ] There was also a significant amount of evidence before the court at the 2011 Hearing about the number of long-distance trucking trips from Vancouver to Calgary, apparently requiring 24 hours of travel each way, and necessitating overnight stops while on the road. From March 2011 until September 15, 2011, the Mother took the Child on seven of these trips being undertaken by Mr. K. as part of his work, being an average of one trip per month.

In her evidence, the Mother characterized these frequent trips as being for the purposes of her and the Child having "family time". [ 55 ] Paragraph 73 of the October 2011 Reasons summarized the court's concerns as follows: I am also concerned about the Child's participation in the long distance truck trips. One or two trips may be regarded as an adventure or a learning experience for the Child. Seven trips in approximately six months leads me to conclude that this is more about the personal priorities of the Mother and less about her and the Child experiencing family time together.

I do not think the frequency of these trips is in the best interests of the Child who has been described to me by the Mother as hyperactive. I do not believe that these trips further the health and well-being of the Child. [ 56 ] The third significant matter upon which evidence was led at the 2011 Hearing related to the proposed move to Nova Scotia by the Mother and the Child. The Mother's evidence indicated that the general purpose of the move was to allow Mr. K. to take over his parents' family farm in a village close to Wolfville in the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia.

There was further evidence to the effect that both the Mother and Mr. K.'s extended family lived in the Annapolis Valley. The Mother testified that Mr. K. may continue to drive truck on a long-haul and short-haul basis and that she would be looking after the farm. No firm plans had been made regarding this transition and no firm plans had been made concerning their future accommodation in the Annapolis Valley. [ 57 ] Paragraphs 74 and 76 of the October 31, 2011, Reasons summarize the court's concerns about this proposed relocation: [74] The proposal for the Mother to relocate with the Child and [Mr.

K.] to Nova Scotia presents some concerns. At this point, on the basis of the evidence before me, I have concluded it more in the nature of a concept than a well thought out plan. The Mother only raised this as an issue in her Reply filed on April 4, 2011. It is understandable there will be limitations on the ability of the Mother and [Mr. K.] to fully plan, when it is uncertain whether or not the court will permit the Mother to change the Child's residence. There is also the fact that [Mr. K.] and the Mother's relationship is of a relatively short duration.

Up to this point in his life, the Child has had quite limited contact with his maternal family. The evidence is that there is not extensive contact with other members of the paternal family, but an important relationship exists between the Child and his [Aunt] and her grandchild, a cousin of the Child. A move to Nova Scotia will no doubt significantly disrupt this contact and impair these relationships. . . . [76] I am not satisfied that I have sufficient evidence about the particulars of the relocation plan before me to be able to fully determine as to whether it is in the Child's best interests.

To do so, I must have better information about the relevant circumstances as they relate to the Child's needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them in the context of the proposed move. [ 58 ] After the completion of the 2011 Hearing, orders were made and set out in the October 2011 Reasons in the following paragraphs:

Conclusion [79] Based on all of the foregoing and taking into consideration the best interests of the Child I have concluded that a number of orders are required which are set out below. [80] There will be no change to the provisions contained in the [Original] Order for sole custody or joint guardianship, however with respect to joint guardianship the provisions of the Master Horn model will apply as follows: The parties shall share joint guardianship of the Child with guardianship including the following rights:

a) To be informed of the Child's medical and dental practitioners;

b) To contact the Child's medical and dental practitioners and obtain the Child's medical and dental records;

c) To be consulted with respect to the selection of the Child's alternative caregivers, such as daycare and preschools;

d) To be consulted with respect to the selection of the Child's schools and school programs:

e) To consult with the Child's alternative caregivers and teachers;

f) To be informed of events at the Child's schools or daycare so the Mother and the Father may attend;

g) To be informed of parent/teacher nights so that the Mother and the Father may attend;

h) To be consulted with respect to any significant health issues relating to the Child; and

i) To be consulted with respect to any significant change in the Child's social environment. [81] There will be an interim variation of the reasonable and generous access provision in the [Original] Custody Order such that commencing immediately, the Father will have supervised access to the Child no less than three days per week for four hours at a time. The access will be supervised by [the Aunt] or some other person agreed to by the Mother and the Father.

If they are unable to agree, either party may refer the matter of an approved supervisor back to me for a determination. [82] The interim supervised access will continue until such time as the Father brings forward an application before me for the resumption of interim reasonable and generous unsupervised access including the specified access all contained in the [Original] Order.

The Father will have the liberty to make that application before me to review the interim supervised access and to have all unsupervised access available to him under the [Original] Order resume, based upon a satisfactory report of a qualified mental health expert being presented to the Court that confirms that none of the mental health issues of the Father pose a threat to the safety of the Child. [83] If an interim order is made granting the continuation of the unsupervised access to the Father under the [Original] Order, then in addition to the terms therein specified, the Mother will upon four days notice to the Father offer him the opportunity to care for the Child on an overnight basis rather than for the Child to accompany the Mother on the long distance freight truck trips between British Columbia and Alberta or any other overnight freight truck trips in which the Mother may wish to participate. [84] The terms of the [Original] Order will be varied further on an interim basis such that the Father and the Mother will each have access to the Child for the Christmas holidays and the Easter holidays on an equal basis, as they may agree, such agreement to be reached no less than thirty days prior to Christmas Day or Easter Sunday and failing agreement, either will be at liberty to have the holiday access

schedule determined by the Court. I shall not be seized of any such applications. [85] The Mother's application for the deletion of the provision in the [Original] Order which provides that she shall not move the residence of the Child from Vancouver Island will be adjourned generally but the Mother will have liberty to bring the matter back before me for a review and for a determination of her application no less than 120 days prior to a proposed move of the Child to Nova Scotia, at which hearing she shall present the details of the plans and with specific attention to the ability to meet the Child's needs and specifically his relocation needs resulting from that move.

[86] There will be no restraining order. [87] There will be an omnibus order pursuant to section 35(4) of the Family Relations Act that will henceforth form part of the [Original] Order on the following terms with respect to Parental Conduct: Each parent will:

a) put the best interests of the Child before his or her own interests;

b) encourage the Child to have a good relationship with the other parent;

c) make a real effort to maintain respectful and polite communications with each other, in the best interests of the Child;

d) refrain from any and all destructive, negative or hostile communications, criticisms or arguments in front of the Child;

e) speak to the Child about the other parent in a positive, respectful, honourable and constructive manner;

f) not speak negatively about the other parent or that parent's partner to the Child or in the Child's presence; and

g) abide by an appropriate bathing, bedtime and eating routine for the Child. The parents shall not:

a) question or harass the Child regarding the time spent with or seek information about the other parent beyond conversational questions;

b) discuss with the Child any inappropriate adult, court or legal matters; or

c) denigrate, demean, blame, criticize or disparage the other parent to the Child in any manner regardless of their concerns. Each parent will:

a) encourage their respective families and partners to refrain from any negative comments about the other parent or his or her extended family, or any discussions in front of the Child concerning family issues or litigation; and

b) explain to their respective families the importance of facilitating a positive relationship with the other parent and his or her family and his or her partner. Relevant Provisions of the Family Law Act [ 59 ] The applicable provisions of the Family Law Act that bear on this matter are

Part 4 entitled "Care of and Time with Children" and in particular Division 1 - "Best Interests of Child", especially s. 37 of the Family Law Act and Division 6 - "Relocation", especially subsections 65 to 70. In addition,

Part 10 - "Court Processes" and in particular Division 4 - "General Orders the Court May Make" is applicable, especially s. 215 entitled "Changing, suspending or terminating orders generally".

The Witnesses who Provided Evidence in the Present Hearing [ 60 ] As was the case in the 2011 Hearing, the court heard testimony in the Present Hearing from the Mother as the sole witness in the Mother's case and the Father and the Aunt, who testified as part of the Father's case. [ 61 ] In addition, the following medical and psychiatric records of the Father were admitted into evidence as an exhibit in the Present Hearing: a. psychiatry consults and progress notes from Vancouver Island Health Authority ("VIHA") / St.Joseph General Hospital for the period from August 11, 2011, to August 24, 2012 (the "Psychiatry Consult Records"); b. letter from Dr.

Angelique Goodhue, M.D., of VIHA Nanaimo Mental Health and Substance Use, Wentworth Mental Health Centre, dated June 24, 2013 (the "Dr. Goodhue Letter"); c. letter from Dr. Emmanuel Eselle, psychiatrist at VIHA Mental Health and Addiction Services, dated September 21, 2012 (the "Dr. Eselle Letter"); d. VIHA Mental Health and Addiction Services CI - Community Care Consultation records for the period from May 6, 2010, to May 9, 2013 (the "VIHA Mental Health Records").

Update on the Personal Background and Circumstances of the Child [ 62 ] As of the date of the Present Hearing, the Child was now age eight and turning nine in March of 2015. He remains physically healthy. The Child has been enrolled in two separate schools for each of Grades 1 and 2, apparently as a result of the Mother and Mr. K. moving their residence. The Mother again started to home school the Child beginning in March of 2014.

The Child was scheduled to start Grade 3 in September 2014, once more in a home school environment. [ 63 ] According to the Mother's evidence, the Child has demonstrated behavioural problems, both at school and at home. The Mother suggested in her evidence that this often coincided with the Child having trouble adjusting after spending time with the Father during the court-ordered visits. Again, according to the Mother's evidence, the Child's behaviour problems presented themselves in the form of temper tantrums, other displays of being very angry and ripping apart and destroying his bedroom.

The Mother says that according to the staff at the Child's Grade 1 school, he was hyperactive, but he was not classified as being "high needs". The Child had significant problems adjusting to his new Grade 2 school, displaying hyperactivity. The Child was not meeting or exceeding goals in the public school. [ 64 ] Accordingly, the Child was removed by the Mother in favour of home schooling. The Mother criticizes the school for dealing with the Child's conduct as behavioural issues, rather than looking for the underlying causes to it which remain undiagnosed.

The Mother also criticized the limited available resources that the Child's school had for a number of high-needs students. [ 65 ] The Mother says that the Child has formed a loving, close, and positive relationship with Mr. K., whom he has known since he was four years of age and whom he treats as a "stepparent". [ 66 ] The Child has in the past been enrolled in swimming lessons and was formerly participating in Taekwondo while in kindergarten.

It is not clear what recent activities the Mother has arranged for the Child. [ 67 ] In the period from the end of July 2013 to early September 2013, the Mother took the Child on a four-and-a-half-week trip to Nova Scotia to meet some of the Mother's nuclear and also the large family of Mr. K. In her evidence, the Mother spoke in glowing terms of the positive experience that the Child had enjoyed in Nova Scotia meeting with and bonding with his maternal family and with that of Mr. K.

With respect to her family, the Child had the opportunity of getting to know his maternal grandmother, his maternal uncle, and a cousin with whom he had previously had very limited contact or communication. [ 68 ] The suggestion is made by the Mother that the Child formed a very close bond with the three adult children of Mr. K., as well as the 12-year-old son of Mr. K. The contention is that the Child now views them as his own brothers and sisters. The three adult children of Mr. K. themselves have children who the Child regards as his cousins. She described Mr.

K.'s family as close-knit and loving. [ 69 ] I gather the Mother and the Child also had a 2012 visit to Nova Scotia to visit her own family, and in particular her gravely-ill father.

The Mother testified that as a result of this exposure to these family units in Nova Scotia, particularly during 2013, that the Child was prompted to say words to the effect, "Oh Mom, I am not an orphan anymore." Upon being questioned about this statement attributed to the Child in her cross-examination, the Mother surmises that the Child is "secluded out here" and denies that she made this suggestion to the Child. [ 70 ] The 2013 trip to Nova Scotia included the Child's exposure to farming and rural life and the close-knit nature of the community.

Specifically, the Child had the opportunity to experience life on Mr. K.'s family farm, where he enjoyed helping to feed and care for the farm animals and had the experience of having his own pets. The Child wants to have a horse and to raise pigs and chickens. [ 71 ] In her evidence, the Mother suggests that the Child's "dream" since his visit with the Mother to Nova Scotia has been to return there on a permanent basis. [ 72 ] Since returning from Nova Scotia, the Mother indicates that the Child has had a difficult adjustment marked by very challenging behaviour.

The Mother also provided evidence about schooling opportunities for the Child in the local village where her own mother was at one time a teacher at the local elementary school. It goes from primary to Grade 6 or 7, and would be available for the Child to attend. [ 73 ] She expressed the opinion that the standard of schooling and education was higher in Nova Scotia than in British Columbia. It is not clear at to what was the basis of her opinion. Update on the Personal Background and Circumstances of the Mother [ 74 ] The Mother and Mr. K. married in July 2012.

They moved from Nanaimo and presently reside north of Nanaimo in Errington, B.C., and have done so since March of 2013. At the time of the Present Hearing, the Mother was eight months' pregnant and due at the end of August 2014. That birth was to be by way of Caesarean section. [ 75 ] The Mother does not work outside the home. Her health is fine, as is Mr. K.'s. Since the 2011 Hearing, Mr. K. has, for the most part, continued to be employed as a long-haul truck driver, which takes him off of Vancouver Island five days per week, allowing him only to come home on weekends. Mr.

K. supports her and the Child. [ 76 ] Prior to the Present Hearing, the Father was making no child support payments or other financial contributions to the Mother for the Child. [ 77 ] I understand from her testimony that the Mother has a Grade 12 equivalency. She also has three years of accounting experience towards a professional certification in accounting. She expressed the view that if she moved to Nova Scotia, she would have the opportunity of completing her Certified General Accountant designation within four years.

It was not entirely clear in her evidence as to why she had not or could not pursue that while residing in British Columbia, but I take it, it may have to do with the level of recognition of her experience in B.C. as contrasted with Nova Scotia.

[ 78 ] The Mother provided no evidence about the family's present financial circumstances or the earnings of Mr. K. derived from his present job, or what may financially be potentially available to him if he pursues his planned continuation of truck driving and also assuming responsibility for the family farm in Nova Scotia. [ 79 ] Mr. K. was not called as a witness. However, the Mother provided a significant amount of evidence about his family, the family farm in Nova Scotia, the challenges that he faces, and the overall plan of her and Mr.

K. to relocate to Nova Scotia to take over the family farm. [ 80 ] That family farm is apparently still being run by her new father-in-law with the help of some family members. However, a brother of Mr. K. recently passed away. This death and a stroke suffered by her mother-in-law has forced the downsizing of the farm.

She testified that she "expects" if they move to Nova Scotia, her husband can get the farm up and running again by increasing the number of cattle and the hay and crop production. [ 81 ] Her evidence was to the effect that because of her father-in-law's age of approximately 72 years and the health concerns of her new mother-in-law, and Mr. K.'s brother's death, crops have been left to rot in the field and that the hay could not be cut on time. She makes the suggestion that if she is not permitted to relocate to Nova Scotia with the Child, that her husband, Mr.

K., may have to travel to Nova Scotia on his own in order to assist with the family farm. [ 82 ] The Mother cites a lower cost of living in Nova Scotia, reasonable and readily-available housing on or near the family farm, a more balanced lifestyle, better financial opportunities, and greater opportunities for family contact and interaction as a major advantage of a relocation to Nova Scotia. No corroborating evidence was provided.

Update on the Personal Background and Circumstances of the Father [ 83 ] At the time of the 2011 Hearing, there was very little in the way of background information relating to the Father's mental health issues.

The Psychiatry Consult Records and the VIHA Mental Health Records (collectively the "Father's Psychiatric Records") fill an important gap in information about the Father leading up to the 2011 Hearing and in the time subsequent thereto leading up to the Present Hearing. [ 84 ] The Father confirmed in his evidence that he has and continues to be certified under the Mental Health Act and that the certification existed at the time of the 2011 Hearing.

He apparently is presently classified as being on "an extended leave certificate" under the Mental Health Act . [ 85 ] The Father's Psychiatric Records confirm that on May 6, 2010, the Father attended Mental Health and Addiction Services CI - Community Care ("Community Mental Health") for a psychiatry consult. His anxiety disorder was confirmed and it was recommended that he utilize the Crisis Counselling Clinic at Brooks Landing office, located north of downtown Nanaimo, if need be.

The Father reported that his anxiety disorder was well controlled at that time. [ 86 ] A considerable amount of his anxiety was reported by him to be involved around the dispute with the Mother over access to the Child. [ 87 ] The Psychiatry Consult Records from Nanaimo Regional General Hospital - Mental Health ("NRGH - Mental Health") confirm that on August 11, 2011, in the midst of the 2011 Hearing, the attending psychiatrist confirmed that the Father was displaying "increasing paranoid delusions and delusions of reference of the point that his family has now become very concerned about his safety." It was noted that this appeared to be the first episode of overt psychotic symptoms and that previously the Father had only presented anxiety symptoms.

He was described as having "normal percept", but at that time having "no insight and very poor judgment". He was admitted to NRGH Psychiatric Care Unit on an involuntary basis for further observation assessment. He was placed on medications. [ 88 ] The Psychiatry Consult Records further confirm that on August 22, 2011, he remained in NRGH Psychiatric Care Unit, and that the Father continued to suffer from delusional ideation around various conspiracy theories. He denied any suicidal or homicidal ideation, but it was noted that his "insight is limited".

However, the Father appeared to be compliant with his medication treatment. He was apparently discharged on August 26, 2011. [ 89 ] It was noted in the discharge

summary that there was a concern about the Father continuing to take his prescribed medication and that he was at risk that he may require further involuntary certification under the Mental Health Act . [ 90 ] The Father failed to attend a September 13, 2011, appointment at Community Mental Health. [ 91 ] The VIHA Mental Health Records indicate that the Father apparently attended Mental Health and Addiction Services at Brooks Landing location in November 2011 for a lengthy intake meeting.

That community resource apparently promised the Father that they would arrange for him to see a psychiatrist, but months went by without him seeing a psychiatrist. His general practitioner was informed by that community resource that the Father's diagnosis had changed to a delusional disorder. This prompted the Father's general practitioner to attempt to obtain a referral to a psychiatrist in Victoria. That was unsuccessful. [ 92 ] A progress note dated January 9, 2012, from Community Mental Health suggested that the Father needed regular monitoring by his medical general practitioner.

Around this time, January 13, 2012, the Father was continuing to press for a further psychiatric consultation to be evaluated, likely for the purposes of the continuing dispute regarding the requirement for supervised visits with the Child. [ 93 ] There was some reluctance being expressed by Community Mental Health as to the value of providing this, given the two prior diagnoses made. It was suggested that the best resource to assess parental competency would be a psychologist on the roster of the Ministry of Children and Family Services. [ 94 ] On April 24, 2012, a report was completed by psychiatrist Dr.

Emmanuel Eselle, indicating that in approximately March of

2012, the medical general practitioner referred the Father back to Community Mental Health at the Brooks Landing location due to concerns about the Father becoming delusional, and specifically due to the Father's concerns that he was not getting help from anywhere. He was expressing anger at government because they were not assisting him in helping to see his son. [ 95 ] On April 1, 2012, the Father was apparently again admitted involuntarily under the Mental Health Act to NRGH Psychiatric Unit, where he remained until April 11, 2012. It appears from Dr. Eselle's reports and the April 11, 2012 discharge

summary, that the Father had been non-compliant with medication that he had been placed on following his August 26, 2011, discharge from NRGH Psychiatric Unit. [ 96 ] Dr. Eselle changed the Father's medication and he was required to attend the Depot Clinic and Case Management Centre in order to obtain his medication every four weeks. Dr. Eselle notes the possibility of the Father displaying schizophrenic symptoms and notes a history of schizophrenia within the Father's family. [ 97 ] The Father was again seen by Dr. Eselle.

He comments in a May 10, 2012, progress note that the Father's "psychopathology indicates to me that his thought processing is still weird and shows signs of residual symptoms of his schizophrenic spectrum disorder." The dosage of his medications was increased and a further appointment was made for him within two weeks. [ 98 ] A May 25, 2012, progress note from Dr.

Eselle reveals that the Father was complaining about a wide range of depressive symptoms like "loss of interest, low energy, no motivation, apathy, avoiding social interactions, anhedonia, and difficulty falling and maintaining sleep." Additional medications were prescribed to deal with the depression and sleep issues. [ 99 ] Improvement was noted in the June 13, 2012, progress note. The Father expressed to Dr. Eselle he was happier because he now had contact with the Child. [ 100 ] In Dr.

Eselle's progress note of July 5, 2012, he notes that the Father was "very irritable about his present situation involving his visitation rights for his son" and complaints were made by the Father about the Mother's attempts to block those visits by claiming that "his mental state is very unstable and unsupervised visits could not be managed by him properly." [ 101 ] Dr.

Eselle made certain recommendations to the Father about proceeding to obtain an updated psychiatric evaluation and to return to court with the assistance of a lawyer in order to deal with the issues of unsupervised access [ 102 ] The progress notes between then and August 24 and September 17, 2012, chronical the Father's continuing visits with Dr. Eselle and the progress being made to pursue unsupervised visits with his son, and Dr. Eselle's willingness to assist with providing a suitable professional opinion. Apparently Dr.

Eselle was in the process of terminating his psychiatric practice in the Nanaimo area and steps were being taken to obtain a replacement for him. [ 103 ] On September 21, 2012, Dr. Eselle wrote the above-described Dr. Eselle Letter to the Father's lawyer which confirmed the Father's prior diagnoses and his continuing treatment by way of antidepressants and antipsychotic medications. [ 104 ] Most significantly, the Dr.

Eselle Letter also confirmed [as read in]: [The Father] has been attending regular counselling sessions with a focus on psychoeducation, resource activation, learning competent coping skills to deal with adversities of life. With this integrated psychiatric psychological approach, [the Father] has responded quite reasonably. His mood and affect have significantly improved. His thoughts and behaviour have been more appropriate. He engages appropriately in our conversations. The paranoid delusional thoughts he had have disappeared in most parts and he works as a taxi driver regularly.

Given the above mental and emotional stability [the Father] has achieved and because he is compliant with his medication, he will remain stable for a long time. [The Father] is not and never has been a danger to himself or to others and could therefore see his son without supervision. [ 105 ] The Dr. Eselle Letter was attached to the Father's application to change or cancel an order filed October 5, 2012, in which he sought to cancel the interim variation of the Original Order made at the 2011 Hearing and contained in the October 2011 Order. [ 106 ] Dr. Eselle was replaced as the Father's psychiatrist by Dr.

Angelique Goodhue. The Psychiatry Consult Records contain notes of a consultation on January 24, 2013, and progress notes for February 28, 2013, and May 9, 2013. These documents confirm that the Father remained stable and compliant with his prescribed medications. They also confirmed that the Father was happy to continue as a voluntary patient under the Mental Health Act and that he would be discharged from extended leave. [ 107 ] On June 24, 2013, in the Dr.

Goodhue Letter to the Father's lawyer, she confirms the following about the Father [as read in]: I have been treating [the Father] for a psychiatric disorder since January 2013. He is currently a voluntary patient. He attends the local Depot medication treatment to receive monthly injections of long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication which ensures that he is compliant with recommended medication treatment. He keeps his psychiatric appointments regularly as well.

He has been stable and is functioning well in the community. [ 108 ] The Father's Psychiatric Records state that the Father is a daily user of marihuana, using up to one gram per day. The Father says in his evidence that at present time he does not smoke marihuana on a daily basis and that the consumption of up to one gram only occurs occasionally, approximately once per month. He also drinks beer on the weekends while attending musical jam sessions at a local bar. In his evidence, he further confirms that he is addicted to tobacco and that he smokes one to two packs of cigarettes daily.

[ 109 ] The Father's evidence confirms a significant amount of what is contained in the Father's Psychiatric Records. He testified that he remains compliant with his medication regime. Dr. Goodhue indicated to him that she was happy with his progress, and approximately four months before the Present Hearing she suggested that no further appointments with her were necessary. [ 110 ] The Father continues to receive his disability income for his anxiety disorder and also for an arthritic back. He continues to pursue his interest in music.

He continues to drive taxi approximately four days per week on a part-time basis with each shift lasting approximately five hours. It is a different taxicab company than at the time of the 2011 Hearing, the Father having been previously fired over retention of disputed funds. [ 111 ] He estimates his average income from taxi driving to be $350 per month. His arthritic back prevents him from working additional shifts. His total income in 2013 was $15,172. [ 112 ] In his testimony, the Father indicated that driving cab is hard on his arthritic back.

He has attended a vocational services resource which assisted him in updating his résumé. He has not received any career counselling and is not pursuing any replacement jobs with their assistance, although this has been urged upon him by Dr. Eselle. [ 113 ] He continues to live by himself in the same residence since 2007, which of course was the same residence at the time of the 2011 Hearing. His rent is $565 per month. He continues to maintain a close relationship with his sister, described above as the "Aunt". He has lived on Vancouver Island all his life.

He has not travelled on an airplane since he was 21, and therefore does not fly on a routine basis. He says he cannot afford the return airfare from Vancouver Island to Nova Scotia that the evidence suggests is in the range of between $1,000 and $1,500. [ 114 ] He testified that he would find the prospect of moving to Nova Scotia "a daunting venture" if a relocation order were to be made. He expressed concern about being able to find employment. [ 115 ] The Father's relationship with his sister, the Aunt, appears to have become somewhat uneven in the summer and fall of 2011.

Much of this related to the Father's mental health issues during this time. The Aunt had been encouraging him to seek care for his unusual behaviour that became readily apparent during that period of time. My sense is that it became a significant source of disagreement between them.

The Aunt was apparently instrumental in having the Father assessed, which led to the Father's involuntary committal to NRGH Psychiatric Unit in August of 2011. [ 116 ] The Aunt also had a number of personal and business commitments in the summer and fall of 2011 which made it difficult for her to undertake the supervision of the Father's visits with the Child pursuant to the October 2011 Order.

The Father and the Aunt agreed that she would not be responsible for the supervision. [ 117 ] Once the Father had been hospitalized and received treatment in the spring of 2012 and responded well to that treatment, they re-established a good relationship. The Aunt was therefore able to provide supervision commencing around May of 2012. At that point, she once again assumed her historical role of being a go-between between the Mother and the Father as it related to the Child.

The Relationship of the Mother and the Father Following the October 2011 Order [ 118 ] Since the 2011 Hearing, the relationship between the Father and the Mother has remained very dysfunctional and highly conflicted. The Child has remained the centre of the conflict between the parents. So far as I am able to determine, there has been very little in the way of compliance with the joint guardianship provision in the Master Horn model, as set out in paragraph 80 of the October 2011 Reasons.

Father's Parenting Time with the Child Following the October 2011 Order [ 119 ] It appears that due to the Father's psychotic episodes in August of 2011 and the inability of the Father to arrange for a further psychiatric consultation in the fall of 2011, that there was a delay in the Father being able to arrange for somebody to supervise the visits with the Child. [ 120 ] According to the evidence, it appears the Father started obtaining supervised access with the assistance of the Nanaimo Men's Resource Centre, which helped him engage a paid professional Child visitation supervisor (the "Professional Supervisor") and covered that cost.

Those visits continued on a regular basis a couple of times per week from late November 2011 to approximately February 2012. There was apparently a break around mid-February 2012 as a result of a lack of available funding. [ 121 ] Thus, no visitation occurred from mid-February through to approximately May 23, 2012.

This appears to be in part tied to a lack of funding, as well as the Father's psychiatric condition and his further committal to NRGH Psychiatric Unit in April of 2012. [ 122 ] The supervised visits resumed very infrequently during May, June, and July of 2012, partly due to lack of available financial resources to pay the Professional Supervisor, either on the part of the Nanaimo Men's Resource Centre or on the part of the Father. [ 123 ] In August 2012, the Mother and Mr.

K. and the Child accompanied each other on a "working honeymoon travelling throughout British Columbia", thus not making the Child available for any visitation during that period. [ 124 ] The Mother claims that she was willing to share the expenses of the Professional Supervisor and that she had discussions to this effect with the Professional Supervisor. There is no indication that she suggested this to the Father. [ 125 ] Shortly after Mother's Day in May of 2012, the Aunt again expressed a willingness to supervise the Father's visitations with the Child.

This did not come to fruition, as the Mother insisted that the Aunt would have to sign something described as a visitation supervision contract. There is conflict in the evidence as to what then occurred. It is agreed that the Aunt was never presented with the form of that contract.

[ 126 ] The Mother says that the Aunt refused to sign such a contract and the Aunt stated that she was going to speak to her lawyer, and then never called back nor attempted to make contact for approximately a year. The Aunt says that she was reluctant to sign a contract, since she had already stated in her evidence in court during the 2011 Hearing that she was prepared to accept the supervisory role. Accordingly, she saw no necessity to enter any other contract with the Mother. [ 127 ] The Aunt says that she told the Mother that she would sign the contract, but only do so under duress.

The Mother's response was that the Mother would not allow the Aunt to sign the contract on that basis, nor would she permit the Aunt to see the Child or allow the Aunt to contact the Mother. The Mother then threatened to report the Aunt to the police if there was any further attempt to communicate. Such a contract had apparently been signed by the Professional Supervisor and also by a friend of the Father's, T.C. (“Mr. C.”), who the Mother and the Father had agreed upon as a supervisor. [ 128 ] I take it that it is common practice for a Professional Supervisor to have such an agreement in place.

However, it was the Mother's view that any other person prepared to serve in that capacity should also be signing such an agreement "to protect everybody" and to make it clear what the responsibilities and expectations were of the supervisor. [ 129 ] Mr. C. apparently was able to supervise on a once-per-week basis in May and June of 2012. Thereafter, the Mother refused to permit Mr. C. to supervise the visits when she learned that he had left the Child and the Father alone together while he briefly attended at a nearby store to complete a chore.

The Father's visits with the Child had apparently been going well up to that time. [ 130 ] The Father apparently had no further visits with the Child from the termination of Mr. C.'s role as a supervisor until a family case conference held in June of 2013. The Mother blames the Father and Aunt for not contacting her concerning resumption of supervised visits. The Aunt says that her cellphone was destroyed and that she lost all of her contact information, including the contact information for the Mother.

The Aunt says that until the June 21, 2013, family case conference, which she attended with the Father, she was unaware that the Mother and the Child had moved to the Qualicum Beach/Parksville area. That fact was only learned after the family case conference. [ 131 ] There is no indication from the Father or the Aunt that the Mother made any attempts, directly or indirectly, to contact the Aunt or the Father in order to arrange for any supervised visits to continue. The Mother claims that the Aunt and the Father refused to pick up their cellphones to respond to calls from the Mother or Mr. K.

The Mother states that her and Mr. K.'s cell numbers never changed from October of 2011. [ 132 ] On June 21, 2013, the matter proceeded at the family case conference conducted by the Honourable Judge Gouge with the parties, the Aunt, and legal counsel in attendance. The June 2013 Order was made and the Father's four ordered visits occurred under the supervision of the Aunt in June and July of 2013.

Those visits went well for both the Father and the Child. [ 133 ] As noted above, the Mother and the Child travelled to Nova Scotia for the entire month of August 2013, and accordingly the Child was unavailable for visitation. No further supervised visits were arranged. The Mother apparently felt that she had fulfilled the strict requirements of the June 2013 Order. [ 134 ] There is little evidence to indicate what attempts were made by or on behalf of either party in order to continue with supervised visits from that period from September through until November 2013.

The Aunt indicated that she still did not have the Mother's contact information and was awaiting a call from the Mother upon her return from Nova Scotia with the Child. That call apparently never came. No supervised visits occurred until November 2013. [ 135 ] The parties and their counsel attended court on November 7 and November 8, 2013, at which point the matter was referred to the judicial case manager for the purpose of setting the hearing date for the Present Hearing before me. The parties apparently exchanged contact information at the time of the court appearances.

Thereafter, the Father's regular supervised visits continued under the auspices of the Aunt until approximately May 2014. The evidence supports the conclusion that those visits went well. [ 136 ] Communication took place between the Aunt and Mr. K., usually by text, in order to confirm details for the supervised visits. The visits proceeded up until March 28, 2014, without incident. The text exchange on March 28 and 29 contains an indication from Mr. K. that the Child was unhappy and did not want to attend the next supervised visit.

The Child's expressed unhappiness apparently was about not being permitted to have certain foods enjoyed by others at a family birthday party, and believing that the paternal grandmother did not like him and told him to leave. The text response back from the Aunt was that this was not the case and provided an explanation as to what had actually occurred. [ 137 ] Visits resumed again until May 16, 2014, at which time there was a further text exchange between the Aunt and Mr. K.

In that exchange, it was suggested that the Child was upset because the Aunt was "forcing him to call you mom and suggesting he come live with you". It was also stated that the Mother would not be "forcing" the Child to attend the supervised visit. The Aunt denied that any such conversations took place and pressed to continue the supervised visits. The text response to that from the Mother, as relayed by Mr. K., was that, "You will no longer be the supervisor" and the Father was to contact Mr.

K. for other arrangements. [ 138 ] In a further response, it was suggested that the Aunt was calling the Child a "liar" by taking issue with the suggestion that she had ever made those statements being attributed to her.

The Aunt's final response was to say that she believed herself to be the court-assigned supervisor and she extended her offer for the parties all to take counselling and her further offer to provide "neutral paid professional counselling". [ 139 ] As I understand it, the parties were unable to come to an agreement as to who should supervise the visits, since the Mother refused to permit the Aunt to fulfil that function. The Mother's three suggestions were resumption of the paid Professional Supervisor, visits supervised by Mr.

K., or visits supervised by a friend of the Mother who had apparently recently graduated from social work from Vancouver Island University. [ 140 ] The Father testified that he did not have the financial resources in order to pay for the Professional Supervisor, which had previously been covered by Nanaimo Men's Resource Centre. He was of the view that he would not feel comfortable with Mr. K. being

the supervisor, and he had no contact for several years with the Mother's friend, whom he described as being an acquaintance and neighbour when the Father and Mother resided together, and who he characterized as having a "terrible swearing problem". [ 141 ] No resolution having been reached, the Father did not have any further supervised visits with the Child after May 11, 2014, up to the Present Hearing and the making of the July 3, 2014, Interim Order. [ 142 ] In her testimony, the Aunt says the Child was very reluctant to leave the birthday party and appeared to enjoy himself.

She was quite clear in her testimony that the Child always had called her "Auntie". Her own grandchildren called her "Grandma". She said that she was "shocked" about the remarks attributed to her about insisting on the Child calling her "Grandmother". She adamantly denied making those remarks. She also indicated that her husband has just retired and she is intending on retiring shortly.

Therefore, raising another child in their home was something that they had never thought about. [ 143 ] Having regard to all the evidence before me and the general internal and external consistency of the Aunt's evidence, I fully accept her version of these events. In her testimony, the Aunt indicated that she had observed the positive interaction and love between the Father and the Child during the visits that she had supervised.

Positions of the Mother and Father on Parenting Time for the Father Mother's Position [ 144 ] In her evidence, the Mother stated her belief that it was in the best interests of the Child to have what she described as "contact" with the Father.

I take that to mean parenting time within the meaning of the Family Law Act . [ 145 ] In the Mother's submissions, the suggestion is made that the Father remains mentally unstable and is not being closely monitored in order to ensure his compliance with his prescribed medication. [ 146 ] From that, I draw the inference that it is the Mother's position that the Father should still be required to have supervised parenting time with the Child.

It is the Mother's further submission that in the event that the relocation order is granted, that the Father's parenting time should be exercised initially by him travelling to Nova Scotia or alternatively, other than his relationship with the Aunt, there is nothing that prevents him from relocating from Vancouver Island to Nova Scotia, to find work, and in order to maintain his relationship with the Child. [ 147 ] The suggestion is further made that the Father will be able to maintain his relationship with the Child through such platforms as Skype.

It is further suggested that at some point the Child will be able to travel on his own from Nova Scotia to Vancouver Island in order for the Father to have in-person parenting time with the Child. [ 148 ] The Mother suggests that she and Mr. K. have limited resources in order to offer security to ensure compliance with any court orders relating to parenting time for the Father.

They do offer the value of a 1998 Chevy Blazer which they say is worth $2,500. [ 149 ] The Mother further says that in order to enable the Father to have sufficient financial resources to travel to Nova Scotia to see the Child, she will forego child support, which will approximate the cost of the Father having an annual plane ticket in order to visit the Child. Father's Position [ 150 ] In submissions made on behalf of the Father, it is said that the Mother's position with respect to continuing supervised parenting time is weak.

The Father's mental health has improved dramatically since the October 2011 Order was made. Therefore, there is no good reason why the supervision of the Father's parenting time should continue. [ 151 ] It is further submitted that the concerns expressed by this court in the October 2011 Reasons at paragraphs 71 and 72, and referred to above, still exist in 2014.

It is further submitted that there are numerous examples within the evidence which demonstrate that since the making of the 2011 Order, the Mother is not interested in the Father maintaining any contact with the Child and that she has done nothing to facilitate or foster the relationship between the Father and the Child. At best, there has only been bare compliance with the June 2013 Order.

Even that parenting time afforded by the June 2013 Order floundered because of the Mother's actions. [ 152 ] The Father says that no viable realistic plan has been offered by the Mother in order to maintain the Father's parenting time with the Child. Analysis of the Parenting Time for the Father [ 153 ] In my view, the Father has conclusively met the requirements set out in the October 2011 Order, insofar that he has, by way of the Dr.

Eselle Letter, confirmed that none of the mental health issues of the Father pose a threat to the safety of the Child. [ 154 ] I note that in her evidence, the Mother denies ever seeing the Dr. Eselle Letter. That evidence is very concerning, because the Dr. Eselle Letter was attached to the Father's application to change or cancel an order filed on October 5, 2012, which was apparently served on her lawyer.

I do not accept her evidence on that point and it taxes her credibility on other issues when her evidence is in conflict with that of the Father and the Aunt. [ 155 ] The existence and receipt of the required and sufficient information about the state of the Father's mental health, as set out in the October 2011 Order, less than a year after making of that order, should have prompted the Mother to take a positive and proactive approach to arrange or to assist in putting in place arrangements for the Father to have unsupervised access.

She would have done that if in fact she can be believed when she says that she recognizes the importance of the Child having parenting time with the Father. [ 156 ] Rather than doing so, she has done the complete opposite. She has sought to continuously stonewall the Father for a great deal

of the time since the making of the October 2011 Order, with the specific goal of limiting or eliminating the Father's parenting time with the Child. She has done that, even in the face of court orders. [ 157 ] Supervision orders must serve the interests of the Child and nothing else. Long-term supervision orders are discouraged, but in certain circumstances may be justified if in the interests of the Child: see L.A.M.G. v. C.S. , 2014 BCPC 172 . [ 158 ] Nothing presently justifies the continuation of a long-term supervision order with respect to the Father's parenting time with the Child.

Therefore, that provision of the October 2011 Order needs to be deleted.

There will be an order accordingly. [ 159 ] This is an appropriate time to also say that it is a matter of great concern that the Mother has failed to comply with the provisions of the Master Horn model with respect to the shared guardianship of the Child, which are incorporated in the October 2011 Order. [ 160 ] So far as I can determine, during the past three years there has been no consultation by the Mother, who has had primary care of the Child, with the Father, except the unfulfilled negotiations with respect to an appropriate person to supervise the Father's parenting time with the Child.

The Mother relocated the residence of the Child from Nanaimo to Errington and failed to provide the Father with any indication of that relocation. I find that to be a purposeful and calculated decision on the part of the Mother. It caused the Father significant anxiety, which is confirmed by the Father's psychiatric reports.

I have no doubt, given the historical interaction between the parents, that I should infer that she knew it would. [ 161 ] I can also presume that nothing was done by the Mother to consult with the Father concerning the Child's schooling and school programs or to afford a consultation with respect to "any significant change in the Child's social environment". In fact, I am safe in presuming that just the opposite has occurred. [ 162 ] In order to deal fully with the Father's parenting time and the issues relating to it, I must now consider the question of the proposed relocation of the Child to Nova Scotia.

Issues Before the Court With Respect to the Proposed Relocation of the Child [ 163 ] The proposed move to Nova Scotia is a relocation within the meaning of s. 65(1) of the FLA , since it can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on the relationship of the Child with the Father, who is also a guardian, and also with the relationship of the Child with the Aunt, who is a person who has a significant role in the life of the child. [ 164 ] Section 69(3) of the FLA establishes that the test for relocation is the best interests of the child.

The statutory factors of best interests of the child include and to be considered are set out in s. 37(2) of the FLA . In addition to those factors, s. 69(3) requires that the factors in s. 69(4) must be considered. Here the parents do not have substantially equal parenting time.

Therefore, s. 69(4) of the FLA is engaged rather than s. 69(5), which is only engaged if the guardians have substantially equal parenting time. [ 165 ] Under subsection 69(4)(a), the Mother, as the relocating guardian, must satisfy the court that: 5) the proposed relocation to Nova Scotia is made in good faith, and 6) she has proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the Child's relationship with the Father and persons with significant roles in the life of the Child. [ 166 ] The relevant factors to be considered are set out s. 69(6). If the Mother establishes the existence of the s. 69(4)(

a) factors, then the move is presumed to be in the best interests of the Child, pursuant to s. 69(4)(b), unless the Father, who is seeking to prohibit the move, establishes otherwise. Section 69(4)(

b) imposes upon the Father the burden to demonstrate that the relocation is not in the Child's best interest. The court must not consider whether the Mother, as the guardian seeking relocation, would do so without the Child (see s. 69(7)). [ 167 ]

Section 69 of the FLA provides as follows: Orders respecting relocation 69

(1) In this section, " relocating guardian " means a guardian who plans to relocate a child.

(2) On application by a guardian, a court may make an order permitting or prohibiting the relocation of a child by the relocating guardian.

(3) Despite section 37 (1) [best interests of child], the court, in making an order under this section, must consider, in addition to the factors set out in section 37 (2), the factors set out in subsection (4) (

a) of this section.

(4) If an application is made under this

section and the relocating guardian and another guardian do not have substantially equal parenting time with the child,

(

a) the relocating guardian must satisfy the court that (

i) the proposed relocation is made in good faith, and (ii) the relocating guardian has proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the relationship between the child and the child's other guardians, persons who are entitled to contact with the child, and other persons who have a significant role in the child's life, and (

b) on the court being satisfied of the factors referred to in paragraph (a), the relocation must be considered to be in the best interests of the child unless another guardian satisfies the court otherwise.

(5) If an application is made under this

section and the relocating guardian and another guardian have substantially equal parenting time with the child, the relocating guardian must satisfy the court (

a) of the factors described in subsection (4) (a), and (

b) that the relocation is in the best interests of the child.

(6) For the purposes of determining if the proposed relocation is made in good faith, the court must consider all relevant factors, including the following: (

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 [notice of relocation]; (

d) any restrictions on relocation contained in a written agreement or an order.

(7) In determining whether to make an order under this section, the court must not consider whether a guardian would still relocate if the [guardian's] relocation were not permitted. Positions of the Mother and Father on Relocation [ 168 ] The Mother says that she has met the statutory test and that the evidence supports that the move to Nova Scotia is in the best interests of the Child. The Father denies that the statutory test has been met and says that the evidence falls considerably short of establishing that the move is in the best interests of the Child.

Analysis of the Mother's Application for Relocation Requirement that the relocation is made in good faith [ 169 ] I am not satisfied the Mother has met the requirements of s. 69(4)(a)(i), nor has she demonstrated that the proposed relocation is made in good faith, having regard for relevant factors including (but not limited to) those set out in s. 69(6)(

a) to (

d) inclusive of the FLA . Section 69(6)(a) - The reasons for the proposed relocation [ 170 ] The Mother argues that relocation is being sought for the betterment of the family unit comprising herself, Mr. K., the Child, and presumably the new baby. It is being characterized as an opportunity for both the Mother and Mr. K. to re-establish with their Nova Scotia roots, reconnect with their respective families, re-establish themselves, gain a financial opportunity, and pursue a generally-enhanced quality of life on Mr.

K.'s family farm. [ 171 ] In the October 2011 Reasons, I expressed concerns that the planned relocation, then governed by the Family Relations Act, was only a concept and not a well-thought-out plan. There were insufficient details about the planned relocation provided in the evidence during the 2011 Hearing. [ 172 ] Little has changed and not much more is known from the evidence in the present hearing, other than the health concerns of Mr. K.'s parents, the death of Mr.

K.'s brother, the potential availability of his house at an affordable price, the deterioration of the family farm, and the apparent need for Mr. K. to assist on the farm. [ 173 ] There is little in the way of a business case presented or financial information made available to support the contention that the family farm can be revitalized or that any financial gain will be achieved. I presume that Mr. K. could have provided more details about these matters had he been called as a witness.

He might have spoken about the agreements, tentative or otherwise, that he had reached with his parents about taking over the family farm or the arrangements that he was negotiating for the de

[…]