S.H. v. G.J. Date:, 2013 BCPC 242

Citation: S.H. v. G.J. Date: 20130705 2013 BCPC 0242 File No: F6318 Registry: New Westminster IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: S.H. APPLICANT AND: G.J. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE DYER Appearing on their own behalf: S.H. Place of Hearing: North Vancouver , B.C. Date of Judgment: July 5, 2013

[ 1 ] THE COURT: Pursuant to outstanding applications brought by the parties and following a multi-day hearing which commenced before me on January 9, 2013, I am asked to make orders under ss. 39 to 45 of the Family Law Act with respect to a sharing of parenting responsibilities and parenting time of each parent relating to their sole child, a daughter, one N. now aged almost 10 years. [ 2 ] The mother met the respondent father online in the year 2001. He was then living in Germany.

They established an online relationship, and at his suggestion, he came to British Columbia in 2002 and spent two to three weeks with the mother. There were several more similar visits which followed in 2002. At Christmas 2002, the mother became pregnant with N. There is no dispute that he fathered N. [ 3 ] The father returned to British Columbia in September 2003 and stayed for approximately six weeks during and after N.'s birth. He assisted with N.'s late-night feeding and other matters.

They discussed his immigrating to Canada, and in May 2004, the father eventually moved to Canada and moved in with the mother and N. She sponsored him for three years from 2004 to 2007. The mother was initially a practical nurse but eventually obtained her BScN degree at Douglas College in the Lower Mainland. [ 4 ] When the mother returned to her nursing work at a local hospital following N.'s birth, the father was engaged in looking after N. when she was at work. In the fall of 2004, he obtained employment as a mover and in 2005 found part-time work as a shelf stocker at Walmart.

Their relationship was somewhat rocky from the outset, and they separated in May of 2005. He then moved into a separate bedroom in their townhouse. [ 5 ] During this time, the mother's son from a prior relationship, one N., lived with them. He is now 13 1/2 years of age. He has lived with his mother at all material times and now regularly sees his father every Sunday. [ 6 ] In September 2005, the mother said she sought an ex parte restraining order from this court. The father then moved out.

On September 20, 2005, the mother obtained an order from Angelomatis P.C.J. pursuant to which she and the father shared joint custody of N., whose primary residence was to be with her mother, and very importantly, the father was ordered to provide the mother with an address and telephone number of the location where his access to N., now called "parenting time," was to be exercised.

In my understanding, this order has never been varied or rescinded and for the last several years, at least, has not been complied with by the father. [ 7 ] The mother's evidence was that it was only on one occasion following separation that she had a correct address for where the father resided, this being for a period of one to one and a half years when he lived in Burnaby.

She agreed on cross-examination that she might have known of his earlier address when he also lived in Burnaby. [ 8 ] After this order was made, the parties were to some extent able to agree on what access the father would have with N., sometimes being during the day and sometimes overnight.

Certain access orders were made by this court from time to time. [ 9 ] The mother says the father was often late for access visits and seemed critical when she testified of his position that he wanted more time with his daughter than permitted in the court orders from time to time. [ 10 ] In 2010, the father, at the mother's request or suggestion, was seeing N. from Saturday or Sunday to Tuesday, and the summer was divided up evenly.

The father had N. for one half the Christmas break and all of the Easter break in 2011, even though the mother testified she did not know where he then lived. [ 11 ] When she would ask him where he lived, he would tell her, "You know why I'm not telling you," and she, of course, testified that she did not know. [ 12 ] In July 2011, N. attended a local camp for a week and has done so again in 2012 and I believe is scheduled to do so this year. She enjoys this experience, and the mother wants it to continue. She said the father was not very supportive of the daughter attending this summer camp.

There is no evidence he has, for example, defrayed any of the camp costs associated with her attendance. [ 13 ] The father had N. for most of the spring break in 2012. The mother did not then know where he lived or what he did with N. She did not believe he travelled with her outside of Canada but agreed he had taken her to Alberta with her permission.

Unfortunately, he did not return on Tuesday, April 17, as he had agreed to do, but did return on Friday, April 20, some four days later, and N., in the result, missed four days of school as a consequence. [ 14 ] The father testified that he had taken N. to Drumheller to see the dinosaur museum and, in essence, could not make it back to Burnaby in time for N. to attend school this week.

It certainly appeared, when he testified, that the terms of the existing court order on access was not a factor that loomed very large in his decision to stay in Alberta, nor was the lack of the mother's consent in his doing so. [ 15 ] In March of 2012, Janzen P.C.J. made an order formalizing the father's overnight access with N. from Sunday to Tuesday. According to the mother, he was late about 40 percent of the time for Sunday morning pickups, supposed to be at 10 o'clock a.m. His lateness has been an ongoing divisive issue between these two parents for many months and has led to arguments.

He seems not to understand that it is important that access or parenting time schedules should be strictly respected as ordered by Steinberg P.C.J. on August 21, 2012, because the parent with whom the child lives may well have work or even other personal commitments that are important to him or her to keep.

This simple fact unfortunately seems not to be appreciated by the father, putting aside that his lateness arguably is a breach of the above order, also a serious issue in itself. [ 16 ] After one access visit which occurred after the above Janzen P.C.J. order was made, N. told her mother when talking about how an access visit with her father had gone that he had coached her not to tell her mother where he lived. [ 17 ] On July 31, 2012, the father was supposed to return N. to her mother and did not do so. She did not know where her daughter was and was concerned for her safety.

She described the father to be then wild, angry, argumentative, and unpredictable. At this time,

the mother had learned from N. and not from the father that he lived in a one-bedroom apartment with his girlfriend in Vancouver near the science centre. She still had no address for him, contrary to the order made by Angelomatis P.C.J. in the year 2005. This event was preceded by a court appearance on July 30, 2012, before Steinberg P.C.J., who then ordered Dr. Elterman to prepare a s. 15 FRA report, which has now been done. [ 18 ] On the morning of August 1, 2012, the mother, as a result of N. not being returned, appeared in front of Steinberg P.C.J. on an ex parte basis.

She testified that he then suspended all the father's access to N. Later this day he came to court without N. and agreed to have a friend bring her to court.

On the afternoon of August 1, 2012, Judge Steinberg granted interim sole custody of N. to her mother and changed the father's Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday access so that no overnights were involved and on the further understanding that access could be reviewed on August 21, 2012. [ 19 ] I should state that somewhat earlier on October 13, 2011, Judge Stone of this court made an order in the New Westminster Provincial Court that the father and mother would share joint guardianship rights with respect to N. on the so-called Master Joyce model.

No formal order has been filed and entered; however, this order remains in place. [ 20 ] The parties appeared before Walters P.C.J. on a child support application on August 21, 2012. He imputed income to the father of $45,760 and ordered him to pay $424 a month child support to the mother for N. retroactive to January 1, 2010, and $126 a month commencing July 1, 2012, on the arrears, the amount of which is unstated in the order.

I am told he has paid nothing under this child support order ever, nor did he pay anything resembling child support from the date of separation in 2005 to August 21, 2012. [ 21 ] The mother testified that she once overheard the father tell her mother that he did not think he should have to pay child support. When asked by Mr. S. in cross-examination did he believe he should respect Judge Walters' order, he responded, in part, that he respected that Walters P.C.J. wrote it and that he respected it but said, without any apparent embarrassment, that he had not followed it nor made any attempt to do so.

There was no reason why he had not paid the mother something, save that they once had what he called a 50/50 sharing of N., or agreed to one, and "you can't take my kid away from me and expect me to pay." He then stated bluntly that he had no plans to pay anything on the Walters P.C.J. order relating to child support. [ 22 ] It is very clear to me that unless someone or some entity, such as FMEP, acts in future to sharpen his focus on this financial obligation, that he will pay nothing to her, not currently recognizing any legal obligation to do so notwithstanding the existence of the court order on point. [ 23 ] On the same day, August 21, 2012, the parties appeared before Steinberg P.C.J. to review his access, and Judge Steinberg varied his August 1, 2012, order to provide that the father would have access to his daughter (1) every Wednesday from 3 p.m. after school to a drop-off at her mother's home at 8 p.m., and if N. was enrolled in gymnastics, he was to take her, and (2) every second weekend from Friday at 3 p.m. when the respondent would collect N. at her school until Monday at 8:30 a.m. when he would deliver N. to her school, such parenting time to commence the week following his providing his current residential address to the applicant. [ 24 ] Judge Steinberg also ordered, as alluded to above, that the applicant and respondent must strictly adhere to the times when N. was to be collected at the commencement of parenting time with the father and when N. was returned at the conclusion of parenting time. [ 25 ] On September 13, 2012, the parties again appeared in front of Judge Steinberg who varied his two earlier August 2012 orders to provide daytime access for the father Sunday from 10 to 5 p.m., Monday from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m., and Wednesday from 3 to 8:30 p.m. with a second option, if you will, as follows: This court further orders that upon the respondent providing to the applicant his correct current residential address, the parenting time with N. the respondent is entitled to on Sunday as described in this order shall terminate and be replaced with the following arrangement to commence the week after the provision of the respondent's address information to the applicant: (

a) every second weekend from Friday at 3 p.m. to Monday at 8:30 a.m., with the respondent collecting N. at her school at the commencement of the access visit and with the respondent returning N. to her school at the conclusion of the access visit. He again ordered: This court further orders that the applicant and the respondent must strictly adhere to the times when N. is collected at the commencement of her parenting time with the respondent and when N. is returned at the conclusion of her parenting time with the respondent. [ 26 ] These September 13, 2012, orders remain in place.

The father has not provided his correct current residential address to the mother, and in the result, he has not enjoyed the overnight access he once had with his daughter historically. [ 27 ] The mother testified that she was concerned about the father's lifestyle and political philosophy, if I might call it that, as well as some of the activities he did with his daughter, for example, attempting to bring her to court with him when he was at one time involved in certainly a criminal matter which I understand has now been stayed. [ 28 ] In her August 1, 2012, affidavit, the mother deposed as follows on this point in paragraph 18: I know it sounds very bizarre, but the respondent has started to adopt a way of thinking that is very libertarian.

The respondent thinks that he does not have to obey laws or rules but can create his own. His adopted values and views I believe are adversely influencing the respondent's judgment and are contrary to the best interests of N.

[ 29 ] At trial, the mother testified that the father was spending a lot of time with one R.H., whom she understood from certain Internet information she had accessed believed himself to be a freeman-on-the-land and was involved in the creation of videos on how people could, for example, circumvent judges and the law. She believed that, in essence, adherents to Mr. H's philosophy, as she understood it, had a set of beliefs that they were not bound by the laws of Canada.

She had concerns that the father might be an adherent to these unusual beliefs and would impart them to her daughter N., which tuition or exposure would be harmful to her.

I will return to this issue shortly when I deal with the father's evidence. [ 30 ] Certainly, I am aware of this type of viewpoint described as to its variants by, for example, Associate Chief Justice Rooke in the well-known case of Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 , where freemen-on-the-land and sovereign men or sovereign citizens are described in a general way at paragraphs 172 to 182 of his very lengthy reasons. [ 31 ] In this case, adherents to these political philosophies, if they are such, are discussed in the context of their modus operandi in court and Rooke A.C.J. uses a general term to describe them as "organized pseudolegal commercial argument litigants." I do not say that every adherent to such points of view can in every case be seen to be a vexatious litigant.

It all depends on how they conduct themselves in court and I suppose, too, their point of view. [ 32 ] The mother testified that after the September 13, 2012, Steinberg order, the father continued to be late on access pickups and drop-offs, although I think for the most part not seriously so. For example, after gymnastics, on occasion, his Wednesday evening returns have been made several times at between 9:10 and 9:20 p.m., at the latest, and not at 8:30 p.m. as ordered by the court. The reason being given by the father is that they stopped to get something to eat after gymnastics.

This lateness and even the ordered 8:30 return on Wednesdays nonetheless is or can be a problem for the mother as N.'s bedtime is said to be 9 p.m., and if she requires a meal or has some homework to do, it seems there is not sufficient time to do it and get to bed in a timely way. [ 33 ] The mother describes the father as frequently argumentative with her on matters pertaining to N., including access.

She says he does not really help her with her homework, if she has some, on his access days, and it has, on about 10 occasions that she could recall, been returned in her backpack undone. [ 34 ] He denies this and called one witness a Mr. N., also interviewed by Dr. Elterman as a collateral source for his s. 15 report, who had spent many hours with both the father and N. following his separation from the mother in 2005 and who corroborated his evidence that he was devoted to N. [ 35 ] Mr.

H. also testified, and was not challenged on point, that he had observed the father, a frequent visitor at his home in "a land commonly called Coquitlam," help N. with her homework and inquire of her if she had any. He has observed him encourage her to learn things, such as French or math.

On this one point, I do not find that the father is neglectful of N.'s homework or unsupportive of her doing it or doing well at school. [ 36 ] The mother questions whether or not he feeds her properly and points to his fast-food purchases after gymnastics, but she does agree that N. loves her dad and likes to spend time with him.

At trial, she testified that she had not recently discussed his living arrangements with him and did not know if he was presently employed. [ 37 ] She proposed in her testimony, notwithstanding her various criticisms of the father, somewhat increased parenting time which could lend itself well to later overnights as compared to those referred to in the September 13, 2012, Judge Steinberg existing access order as follows: 1. every Tuesday and Thursday with the father picking up N. at school at 3 o'clock p.m. and dropping her at her home at about 8 p.m.; 2. alternating weekends both Saturday and Sunday from 10 o'clock a.m. with a pickup at her residence to a drop-off there at between 6 to 7 p.m. but without an overnight Saturday night. [ 38 ] She was opposed to overnight visits, she said, as he had currently no place to live.

She seemed to think at trial that he was living at Mr. H's home sleeping on a couch. [ 39 ] In Mr. S.'s closing argument, the mother's position on the father's parenting time was proposed as follows: 1. every second weekend, daytime only (

a) Saturday at 10 o'clock a.m. to 7:30 p.m., (

b) Sunday, 10 o'clock a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; 2. every week, Monday 3 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on a school day. If a Monday was a "Pro-D day" at school or a statutory holiday, this visit would commence at 10 o'clock a.m. rather than 3 o'clock p.m.; 3. each Wednesday, 3 o'clock p.m. to 7:30 p.m., or if N. was in a gymnastic class, the visit would end at 8 p.m.; 4. N. would spend Father's Day with her dad from 10 o'clock a.m. to 7:30 p.m. and Mother's Day with her mother; 5.

N. would be with her mother on her mother's birthday, December 3, 10 o'clock a.m. to 7:30 p.m. and with her father on his birthday, March 18, from 10 o'clock a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; 6. At Christmas 2013, N. would be with her father on Tuesday, December 24, 2013, at noon, to 8 p.m. Wednesday, December 25. As I understood Mr. S.'s submission, this would be the only overnight visit N. would have with her father all year. In successive years on an alternating basis, N. would be with her mother from noon, December 24, to 8 p.m., December 25, for example, in 2014 and 2016 and so on. [ 40 ] Mr.

S. proposed that if the father could demonstrate some stability in his life via having gainful employment, and implicit in his submission consistent with his skills, a stable home with a room for N. so she, as a 10-year-old, might have some proper measure of

privacy, that a transition could commence to overnight access, for example, on weekends as before. I think, too, that implicit in his submission was (

a) that the father would provide his current address, (

b) that someone could review his living situation, possibly the mother, and (

c) that he would contribute to N.'s costs through some reasonable measure of child support. Other orders [ 41 ] Mr. S. also proposed as part of the mother's position with respect to the application before me that I make further orders pursuant to either s. 41 or s. 222 of the Family Law Act .

Section 222 of this legislation states as follows: 222 At any time during a proceeding or on the making of an order under this Act, the court may make an order under this Division for one or more of the following purposes: (

a) to facilitate the settlement of a family law dispute or of an issue that may become the subject of a family law dispute; (

b) to manage behaviours that might frustrate the resolution of a family law dispute by an agreement or order; (

c) to prevent misuse of the court process; (

d) to facilitate arrangements pending final determination of a family law dispute. [ 42 ] The proposed orders he suggested were as follows: A. N. was not to be in the presence of Mr. H, a person the mother feels is a bad or negative influence on her daughter. [ 43 ] The mother testified, by way of explanation, that she is very concerned about Mr. H. for a number of reasons, including her understanding of his apparent negative attitude to the police and law due to his political philosophy and her perception that somehow he does not feel he needs to comply with or follow our laws as others do.

He, for example, need not be respectful of judges as she understands he sees himself as a sovereign man and advises people, including the father, how to avoid following what judges say or order. Her concern is based on her understanding of Mr. H.'s principles; N.'s father being a friend of his and, to some extent, a follower or adherent of his point of view; and most importantly, a belief that to some extent, N., if in Mr.

H.’s presence with her father, would become exposed to what she believes are his negative attitudes and be harmed in the process in that she might adopt points of view that were quite wrong and antisocial. I think this accurately summarizes the mother's position with respect to N.'s exposure to Mr. H. B. The September 20, 2005, non-removal order made by Angelomatis P.C.J. would be amended to permit the mother only to take N. outside Canada for a holiday or like purpose for two periods each not to exceed seven days in the months of July and August without the father's consent. C.

In the event she wished to take N. outside Canada for a trip greater than seven days' duration, she could and must first seek his consent, which was not to be unreasonably withheld, or a court order. [ 44 ] I understood Mr. S.'s reference to outside Canada really meant anywhere outside the Lower Mainland referred to in the above order; for example, a ski trip to Kamloops, British Columbia. D.

The mother would have all parenting rights under s. 41 of the Family Law Act save item (j), requesting and receiving from third parties health, education, or other information respecting the child, which would be a shared right. [ 45 ] I return now to the mother's evidence at trial. [ 46 ] She testified in support of her counsel's submission, for the most part, that assuming he found an appropriate place to live, saw a counsellor, and lived in something resembling a stable, safe environment for access visits, then perhaps overnight visits could be reconsidered.

At first, she wanted stability for her daughter and felt he could not now provide this having regard to his lifestyle, associations, and lack of income due to his chosen occupation, which she understood from N. was making films or editing them. [ 47 ] Finally, the mother was not opposed to her, the father and N. engaging in some form of counselling but seemed to suggest that right now, due to the anger and hurt in their relationship and difficulty in communication, was not the right time. [ 48 ] I turn now to his evidence, and I will attempt to summarize what I found to be some of the more important points.

I have reviewed all of it for purposes of this decision. [ 49 ] It is very clear to me that he loves his daughter very much and I think, too, wants what he, in his own way, feels is in her best interests. He has historically requested equal time with his daughter, and the sense of his evidence was that the mother had somehow agreed to such a scheme being in N.'s best interest but never was prepared to fully implement it.

My impression of him is that he believes he is entitled, as N.'s father, to have equal time with her, and if this were to be given, that he would then have no legal obligation to pay child support to the mother. [ 50 ] At the conclusion of the trial and argument, he stated his position as to the orders I should make as follows:

1. N. should spend equal time with each parent; therefore parenting time would be shared 50/50. He suggested if I did not order a 50/50 sharing, that his "plan B", if you will, would be that he would have N., as before, each week from Sunday at 10 o'clock a.m. to Wednesday morning when she would go to school, and the mother would have her for the balance of the week. The parties would alternate Wednesday after school so that every second week he would have N. from 3 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., including after her gymnastics lesson if she were enrolled. 2.

He would like the parenting responsibilities under s. 41 of the Family Law Act shared fairly and evenly like they once were. I note parenthetically this is what they now have by virtue of the Stone P.C.J. joint guardianship order which, however, makes the mother, in the event of a failure on the parents' part to agree on a significant decision, the ultimate decision-maker. Then he said because the mother, in essence, would not communicate with him on parenting issues and therefore practically prevented shared guardianship from working, that he wanted the right to exercise all s. 41 FLA parenting responsibilities.

Eventually, he returned to the view that I ought to make an order sharing all of the s. 41 responsibilities between the two parents equally. 3. He also wanted equal parenting time in the summer, Christmas holiday, and spring school break. 4. As to counselling, he said he would do it if I ordered it and said he would prefer a form of joint counselling with the mother. [ 51 ] He testified as to his education and training. He has a total of seven years' postsecondary education and training, mostly in Germany where he grew up.

He was trained as an auto mechanic and worked for three and a half years with Mercedes from 1994 to 1997 and for a period of time as well in a Mercedes dealership. He was in the German air force for two years, from 1998 to the year 2000, and trained as an airplane mechanic able to work on fighter jet aircraft and their weapons systems. He achieved the rank of sergeant. He was licensed to drive large trucks, tankers, forklifts, and cranes, and drove large trucks all over Germany for a period of three to four months.

He took a biomedical engineering course for two years and on graduation was qualified to install and repair certain medical equipment such as MRI and CAT scan machines.

He testified he could have updated this qualification in Canada by doing a two-year BCIT program which would result, on completion, with a degree in and his being able to do biomedical engineering work in Canada but did not pursue this avenue as he did not want to spend two years learning about what he already knew, and besides, there was no guarantee in his getting a job if he did. [ 52 ] He said on coming to Canada, early on he made some effort to get a job as a mechanic, including with Mercedes, but failed to land anything due to his poor English language skills and his lack of Canadian experience.

There may also have been an issue with the state of his documents setting out his existing qualifications all being in the German language. [ 53 ] It would seem to me that his efforts to use this skillset to gain employment - and he acknowledged he had obtained a journeyman's auto mechanic ticket qualifying him to work on any type of car - were minimal at best. He now speaks English very fluently and writes it in a reasonably comprehensible way. The state of his English is not an impediment to his doing work in British Columbia, in my view. [ 54 ] His current employment is rather vague. Mr.

N. understood that he worked making movie props at a company he had visited several times after work called W.M. D. but agreed this was some time ago. The father gave little evidence as to what he did here or why he left this employment. He says he is now a video editor and journalist. He produces and directs TV shows. He has done some work for R.H., who asked him to document his case apparently involving some interaction he had with a local police force. The father said he was now directing and the executive producer of a comedy series for TV.

He said he did political reports for a small TV station, for example, relating to the I.N.M. movement. Most recently, at trial, he describes himself as a private contractor working mainly in movie production doing anything from camera work to directing. He contracted with private people and was paid typically in gas, food, or other barter-like items or services. He said this mode of existence was cheaper than going to school. His longer range plan was to set up a multimedia business. In order to do so, he needed to do free work.

This seems to generally be the common denominator of all work the father has done in the last several years. It is unpaid in the sense that, mostly, he does not receive legal tender for his efforts, whatever they may be. [ 55 ] He gave as an example of his current work just prior to trial in April 2013 directing a film of a children's show in a studio somewhere in Vancouver but apparently done free for a non-profit arts society. He said right now, in April of 2013, he had over 30 TV shows he had to work on, different shows at different stages of production. He is seldom paid in advance.

Once they are done, he felt there was a good chance he would get a percentage. He did not say of what or when. [ 56 ] Currently and since 2009 or 2010, he has also been an editor working at or with a local independent media organization. He also deals with complaints here. He did not say over what. He is not involved in news but has contributed to a number of stories. It accepts independent stories for publication. He is on its five- to six-person board of directors. Again, he is not paid for his work.

It relies for its revenue on donations from its thousands of members or people who read its publications. [ 57 ] He agreed on cross-examination that he had written a story published in March 2012 by this entity concerning his own arrest and possibly that of Mr. H. - his evidence was not clear - wherein he wrote that the police somehow broke their oath to the sovereign on the arrest in question. He was charged with assault of a police officer and obstruction but said that charges were later stayed.

He now faces similar charges in an upcoming trial in Richmond. [ 58 ] Lastly, relating to his employment efforts, he said that once the mother started her court case herein, he felt rather than work, he should use his time to study the law so as to be able to deal with the action she commenced and defend himself without using a lawyer. [ 59 ] Dr. Elterman expressed the view that he had been both under- and unemployed primarily while in Canada, at page 13 of his report.

I agree with this observation. [ 60 ] The hearing before me was not a child support hearing, but I am required to consider, in reaching my decision as to a division of parenting responsibilities and time, the best interests of N. and those factors set out in s. 37 of the Family Law Act , one of which is the child's need for stability in s. 37(2)(e), and another is the ability of a guardian who seeks parental responsibilities or parenting time with the child to exercise these responsibilities: see s. 37(2)(f).

[ 61 ] In my view, his refusal to seek and find gainful employment appropriate to his existing skillset or retrain so as to be able to use his skills and qualifications got in Germany in Canada and be in a position to contribute to N.'s ongoing costs, including by way of paying child support to the mother, is a highly relevant factor in this case. I do not say that the payment of child support should be seen as a price to be paid by him for parenting time, and if not paid, the result should be no parenting time to him as the parent in default.

That has not been the law historically, and in my opinion, it is not now the law in this province. [ 62 ] He appears to show little respect for court orders. He is in breach, by my count, of six orders made by various judges historically, commencing with his current and ongoing refusal to supply the mother with the address whereat he resides and wishes to exercise parenting time, formerly called "access," with N. contrary to Judge Angelomatis's September 25, 2005 order. [ 63 ] As I have said, the child support order earlier made by Judge Walters seems to have been a meaningless event in his life.

He does not grasp the legal concept implicit therein that N. is his child and that even simple fairness or perhaps personal morals, the law aside, might mandate that he get a paying job and help out.

Because he has this obligation, and it is, of course, a legal one, he cannot be or remain an unpaid journalist or editor if it suits him to do so. [ 64 ] He offered as an excuse for his disinclination to give the mother his current address the fact that she once threatened him on or about July 31, 2008, that she would send her "brown friends from Surrey" after him and that thereafter he was fearful she would cause others to harm him and that on August 8, 2008, he was assaulted by a group of young Indo-Canadian youths in Surrey while working as a security guard, which event seemed to him to be like a setup.

It seemed like they were waiting for him. His testimony at trial seemed to link these two events together. [ 65 ] The alleged threat was apparently made when he and possibly his brother A. were visiting the mother long after separation and she wanted him to go to a local party with her and his brother and he refused. He was not totally surprised, he said, when she said this. He did not immediately call the police, but he did later, but it seems they declined to investigate the matter. [ 66 ] The father told Dr.

Elterman about this event and said thereafter he lost trust in everyone who said they wanted to help: (see page 8 of this report). Dr. Elterman touches upon this issue at page 9 and 14 to 15 of his report as follows. At page 9, he states: I asked (the father) why he was reluctant to provide an address. He responds that (the mother) was trying to get him deported. He says that (the mother) threatened him, and two days later he was beaten up outside his work. [ 67 ] I should state that he gave no evidence at trial that the mother was currently making efforts to deport him. [ 68 ] I will set out Dr.

Elterman's entire recommendation now, which also deals with this issue, at page 14 and 15, and I quote from his report: My recommendation in this case is that the parents continue with joint guardianship and that the mother have sole custody. I believe that the level of the relationship between these two adults is such that were they to have joint custody, there would need to be ongoing communication and negotiation which would no doubt lead to ongoing conflict. The mother has good instincts around day-to-day decision-making regarding N. I would recommend that she continue in this capacity.

On the issue of access, while I have concerns about the father's psychological status, particularly in relation to the effects of trauma on him and how this has affected his world view, his relationship with the child appears to be caring and gentle, and the child has voiced no concerns about how he is towards her. He is someone who would benefit from psychological intervention, particularly in relation to dealing with past traumas and how this affects his thinking regarding his own personal vulnerability and danger in the world.

At this point, rather than acknowledging aggression in himself, he tends to project this outward and sees this coming from outside towards himself. While I think his desire for a 50/50 arrangement is in theory [sic], the reality of his living circumstances are such that the current day visits are as much as he can handle. I would, in fact, leave the present arrangement of a longer visit on Sunday and two shorter visits on Monday and Wednesday.

This allows frequent contact but at the same time they can still go out and do things together without a major consideration for his living circumstances if there is no overnight visitation. Had the father been more forthcoming in his participation with this assessment, I would have been able to evaluate more fully his living circumstances.

With the information that I have at hand, I would recommend the current arrangement. [ 69 ] This report is helpful to the court, but the opinions expressed in it are not binding on the court. [ 70 ] The mother essentially denies she either threatened him or sent anyone to harm him. I believe as a result of this assault and the father's injuries flowing from it, he has been given a WCB monthly pension of $650 said to be his sole source of income beyond the odd cash payment for the film-related work he now does.

He also agreed he received occasional handouts from his mother and brother when they are here visiting from Germany. He said this pension related to a psychological injury he suffered. He did not say what it was and agreed that various psychologists' reports existed on point but none were filed in evidence before me. He did candidly admit, however, that he was not asserting he could not pay child support because he could not work due to some psychological problem flowing from this assault.

It is therefore unclear the precise basis upon which the WCB has made its award and for what injury, but I have no evidence, other than the fact of the WCB payments, that the father is unable to work at gainful employment commensurate with all his existing skills by reason of anything flowing from the August 2008 assault. [ 71 ] Based on the evidence I have heard, I do not accept that the mother threatened him or that there is any risk at all that if he now gave her his current address, that there would be any risk associated to his person in so doing caused by her.

If he did so, he would be in compliance with Judge Angelomatis's order and relatively immediately, due to Judge Steinberg's above order made on August 21, 2012, and would have alternate overnight weekend visits with his daughter. [ 72 ] It is regrettable he has not followed up with Dr. Elterman's suggestion that he, in essence, take individual counselling to deal

with the effects of this past trauma. [ 73 ] He testified as to his living arrangements since separation in 2005. Recently, in January 2013, he said from October 2011 to this date he lived with one M.F. in a one-bedroom apartment she leased in Vancouver. She was said to be away a lot due to her work managing bars, apparently on cruise ships. He said recently he spent a few nights with Mr. H. in Coquitlam, not wanting to be alone, with Ms.

F. away at work. [ 74 ] In later trial testimony given on April 24, 2013, when he again refused to disclose in court where he was living because he was not comfortable in doing so, he said he lived in the Lower Mainland. When I directed him to answer counsel's question, he said he lived in White Rock and Coquitlam and no longer lived with M.F. in Vancouver, which arrangement changed after his January 2013 court appearance. They had a plan then to get an apartment together when the trial concluded. This apparently did not occur. She sold her apartment in Vancouver in January 2013.

How this occurred when he earlier said she had leased it is unclear to me. She now owns an apartment in White Rock. In April 2013, he lived with her there, but not daily as most of his activities were in Vancouver. He testified that he stayed in Coquitlam "every so often" and had been using Mr. H.’s guest bedroom which has one bed therein. When asked who owned this home, he responded, "R.D. from the House of H." [ 75 ] He finally agreed that in April he was spending most of his time with R. as M.F. was not here a lot. She had been away from approximately late January 2013 and was due to return in May 2013.

He said he paid no rent to either M.F. or Mr. H. when he stayed with them and said that she helped him, I understood, with his finances somehow. I note M.F. was present in court for some times during the trial but was not called to testify. [ 76 ] Based on all the evidence in this case, I understand that currently she is his girlfriend and that she would be present sometimes when he has parenting time with N. In the result, the court will know little about her and her interaction with N. historically. [ 77 ] Mr. H. was called to testify by the father.

He was very vague in his evidence, as was the father, as to when the father stayed with him. He testified all his friends were welcome to stay with him. He could not say when the father had been with him, but agreed that he had brought N. to his place a lot or many times. He could not, for example, on cross-examination, agree or not that the father had stayed with him between two to 10 times. He was not there every single night, and when he was, he did not pay him for the food he consumed or for the lodging. [ 78 ] I found Mr.

H.'s evidence on this issue, namely, when the father stayed with him, to be both vague and evasive. That said, based on all the evidence in this case, I find that the father is a regular visitor at Mr. H.'s home located, to quote Mr. H.’s evidence, in the land commonly called Coquitlam. I take judicial notice that this land forms part of the province of British Columbia. [ 79 ] A very significant question, then, arises as to the extent to which, since meeting Mr. H., the father has become a believer or adherent to any of Mr. H.'s points of view.

The mother very much believes he has and seeks an order that if N. is with her father when he is exercising parenting time with her, that she not be around Mr. H. I will deal with Mr. H.’s evidence first. [ 80 ] He introduced himself in court as R.D. from the House of H. Unfortunately, this is not this judge's first experience with this sort of witness and testimony. When a witness is called in court, most judges, I think, want the witness to give his or her legal name and spell it. Witnesses are commonly and routinely asked to do this by court clerks.

For a witness to do otherwise, for whatever reason, is unhelpful if not annoying as it requires the judge to use precious court time unnecessarily to establish the correct identity of the witness who is appearing before the judge. [ 81 ] I will deal with what Mr. H. said about himself before returning to his evidence relating to his observations about N. [ 82 ] Mr. H. was asked to clarify the concepts of freeman and sovereign. He said he was not part of any group. He felt the concept of "sovereignty" was pretty simple and said he had not given up his sovereignty.

He seemed not to want to associate himself with freemen-on-the-land, saying he was aware of people in these movements wanting to take over governments, not one of his goals. He said he believed in freedom of all people on the earth. Every man, he felt, had to follow his truth and stand by it and could not permit others to violate it. He opined that this was his

interpretation of what the father was doing in the case before me. [ 83 ] In cross-examination, he agreed he saw himself as a sovereign and testified, "I am a human being. I have kept my sovereignty and therefore did not do what they say" - my notes make it unclear who "they" were - "unless I've waived my sovereignty," which I generally understood based on all his evidence on point would be a rare event indeed.

He said if a court made an order for someone in B.C. to pay child support, for example, it must be respected, whatever that means, but with the qualifier, only if the person has given up the authority to make his own decisions. This seems to be what he means when he refers to sovereignty. He then testified he had not given up his personal jurisdiction. "Why would I?" he asked, and then spoke words to the effect, "I can't give you my opinion on whether this court has jurisdiction," assumedly over the father, "as I don't have enough facts about the case." Later he said, "Every human being has his own court.

There is no need for any court to make a decision on my behalf, and therefore I don't need to concern myself with a court order." [ 84 ] He was asked by counsel if he held a valid B.C. driver's licence and responded that no valid law required him to have one.

I recall he was then asked how did he travel to the mother's residence or possibly the school to pick up N. and responded, "In a conveyance," which he would not define, saying he could not recall if it was by car or a horse-drawn buggy. [ 85 ] I cannot help but observe this last piece of testimony is but one example of the apparent disdain this witness must have for the court system. Counsel for the mother was fully entitled to explore in the circumstances of this case whether or not Mr. H. ever drove N. anywhere when he did not at the time hold a valid B.C. driver's licence.

This in my view was and is an important issue, of course, bearing on the presence or absence of liability insurance on his car in the event he was involved in a motor vehicle accident with N. riding as a passenger. Mr. H. was both evasive in his answer and disdainful of the court process in the manner in which he dealt with this point, in my opinion. [ 86 ] I conclude Mr. H. does not now possess a valid B.C. driver's licence and does not feel obliged to comply with the relevant

provisions in our province's Motor Vehicle Act requiring him to have one if he wishes to drive a motor vehicle as distinct from a horse and buggy in this province. Therefore, when he now drives anywhere, he does so in a manner that is contrary to the provincial laws. [ 87 ] If any of these conclusions are somehow erroneous, it is because Mr. H. could not bring himself, at trial, when he testified, to provide simple, clear answers to the questions Mr.

S. put to him that I, as the presiding judge, could understand. [ 88 ] This finding to some extent is corroborated by the father's evidence to the effect that he understood Mr. H. did not hold a government-issued driver's licence as he was not willing to contract into the Motor Vehicle Act . He therefore drove without a valid driver's licence. [ 89 ] This is the evidence I have about Mr. H.’s beliefs. [ 90 ] I turn now to the father's evidence on point. [ 91 ] He said he first met Mr. H. in the summer of 2001 at a series of what he called law classes he had been invited to.

They related to how to deal with the legal system. Ultimately, when the lecturer could not continue, Mr. H. took over. It seems he has been somehow involved with Mr. H. to date. Currently, he said, he was helping Mr. H. with two projects and said he had helped him edit a video about a court case of Mr. H. Mr. H. had asked him to document his case. [ 92 ] He said Mr. H. did not identify or describe himself as a "freeman-on-the-land" but, rather, described himself as a sovereign man. He preferred, in the father's understanding, to be called "a man". He did not or had not contracted out of his sovereignty.

He agreed it was possible he had shared these ideas with N. but could not say what he had said to her about Mr. H. He was aware Mr. H. had not filed tax returns, understanding that his reason was he had not contracted with someone to do so. [ 93 ] The father believed Mr. H. followed court orders. He agreed he was a friend of Mr. H. but said he was not an adherent of his. [ 94 ] The father earlier showed Mr. H. his affidavit that he intended to file in this case, and Mr.

H. apparently suggested a few changes on matters, for example, not to include, and the father accepted this advice. [ 95 ] As to tax returns, in answer to certain questions largely from the court, the father said two to three years ago he started not to file them.

He admitted he was in breach of my order made September 20, 2011, requiring him to file his 2009 and 2010 tax returns by September 30, 2011, and that he had not sought an extension of time in which to do so knowing he might have done so. [ 96 ] In answer to certain further questions from the court, he said this in his testimony before me on January 11, 2013: Q Is this is a principle that you will be wanting to discuss with your daughter as she gets older, this view that it's not appropriate to file a tax return with the Canada Revenue Agency?

A Well, like, first of all, it's not that it's my view that it wasn't appropriate but -- Q Well, you don't do it. You don't do it. A Yes, I don't do it at the moment. Q And you don't do it for a reason? A Yes. Q And the reason I think you've expressed is that you don't somehow feel you've contracted to do that. Is that what you said? A No, I said this is what R.'s -- Q Okay. Well, tell me again why you don't do it.

A I don't do that because I see it as, like, this way I would engage in a contract, and since the main issues that I had with the court case since the beginning that the applicable laws didn't seem to be followed and what I have learned through this question of the jurisdiction and things like this, that I was over the years try -- trying to find a way to get an issue resolved, and one of the solutions that seemed to be -- seemed to make sense was going that route in order to just get out of the jurisdiction of the Canadian law and just have it dealt with under common law.

Two people come to the table, talk about it, and without having certain restrictions [indiscernible] on it, actually restrictions, but they're not applied properly, in my opinion, or went in that case over the years, and yeah, this was my reasoning for staying out of that jurisdiction until the case is solved. Q If I were to suggest to you that the reason why people file tax returns is because that is what the law of Canada requires of everyone who resides in Canada, do you understand that concept? A I understand that concept, yes. Q Okay.

But apparently you don't feel that you're bound to comply with that law or concept; is that right? A Yes. Q Okay. And the question I did ask you earlier, and I'll come back to it, is this a principle that you intend to teach your daughter, that it is not right or not a good idea, when her turn comes as an income earner, to file a tax return? Is this a principle you'll want to teach her as her father?

A I wouldn't say teach her. Q Expose her to? A I -- I'm sure I -- like, I can't tell you what it's going to be like when she is that age. Q How about just a simple answer to the question I'm asking you. Do you intend -- A I do not know, like -- Q You don't know whether you'll tell her about it or not? A No, because until then there's no way of telling what the law is going to be like then at this point and -- Q I think I can guarantee to you, sir -- A Okay.

Q -- that there will be an Income Tax Act when your little girl is a big girl and has a job earning income and that she will be required to file a tax return and pay income tax on the money she makes. You can take that to the bank from this judge. That's going to happen. So you make that assumption that that will be so when she's a big girl. And I want to know if between now and later when she is a big girl, you're going to be suggesting to her that she ought not to file tax returns for the reason that now motivates you not to do so. What is your answer? A No. Q No what?

No, you won't tell her or -- A I won't suggest to her not to do it. Q All right. Why not? That -- A That's pretty simple. Q -- doesn't make sense. You're her father. You don't do it. Why would you not want to teach her that principle or that viewpoint that you hold to? A I for sure will be honest about what I'm doing, what I did, and whatever I might do then, but once she is in the age of having to file her own taxes, I'm sure, like I -- it's going to be, like, totally up to her to decide what she's going to do. Like, I won't tell her what to do.

Q But you'll be sure that she is at least understanding -- she at least understands that you're not filing tax returns and your reasons for not doing so? A At the moment, yes. Q Your view is that you'll want her to understand that; is that right? A Yes, that I'm not filing at the moment, yes. Q And the reasons why?

A Yes. [ 97 ] I might comment that I have very little faith that the father will not discuss this concept, likely in some detail, with his daughter, it being something that he seems to hold to rather strongly based on all the evidence that he has given before me. [ 98 ] It is difficult to conclude in light of this evidence that Mr. H.’s views on filing tax returns have not had some impact on the father as well having regard to his comments on such things as contract and jurisdiction in the evidence that I have just referred to.

The father was not cross-examined, as I recall, as to whether or not he had a valid driver's licence. [ 99 ] In an affidavit filed in this case on August 1, 2012, sworn by the father, he deposed as follows in paragraphs 1 to 4: I, G.J., Journalist, swear or affirm that: 1. I file this affidavit under thread [sic] and duress. I understand that the Provincial Court of B.C. doesn't have to follow the law as according to Canadian law, B.C. is to the most parts not even part of Canada but in fact occupied Coast Salish territory. 2. Adjudicators W. and S. willingly broke already their oath to uphold the law.

Previously filed evidence was willingly ignored. Both made it very clear that being biased is of no concern in their courts.

3. Jurisdiction over this file was already given away by Adjudicator A. for the Provincial Court and giving to my court by (the mother) which was confirmed on 20th of February '12 with a notice of default (Exhibit A). 4. I understand that the jurisdiction over said issues lies with me. However, I'm forced to continue attending this court under threat and duress as (the mother) and her layer [sic] W.L.S. try again to use this court to enslave my child and myself. As promised in 2004, both tried on numerous occasions to take my child away from me since 2005.

Today was the third time within 14 days (July 16, July 30, July 31, Exhibit B and I). [ 100 ] I might note that all the persons referred to in these four paragraphs save for lawyer S. are Provincial Court judges. [ 101 ] I do not believe in my over 40 years as counsel or as a judge I have ever seen such statements set out in an important court document, for example, suggesting that two sitting judges broke their oath to follow the law. This type of conduct is discussed by Rooke A.C.J. in Meads at page 55 to 56 of his reasons. I also note similarities in the refrains in the above paragraphs to Mr.

H.'s explanation in court before me of his beliefs. [ 102 ] Because the trial before me focused on what was in N.'s best interests, not a great deal of time was spent exploring in any further depth the political or philosophical views of the father or Mr. H. Nonetheless, these would seem to include a view of personal sovereignty, if I could thus describe one aspect of their evidence. [ 103 ] I conclude on all the evidence in this case that the father has been and is to some material extent influenced by Mr.

H. and no doubt others and that insofar as he feels it is okay not to file tax returns, assuming he has some income, that this is not a lawful point of view and one that N. should be exposed to. Nor do I find her potentially being exposed now or in the future to Mr. H.'s philosophy would be either beneficial for her or in her best interests. [ 104 ] Mr. H. spoke very positively of the father's parenting of N. He said, without being significantly challenged in cross- examination, that he had first met N. one to two years ago and that very quickly they had become friends.

From his many observations, it was clear she loved her dad very much. For example, he had been with him while picking up N., and she would yell "Daddy" when she saw him and be very happy to see him. He described him as a very loving dad, one who verbalized his love for N. He was always gentle and kind with N., and he had never seen him threaten her or strike her, lie to her, or tell her to lie to her mom. He had overheard him tell N. that lying was no good. [ 105 ] He has seen him set a good example for N. For example, once he was washing dishes and asked N. to help too.

They drew and sewed things together, and he watched and encouraged her as well to learn new things. He felt he encouraged N. to go her own way, find out what she liked, and to learn from it. He had heard N. say she would like to spend more time with her dad and that she missed their sleepovers. He described N. as a very happy little girl and testified that "you can't find a better dad out there," of course referring to the father. [ 106 ] He said he had never threatened the mother but once outside the New Westminster court had put her on verbal notice to stop spreading untruths about him.

What these might have been was not made clear to me. Mr. H. admitted that he has a 16-year-old son and that, historically, he had a problem with his mother and his former wife or partner involving court proceedings over the years. In this sense, I suppose Mr. H. is a kindred soul to the father. [ 107 ] Mr. H.'s evidence as to the father's interaction with N. is substantially corroborated by Mr. N. who Mr. S., counsel for the mother, accurately described in my view to be a pleasant, forthright man and a good and decent person to be associated with.

I do not intend to deal with his evidence at any great length in these reasons. He had been a regular friend of the father since before his separation from the mother and saw him and frequently N. at least once a week from 2004 to 2012, often in his home where they were dinner guests with his wife and four children. He observed him to be pretty close to her, and both seemed devoted to one another. Their relationship was normal, caring, and loving. [ 108 ] In the last year, he felt that they had grown closer and the father seemed really devoted to her.

He recalled once suggesting to the father that perhaps he should return to Germany and his responding that he could not leave N. in B.C. He could not recall him ever speaking negatively about the mother to anyone, including N. He said in his view he was a good dad. His understanding was that the father was living with a friend in Coquitlam and had been there for six to 12 months. No one asked him how it was that he had this understanding. [ 109 ] He had met Mr. H. by chance two to three times in a park near where he lived in Richmond who introduced himself as R.D. from the House of H.

In certain of their many long discussions together, the father had raised the term sovereign and said he was a freeman. He did not agree with this point of view. [ 110 ] I accept that the father gets on well with N. when he is with her and that she would like to have more time with him, including overnight visits. This view of the child is corroborated in Dr. Elterman's report following his two interviews with her where she said her time with her father was too little. I have, of course, considered all of this report in coming to my decision.

Again, it is not binding on me. [ 111 ] As to N.'s view, she is described by Dr. Elterman to be a poised, easy-going child but she is only aged 9, and as such, the case law makes it clear that her views, while important, cannot be controlling or compelling in my decision as to parenting time as they might be if she was aged 14 or 15. However, I do give them some weight. Discussion

[ 112 ] Both parents are guardians of N. for purposes of the Family Law Act . Under s. 37(1) when the court makes the orders I am asked to make with respect to parenting responsibilities and parenting time with N., I must consider, as I have said earlier, only her best interests in doing so and must consider all her needs and circumstances including those factors set out in s. 37(2)(

a) to (

j) of the Family Law Act . I will not set these out in full and nor will I discuss each one. I have considered all of them. I will comment on a few of them. [ 113 ] Section 37(2)(

e) refers to N.'s need for stability. There can be no question that the current status quo represents stability. N. is going to an elementary school she knows and has school friends in the area. [ 114 ] If the father lived close to this school or to the mother, other factors aside, a 50/50 parenting time arrangement might be at least practically viable. It is unclear where he now lives.

He will not tell anyone including me and for no good reason. [ 115 ] It seems somewhat probable on M.F.'s return, which has now occurred, the father will be able to live in White Rock with her, but did say most of his activities, again, were in Vancouver. [ 116 ] He has moved around quite a bit since his separation in 2005 and lived with a number of different people.

His life cannot be described as a stable one now, certainly, from the standpoint of where he lives and with whom. [ 117 ] In my view, if he intended to live with M.F., he ought to have called her as a witness at trial and exposed her to cross- examination. If one seeks a 50/50 living arrangement, the court is entitled to meet one's roommate and assess him or her as a person. This is equally so if the person is other than a roommate and something approaching a partner. [ 118 ] I have commented on the father's refusal to tell us where he lives.

In my view, the mother is entitled to know this. [ 119 ] The father agreed that it was a good idea for him to know where the mother lives and he does and has seen the inside of her home, but said this was only so in a normal relationship. He seemed to suggest their relationship was somehow abnormal and, hence, he need not share his address with her.

I reject this as nothing more than a lame excuse for his not complying with the court order on point. [ 120 ] It is very important both to this child's mother and to the court, when parenting time is being assessed, to have some evidence that the place where, for example, overnight access is to be exercised is suitable. The father, by his own actions, including his refusal to allow Dr.

Elterman to see where he lived or him interacting there with N., again, for no good reason, has prevented me and his mother from understanding the full picture. [ 121 ] As to s. 37(2)(i), sadly these two parents seem not to be able to communicate particularly well with one another concerning N. I do not, however, accept that they cannot ever do so. Rather, they now seem to choose not to do so. I believe compulsory counselling would help. If things continue as they are, I have no doubt the stress N. feels referred to in Dr.

Elterman's report will only continue. [ 122 ] These parents need to fix their own problems so this abates and so that N. may continue to do better at school. They need to relate to one another in a more positive way than they do now for her sake.

Perhaps part of this process will be the father learning to be more open with the mother as to where he lives and being more financially responsible with respect to N. [ 123 ] Weighing all the evidence in this case, I am of the view, with one exception, that the mother should ultimately be able to make the various decisions referred to in s. 41 of the Family Law Act or do the things therein delineated without needing to have the father's consent before acting or making decisions. [ 124 ] The father has simply not got himself to the point where he can finally make important decisions relating to N. either jointly with her mother nor on his own.

He can, however, in my view, and should nonetheless as N.'s guardian, be consulted by her and have a reasonable chance to offer input. This is so notwithstanding difficulties that have existed historically with respect to their communications. [ 125 ] In the result, I allocate all of the parenting responsibilities in s. 41 of the Family Law Act , save those in s-s. (j), to the mother, however, on the terms and conditions which follow: (

a) The order made by Stone P.C.J. on October 13th, 2011, is rescinded as is any prior custody order. (

b) The father will have the parental responsibility set out in s. 42(2) of the Family Law Act to make day-to-day decisions when N. is with him while he exercises parenting time with her. (

c) The parents will share equally those responsibilities in s. 41(

j) and each will have a right to request and receive all health, educational, or other information for N. from relevant third parties including, for example, N.'s school and medical caregivers. (

d) The mother shall first discuss with the father any and all decisions and matters referred to in s. 41(

a) to (i), inclusive, and (

k) and (

l) and seek the father's consent or agreement with respect to the decision she proposes to make on the matter or issue. In the event his agreement or consent is not reasonably forthcoming, the mother may make a final decision on the said matter or issue on her own. (

e) All communication between the parents about decisions or matter referred to in s. 41 must be in writing by means of emails or text messages or by other written means. The purpose of this order is that it can later be determined, as necessary, what each parties' point of view was on a particular matter, when the point of view was conveyed to the other or received, as the case may be, and generally the nature of the discussion that was held. These discussions are to be reasonable and not lengthy either in terms of content or duration. (

f) No final decision made by the mother pursuant to paragraph (

d) above shall be legally effective notwithstanding her having all s. 41 parental responsibilities, save (j), unless she first fully complies with all requirements of (

d) herein. [ 126 ] I turn now to parenting time. The father's 50/50 plan is simply not viable based on the evidence I have, nor is his Plan B, if you will namely, what he says he had before. I am of the view that the mother's proposal put by Mr. S., with one caveat, would be in N.'s

best interests. I will not repeat it. It is set out fully above. [ 127 ] The caveat is this: As proposed to some extent by Judge Steinberg, the alternating weekend day visits on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday will immediately change to an overnight visit every second weekend starting at Friday at 3:00 p.m. until Monday at 8:30 a.m. if (

a) the father provides the mother with his current residence address where he would intend to exercise overnight parenting time with N., together with a current telephone number where he can be reached and permits her to attend thereat to view the premises. He has seen her home. There is no good reason why she should not first see his before any overnight access occurs.

Other Orders [ 128 ] Having regard to all factors in s. 37 of the Family Law Act , I find that it would be in N.'s best interests if her mother was able to take her on a holiday somewhere for a period not in excess of seven days without first seeking the father's consent or, for example, an order varying the earlier order made by Judge Angelomatis preventing both parties from removing N. from the Lower Mainland without the consent of the other or a court order. [ 129 ] Accordingly, I make the additional parenting time order sought by Mr. S. set out above in paragraphs (

b) and (c), however, subject always to the following orders: 1. In the event the mother wishes to travel outside the Lower Mainland with N. for a holiday any length of time, she shall first give the father not less than 30 days' written notice of her planned itinerary including the name, address, and telephone number of any final destination for a trip exceeding seven days and two weeks' notice with respect to a trip of not more than seven days. 2. At the conclusion of any such travel, the mother shall forthwith return the child N. to the Lower Mainland of the Province of B.C. 3.

The mother will have the first choice of a July holiday date. [ 130 ] Should the father have a similar right to travel outside the Lower Mainland with N. for a holiday or vacations purpose this summer? [ 131 ] It is to be remembered that, formerly, he did take N. camping, I believe, to the Lund area on the Sunshine Coast without incident.

He took her to Calgary and Drumheller and, but for his failure to respect an agreement with the mother as to N.'s return date and the resulting loss of time at school, which I view as a very serious breach, arguably, a visit to the dinosaur museum in Drumheller, which I take judicial notice of as being a magical place for persons of all ages, especially young children, was likely a most positive experience for her. [ 132 ] In a nutshell, it typifies the problem the father presents to the mother and to the court. He can be and is generally a good father when with N.

That is the weight of the evidence in this case, but he seems to choose not to play by the rules whether they be court orders or even agreements made with the mother as to pickup and drop-off times. [ 133 ] Having considered all the evidence I am likewise of the view that the father's parenting time with N. this summer (2013) should include the ability for them to have a summer holiday together within the Province of British Columbia on the following terms: 1.

The father may take N. outside the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, but to a destination within the Province of British Columbia for one holiday or vacation in July or August, up to the Sunday in the first September weekend before school starts and for a period of time not to exceed seven continuous days. Clearly, such a holiday will involve overnight visits, but they are subject to all other orders I make in these reasons. 2. The father will, prior to the commencement of any holiday, provide the mother with written notice of not less than 14 days of his intended holiday travel with the following details: (

a) destination address, name of destination, and a telephone number whereat N. may be reached all to be within the Province of B.C.; (

b) the proposed dates of travel.

(3) The father will have first choice with respect to an August holiday time with N. This means, by way of explanation, that if the mother wishes to have a holiday with N. in both July and August this year, she will pick her July date and, if the father wishes to travel with N. in July, he will have to work around her date. If he wishes to travel with N. for a holiday purpose in the month of August, she must work around his date before finalizing her date. 4.

At the conclusion of any such travel, the father will forthwith return the child N. to her mother in Burnaby, British Columbia, or wherever else these parents agree upon in writing within the Province of British Columbia. 5. During all vacation parenting time, each parent will contact the other parent by telephone on a reasonable basis and both will permit and encourage N. to communicate with the absent non-travelling parent. This was once called telephone access, I am not sure what it would be called now. [ 134 ] It will be seen immediately that the mother's travel rights are broader than those of the father.

I intend that the father needs to show the mother, N., and this court that he can be a positive influence in his daughter's life and play by the rules including full and complete compliance with the court orders I have made. [ 135 ] If he does so, and I will be seized of all future applications to vary parenting time or parenting responsibilities in this case, he can potentially be given more parenting time with N. If he does not, the risk he faces is that his parenting time will be reduced. [ 136 ] I turn now to the proposed order that N. be kept away from Mr. H.

I have no hesitation in making an order that the father will neither directly or indirectly permit, authorize, or instruct R.H., who testified before me, to drive N. anywhere in the world in a vehicle as

defined by s. 1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C., c. 318, as follows: "vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or thing is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, but does not include adevice designed to be moved by human power, a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks ... or a motor assisted cycle ... [137] This would, arguably, include a horse and buggy and would also include a motorcar. This order means that the father cannotallow someone else, for example, M.F., to contact and engage Mr. H. for transport of his daughter anywhere.

This would be in breach ofthe court order I have made. [138] I make this order because there is some evidence that Mr. H. does not hold a valid driver's licence and I have concerns about therisk to any passenger riding with him regardless of who owns the vehicle in the event of a collision in which the passenger is injured andpotentially no insurance coverage would be available. [139] Should the father be constrained or restricted in his parenting time as Mr. S. proposes so that when N. is with him, he and shecannot be with or in the presence of R.

H.? [140] To answer this question, I must focus on what is in N.'s best interests and, related to this essential threshold issue, whether, if N.were to continue to be around Mr. H., it might or could harm her somehow, including psychologically. [141] I find based on all the evidence that I have heard that the father both sees Mr. H. a lot, considers him a friend, has known him forapproximately 10 years, and when he sees him, frequently takes his daughter with him and she interacts with Mr. H.. [142] I also find that the father is somewhat of a student or apprentice, if you will, of Mr.

H.'s sovereignist point of view or lifephilosophy, for example, that he is not legally bound or required to file annual tax returns in Canada, to report any taxable incomeearned, or comply with licencing requirements of our provincial Motor Vehicle Act.

To some extent, based on the evidence before me,they are kindred souls on the tax return issue, although I have no evidence the father does not now have a valid driver's licence. [143] Either of these two positions, if adhered to, would result in unlawful activity and I believe, in the first case, is an offence underthe federal Income Tax Act, and in the latter case, a provincial offence under the Motor Vehicle Act. Because this trial focused on N., noone sought to fully explore and plumb the depths or shallows, as the case may be, of either Mr.

H.'s or the father's sovereignist views. [144] In so far as the Meads case might suggest, one common feature of those adherents to this point of view is often rudeness while incourt, that was so with respect to both Mr. H. and the father when they appeared before me.

In the father's case, one simple example washis apparent inclination not to stand up when I was addressing him as an unrepresented litigant in my court, despite my explaining to himthat this was the practice which was customary and only bespoke respect for the court system and process as much as to me as thepresiding judge. [145] In extreme cases where parents engage in inappropriate behaviour involving their children, child protection and like agencies canseek to remove children from their care. For example, in the case of Manitoba Child and Family Services (Director) v.

D.M.P., 2010MBQB 32 (appeal dismissed 2010 MBCA 112) Justice Rivoalen made an order appointing the claimant agency guardian of two childrenages two-and-a-half and seven and found both were in need of protection because their mother sent the seven-year-old daughter to schoolon two separate occasions with her body, her skin, literally, covered with racist writings and drawings done in indelible ink whichwritings included such notations as, "Black People Don't Belong." [146] This is not the case at bar, but it is clearly an example of a court stepping in to protect a child who was being exposed to whatwas clearly a harmful adult influence and conduct.

In that sense, it has some relevance to what I am asked to do. [147] Generally, the court should decline to limit or constrain or restrict a parent's access, now in this province and court called"parenting time". I believe the leading case on point is the Young decision, (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, involving adiscussion of the best interests of children with respect to access in the context of the federal Divorce Act. [148] The facts in Young are as follows: Following the separation of the father and mother the father had become involved with theJehovah Witness religion.

Neither the mother nor the children wished to be involved with this religion. The parents had threedaughters. At the time of the trial decision in the B.C. Supreme Court, the daughters were 11, nine, and two years of age.

At the time ofthe decision in the Supreme Court of Canada, they were almost 15, 13, and six years of age. [149] The trial judge found that the older two daughters liked their father and enjoyed spending time with him, but had come to dislikehis religious instruction to the extent that it was damaging his relationship with them and was contributing to the stress the children wereexperiencing in adjusting to their parents' separation.

They preferred to remain with their mother as they had since the separation of theirparents and to have visits with their father from time to time. [150] The father was ordered by the trial judge not to discuss the Jehovah's Witness religion with the children, take them to anyreligious services, canvassing, or meetings, or to expose them to religious discussions with third parties without the mother's consent. These orders were phrased as follows: 1.

The Respondent shall not discuss the Jehovah's Witness religion with the children and shall not take any of the children to anyreligious services, canvassing or meetings, without the written consent of the Petitioner and shall not expose the children to [the]religious discussions with a third party or parties without the written consent of the Petitioner... 2. Neither party shall make any adverse remarks with reference to the religious beliefs of the of the other party.

The Respondent is enjoined from preventing any of the three infant children of the marriage from having blood transfusions in theevent blood transfusions are required. [151] The British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside the limitations on religious discussion on the ground that it was in the bestinterests of the children that they come to know their non-custodial parent fully, including his religious beliefs, unless the evidenceestablished the existence of or the potential for real harm or the child did not consent to being subject to the access parent's views orpractices, (1990), (BC CA), 75 D.L.R. (4th) 46, or 50 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1. [152] The mother appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on several issues including asking the court to reinstate the abovelimitations on religious instruction.

The members of the court issued five separate opinions discussing the several separate issues thathad been appealed. The mother was not successful regarding the issue of restrictions on religious instruction, although she succeeded onseveral other grounds of appeal. [153] The majority of the court consisting of McLachlin, Iacobucci, Cory, and Sopinka J.J. refused to reinstate the restrictions onaccess. L'Heureux-Dubé J. and La Forest J. and Gonthier J., dissenting on the issue, would have reinstated the restrictions. [154] Young is factually distinguishable from the case before me.

It involved religious beliefs apparently honestly held b

[…]