P.B. APPLICANT AND: H.D. v. DIRECTOR, CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, 2014 BCPC 392

Citation: P.B. v. H.D. and Director, Family, Child and Community Services Date: 20140604 2014 BCPC 0392 File No: F8360 Registry: Chilliwack IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT , R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 46 AND THE CHILD: D.B. , born [omitted for publication] BETWEEN: P.B. APPLICANT AND: H.D. and DIRECTOR, CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES RESPONDENTS CFCSA MATTER RESTRICTION ON ACCESS s. 3.2 Provincial Court Act REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE

HONOURABLE JUDGE J. A. OULTON Counsel for the Director: S. Trimble Counsel for the Parent: D. Klassen Place of Hearing: Chilliwack , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 12, 2014 Date of Judgment: June 4, 2014 [ 1 ] THE COURT : What this became was an application for clarification of a parenting time consent order but ordered by Judge Cutler on April 9th, 2014. So this has become a request for an interim order pending a hearing into the relocation which happened in January of 2014 of DB to Logan Lake.

The difficulty with the consent order on April 9th, 2014, is that its proposed terms have not worked. [ 2 ] It is necessary to give some background to this matter before giving my fuller reasons from the evidence I have heard today. [ 3 ] This was originally an application for an order prohibiting relocation. Ms. HD is the mother of DB. DB was born [omitted for publication]. PB is the father of DB. [ 4 ] There is an order in place dated May 26th, 2004, which gives Mr.

PB sole custody of DB, but joint guardianship with his mother, HD. [ 5 ] The Family Law Act , S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 came into effect on March 18th, 2013. There are provisions in that Act in ss. 65 through 69 that concern relocation when one guardian wants to take a child to another location. [ 6 ]

Section 66 of the Act says that a guardian has to give another guardian – so that would in this case be you, Mr. PB – you had a legal requirement to give Ms. HD 60 days’ written notice of your intention to relocate to Logan Lake, both when you were going to go, and where you were going to go. [ 7 ] In the legislation, Ms. HD would have had 30 days to respond to that notice.

The purpose of having the legislation that way is intended to give guardians a chance to discuss relocation, the effect on the children, how they are going to work out the logistics, see if they can agree between themselves before having to come to court and having a court decide what happens about such a personal decision in people's lives that affects them and affects their children. Coming to court to have a judge decide that is supposed to be a last resort. [ 8 ] The process had in mind by the legislation was not respected in this case.

The intention of the legislation was frustrated in this case. [ 9 ] I heard evidence that Ms. HD, the mother, was advised January 6th or 7th, 2014, and that DB moved to Logan Lake a week later, January 14th, 2014. I note that she filed an objection, probably as soon as she could do so, on January 17th, 2014, seeking at that point a court to order a prohibition of the relocation when the relocation had already happened. [ 10 ] So in this case the process was not respected. The way this has happened has not been fair to the mother who is a guardian of the child. [ 11 ] Now Mr.

PB, I see you nodding and I also want to say that I understand your evidence was that it was not your choice to move to Logan Lake and that an aspect of this was something that happened, that it was sudden for you, and it was because of concerns with the Ministry. I understand that, however, I have to look at this situation all the way around and what I do see, in addition to that, is that it is not a situation where Ms. HD’s entitlements and rights as a guardian were fully respected in the way that the law meant they would be. [ 12 ] Now, I am not hearing the relocation application today.

I think quite appropriately the parties have asked that DB be consulted on this.

He is eleven years old; there is a s. 211 report that is in the process of being prepared and at some point, possibly the end of August, there is going to be a fuller hearing as to the relocation. [ 13 ] I do think though it is relevant to consider what the law says ought to have happened in this case when I consider what order is appropriate to make, on an interim basis, before there is a full hearing into the relocation at the end of August possibly. [ 14 ] I would encourage you both in all aspects where you are able to do so to communicate, cooperate, and be flexible. You are joint guardians of DB.

He is still only eleven; he has some time to go to grow up. [ 15 ] I saw examples of each of you doing that and I would encourage you to continue. For you Ms. HD, it is where you would call at a time when you have been told that SD’s aunt preferred that you called, you would call at 6:30 even though you have a Court order that says from 5:00 to 7:00. For you, Mr. PB, when you said you would always let Ms. HD know when you are otherwise coming to Chilliwack so that she might have the opportunity to see DB.

[ 16 ] Those are exactly the types of activities and communications that I think are going to be in DB's best interests. He will thrive even if he feels that his parents may have chosen to be apart but they will at least cooperate and communicate for his benefit with each other. [ 17 ] The fact that you had that period of time at the beginning of the relocation, Mr. PB, where you did not let DB talk to his mother concerns me. These were already circumstances where DB was moved without proper notice to his mother and the proper procedures were not followed.

Any time that either of you -- and I do not know to what extent this has actually happened – but either of you talking to DB negatively about the other parent is something that I think you probably realize is not in DB's best interests. He is still a child.

Adult decisions are adult decisions and the child affected by them should be protected from negativity in the process of making them. [ 18 ] So looking at what would have happened if this were a relocation application, and I am doing that because in making an interim order, I want to try to recognize the rights of both the guardians until a judge hears all of the evidence as to what is in DB's best interests. [ 19 ] So if you had given the notice, and Ms.

DB had objected, then you are a parent who has had sole custody so the Court would have looked at that as a situation where you had more of the parenting time with your son DB, and s. 69(4)(a)(ii) would apply, and it says: (4) (

a) the relocating guardian [that would have been you] must satisfy the court that (ii) the relocating guardian has proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the relationship between the child and the child's other guardians [which would be Ms. HD]…. [ 20 ] So I am considering that

section because pending the decision about the relocation that is what the law requires a relocating guardian to do even if they are the parent who has had more time with the child. It is still important, and the law puts an obligation on the relocating guardian, to propose reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the relationship between, in this case, Ms. HD and DB. [ 21 ] What I heard is that mother and father were together off and on until 2005, according to Mr. PB, or 2006, according to Ms. HD. I heard that there was really only a predictable and regular

schedule in the last two to two and a-half months before the move to Logan Lake so there was stability and predictability and a routine at the end of 2013. That

schedule was Tuesday, Thursday and every other weekend that DB would spend with his mother. [ 22 ] DB has a little brother, C, who is his mother's child. The mother has been one year clean and sober as of mid-April 2014. [ 23 ] Mr. PB and Ms. HD have been trying as well, and it would seem successfully, in the last six months with the assistance of the safety plan, to not be on drugs. [ 24 ] So in this situation, I see a child who has been moved suddenly, and a guardian who had been beginning to establish a more regular, stable, consistent contact.

The fact of that relocation has not yet been fully determined by a court even though it has already happened. [ 25 ] So having heard all the evidence and considering what I am being asked to do here today, my view is that I should preserve the mother, the guardian's, relationship as Mr. PB had the legal obligation to do pending the outcome of this relocation decision. She had every second weekend, and Tuesdays and Thursdays with DB before this sudden move.

Now, it is not workable or practical for the Tuesdays or Thursdays, but every second weekend in my view is important to guarantee for predictability and stability for DB to know when he is going to see his mother, for his mother to know when she is going to see her son, for C to know when he is to see his brother, and this to preserve, at least to the extent that is possible, given the geography in this situation, what the relationship was, right before it suddenly changed very, very dramatically for DB as a child. [ 26 ] So that is my intention in making this order and I see that Ms.

B, who stands as a mother figure to Ms. HD, is willing to render quite generous assistance in this regard. When she testified she said, "I will take DB to Hope every second Friday", so on alternating Fridays and that would be a meeting point. [ 27 ] It seems to me that this order that I am about to make, I am making it in the absence of the parties being able to agree. You see, if there were more certainty in the

schedule for when the trips from Logan Lake to Chilliwack were happening for SD's children, it would seem like the most logical and predictable thing to do would be to make those trips be the same weekend, but I do not have information and knowledge about that right now. In the absence of that, the order I am going to make is to order that on alternating weekends, that you, Mr. PB or someone -– am I saying your name wrong? [ 28 ] PB: Yes. [ 29 ] THE COURT: What is it? [ 30 ] PB: B. [ 31 ] THE COURT: Mr. PB or somebody who you -– it could be Ms. SD, it could be Mr. B, have to bring DB to Hope to meet with Ms.

B and I heard that you get home from work 6:30 p.m. you said. Ms. SD said 5:30-6:00 sometimes so with respect to who would do this, I am going to say that you should bring DB and have him at Hope by 8:00 p.m. every second Friday and be there to pick him up from Hope at 5:00 p.m. on the Sunday. [ 32 ] Ms. Klassen, if you want to tell me that somebody other than –- I will give you the terms of the order that I am considering, but I will ask if you have any comments before it gets drawn up. [ 33 ] So the interim order for parenting time is:

1. First of all just to clarify, DB is to have private telephone access to his mother, HD, between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. each day. 2. The mother is to have parenting time every second weekend beginning June 6th, 2014. 3. The father, PB, is responsible for seeing that DB gets taken to Hope each alternating Friday beginning June 6th, 2014, for 8:00 p.m. and to see that he gets picked up from Hope each Sunday at 5:00 p.m. 4. The father is to advise the mother if he is otherwise coming to Chilliwack from Logan Lake for any period of time.

DB will accompany him and if the parties agree, he will spend that time with his mother, HD. [ 34 ] With respect to that term of the order, I am considering that I have heard that DB also enjoys seeing Ms. SD's children and so I invite submissions on that point. The reason I framed it as “if the parties agree” is I am trying to make sure that the mother continues to have parenting time with DB until there is a full relocation hearing so that the relocation does not become the de facto status quo but also trying to recognize the relationship that DB might have or does have with his mother.

So on that point I would like submissions from counsel. 5. With respect to summer, I think the parties are substantially in agreement on that, but the order I am making, reflecting what I have heard, is that the father will bring DB to Chilliwack on July 11th, 2014, to spend the next two weeks with his mother and he will pick him up and bring him back to Logan Lake on July 25th, 2014. On August 8th, 2014, he will again bring the child to Chilliwack and will pick him up and bring him back to Logan Lake after the two week visit on August 22nd, 2014. [ 35 ] MS. KLASSEN: Your Honour, when you stated Mr.

PB was to advise when he is coming to Chilliwack any other time, would that be additional access then? [ 36 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 37 ] MS. KLASSEN: In addition to every second weekend? [ 38 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 39 ] MS. KLASSEN: Okay. [ 40 ] THE COURT: What I am concerned about here is – and I am noting that this was a precipitous decision but I am concerned that something that happened in a manner that was not fair to Ms. HD might become the status quo just because it has been how matters have been for several months.

So in the interim before there is a full hearing on what is in the best interests of HD with the Views of the Child Report, I want to ensure that Ms. HD has at least the amount of parenting time she had before DB left which is not really possible given the logistic constraints. So the two weekends are only part of what she had before DB left in January, so given that Mr. PB and Ms. SD do come back to Chilliwack on a regular basis, also that parenting time should be a possibility. I heard Mr. PB in his evidence and Mr. B, and even Ms.

SD, all acknowledging the importance that they saw for the relationship to be maintained. I am just trying to give effect to those intentions with some structure and predictability. [ 41 ] MS. KLASSEN : So every second weekend for sure and additional weekends if they have happened to be coming down by agreement of the parties? [ 42 ] THE COURT: That is what I was inviting submissions on. And I heard that you would know two weeks in advance. Is that always the case that you would know two weeks in advance? [ 43 ] MS.

TRIMBLE: At the end of June I have a trial, a two-day trial, and I will know more about the access (indiscernible). That's what I (indiscernible) the contract both access and the (indiscernible – not speaking near microphone). [ 44 ] THE COURT: All right. The term would be, Mr. PB, you are to let Ms. HD know when you know if you are coming to Chilliwack which I think you have been doing already. What I am attempting to do with this order is to make it quite predictable and clear and I am doing that as I think I have explained a few times.

I want to preserve the relationship between DB and his mother until a court can hear fully about this relocation and what is in the best interests of DB. [ 45 ] MS. KLASSEN : I'm just anticipating a concern my client has with the 5:00 p.m. pickup on Sunday in Hope is that by the time they get back to Logan Lake, for example, if there is any homework or anything that needed to be done, so it would be getting too late for that to happen. [ 46 ] MS. TRIMBLE: He could send the homework with him. [ 47 ] MS.

HD: And he could shower at my house if he wanted like (indiscernible) [ 48 ] THE COURT: The homework could come with him, yes, I would assume that would be good. [ 49 ] PB: She doesn't do it with him. [ 50 ] THE COURT: The -- [ 51 ] MS. KLASSEN: The concern is that it doesn't get done then it's –- [ 52 ] MS. TRIMBLE: It'll get done. [ 53 ] PB: (Indiscernible).

[ 54 ] MS. KLASSEN: If it doesn't get done, it's not going to look very good on you. [ 55 ] MS. HD: On me. [ 56 ] MS. KLASSEN: On Ms. HD, so -- [ 57 ] THE COURT: I considered the Greyhound Bus but due to the short amount of time that would actually be spent with his mother and due to the fact that he is eleven and Mr. PB had reservations about that, I think this is an opportunity, as Ms. Trimble just said, for the mother to have her relationship with DB and actually have an opportunity to parent him and seeing that he gets his homework done on the weekends is part of that. [ 58 ] MS.

KLASSEN: Should we put a location in Hope? [ 59 ] THE COURT: Yes, can you assist me with that? [ 60 ] MS. HD: At the Chevron on the main road? [ 61 ] MS. KLASSEN: Right close to the RCMP? [ 62 ] MS. HD : Yes. Right by the bridge. [ 63 ] MS. TRIMBLE: All right. Just make sure there's no confusion. There's only one McDonald's there so -– [ 64 ] MS. KLASSEN: Okay, at McDonald's in Hope. [ 65 ] THE COURT: At the McDonald's in Hope? And Ms. B, you know where that is? [ 66 ] MS. B: I do. [ 67 ] THE COURT: All right. So – [ 68 ] MS.

KLASSEN: And I'm wondering if we should make this order on a without prejudice basis so the parties – so it's providing for weekend parenting time for the mother but given the (indiscernible) relocation hearing come around, we don't want this weekend parenting time to be an order that was made on the basis of full evidence. [ 69 ] MS. TRIMBLE: It is an interim order. [ 70 ] MS. KLASSEN: Okay. (Indiscernible) make sure of that. [ 71 ] THE COURT: And you are both going to continue to be counsel so you will understand the context of the hearing today. [ 72 ] MS.

KLASSEN: I wonder if you could order a transcript of the proceedings for today. [ 73 ] THE COURT: The entire proceedings or just the -– [ 74 ] MS. KLASSEN: Just your reasons. [ 75 ] THE COURT: All right. So yes, just the –- [ 76 ] MS. KLASSEN: Transcript of your reasons to go on the file. [ 77 ] THE COURT: Yes. And I should say DB's date of birth is [omitted for publication]? [ 78 ] MS. KLASSEN: Okay. [ 79 ] MS. TRIMBLE : The last time we were in court, there was an order made and it was agreed to upon all parties and they were (indiscernible).

I'm just wondering if they can't do that (indiscernible) if they don't show up what happens then? [ 80 ] PB: What if that continues where they just -– [ 81 ] MS. TRIMBLE: Yes. [ 82 ] PB: She keeps on not going through with her part. We come to Hope and she's not there. [ 83 ] THE COURT: Oh, you are saying -– I have not said in the order that Ms. B will go to Hope. [ 84 ] PB: No. [ 85 ] MS. KLASSEN: If she doesn't show up just like they didn't show up in Merritt. [ 86 ] PB: If she doesn't live up to her end of the deal which is going to Hope -- [ 87 ] MS.

TRIMBLE: I think the other order was kind of confusing. [ 88 ] MS. KLASSEN: What the concern -– maybe I can -– is so we get a call on Thursday, "Oops, it's not going to work. We're not going to be able to make it to Hope. Can't you come all the way down to Chilliwack it's not much further anyway".

[ 89 ] THE COURT : No. This order is definitely meant to be and I see it as the mother really offering to assist with -– well, Ms. B actually helping the mother to –- but it is on behalf of the mother assisting with having DB see his mother. So it is to happen that way. The order is going to be that the father is responsible for getting DB to Hope and Ms. B has agreed for predictability and consistency that is part of the order as well, then that can also be part of the order. Ms. B is to bring DB to Hope on those alternating Fridays to meet with –- [ 90 ] MS.

B: The only thing that would hinder that would be an emergency and –- [ 91 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 92 ] MS. B: -- emergencies do happen. [ 93 ] THE COURT: Yes. Well, and again if an emergency happens on either of your sides, I would expect that you would as a common courtesy communicate with each other about that. No court order could cover every possible circumstance that could arise in the world but I am expecting that everyone here has good intentions and wants the best for DB and is willing to make these efforts to make sure that his relationship with his mother gets some priority. [ 94 ] MS. KLASSEN: Okay. Ms.

B is responsible to see that DB is brought to Hope -– [ 95 ] THE COURT: Ms. B? [ 96 ] MS. KLASSEN: Oh, sorry, Mr. PB is responsible to see that DB is brought to Hope every second Friday –- [ 97 ] THE COURT: By 8:00 p.m. [ 98 ] MS. KLASSEN: -- and brought to McDonald's in Hope every second Friday at 8:00 p.m. [ 99 ] THE COURT: Say by 8:00 p.m., because it may be – what I want is to leave some flexibility here if Ms. SD can take him, if Mr. B could take him and it could be earlier and that works with Ms.

B, but by 8:00 p.m. taking into account what he told me about his work schedule, every alternating Friday, and then –- [ 100 ] MS. KLASSEN: Okay. So he is responsible to see that DB is brought to Hope by 8:00 p.m. but it doesn't necessarily have to be him. He just – but it's his responsibility to make sure that – [ 101 ] THE COURT: Yes, I want him to be responsible as a father but it does not have to be him. [ 102 ] MS. KLASSEN: Okay. And he has to ensure that somebody is there to pick DB up at McDonald's at 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. [ 103 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 104 ] MS.

KLASSEN: And that's commencing this weekend, June 6th. [ 105 ] THE COURT: June 6th. [ 106 ] MS. KLASSEN: And he is also to advise at his earliest opportunity that he is -– as soon as he knows another time he is coming to Chilliwack he is to advise Ms. HD. [ 107 ] THE COURT: The father is to advise the mother as soon as he knows -- [ 108 ] MS. KLASSEN: As soon as he knows. [ 109 ] THE COURT: -- if he is otherwise coming to Chilliwack from Logan Lake for any period of time. [ 110 ] MS. KLASSEN: Okay. [ 111 ] THE COURT: DB will accompany him and if the parties agree, will spend the time with his mother. [ 112 ] MS.

KLASSEN: Yes. [ 113 ] THE COURT: And that term as I said is meant to acknowledge that DB might want to spend time with his step-siblings. [ 114 ] MS. KLASSEN: So if the parties agree DB can spend additional parenting time. Okay. And then the summer, Mr. PB is to bring DB all the way to Chilliwack on July 11th and pick him up on July 25th. [ 115 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 116 ] MS. KLASSEN: Returning to Chilliwack on August 8th and pick him up in Chilliwack on August 22nd. [ 117 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 118 ] MS.

KLASSEN: And he is to have private telephone access to mom between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. on days which she does not have him. [ 119 ] THE COURT: I have heard conflicting evidence about whether or not the telephone access is private. It may be, it may not be. Just out of an abundance of caution it should be, so that is why that term is in the order.

[ 120 ] MS. KLASSEN: Okay. All right. I will draft the order. Sorry, I had 100 questions (indiscernible). On this father to advise mom if he is coming at any another time and bring DB with him, I realize we only have a month left of school but that's -– if for some reason he's coming during school time, he's not expected to take him out of school, is he? I'm just wanting to -– [ 121 ] THE COURT: No. [ 122 ] MS. KLASSEN: -- I don't want any misunderstanding about that –- [ 123 ] THE COURT: That was a response to my understanding that on a fairly regular basis although not always predictable that Mr. PB and Ms.

SD come down to Chilliwack on a weekend. [ 124 ] MS. KLASSEN: Okay. Right. [ 125 ] THE COURT: So I understood that was additional weekends. [ 126 ] MS. KLASSEN: Yes, okay. Not on school days. Well, yeah, just as I said -– [ 127 ] THE COURT: Oh, all right, instead of for any period of time, for a weekend, but the difficulty with that is that I heard that sometimes it was a day on either side of a weekend so I wanted the parties to know that what I mean is for any period of time and that is usually a weekend, sometimes it is a day on either end. [ 128 ] MS.

KLASSEN: So it doesn't –- we don't have to put the weekends –- we don't have to put weekend in there if the parties understand that's a non-school time. [ 129 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 130 ] MS. KLASSEN: All right. [ 131 ] THE CLERK: What was the date that you wanted from the JCM (indiscernible)? [ 132 ] MS. KLASSEN: It is August 28th. [ 133 ] MS. TRIMBLE: August 28th. [ 134 ] THE COURT: The 28th yes. [ 135 ] THE CLERK: And just (indiscernible) and how long was that for? [ 136 ] MS. TRIMBLE: That was set for the day. [ 137 ] MS. KLASSEN: For the day, yeah.

I think that's it, yeah. [ 138 ] THE COURT: All right, thank you. Good luck. [ 139 ] MS. KLASSEN: Sorry. Actually, before we go, I just -– I'm looking at the calendar and so if we do the 6th then it would be the 20th the next alternate weekend. Are we then suspending alternate weekends come July and August? Because technically the next alternate weekend would be the 4th but then he's coming down for the two weeks from the 11th to the 25th. [ 140 ] THE COURT: What about do not suspend the 4th weekend but just make the parenting time a little bit longer?

Bring him down on -- you know, do the 4th and make the summertime access from July 4th through to the 25th rather than the -– to the 22nd I mean. [ 141 ] MS. KLASSEN: Three weeks. [ 142 ] THE COURT: It is two extra days. It is a day and a half extra. [ 143 ] MS. KLASSEN: Well -– oh, I think the expectation was that there wouldn't be parenting time the weekend before that's why we set it for the 11th. Like when we were looking at the

schedule the alternate weekends worked out different than what they have now turned into from your order – [ 144 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 145 ] MS. KLASSEN: -- so the 11th would have been her weekend and so that's why we have the two weeks commencing on her weekend. [ 146 ] MS. TRIMBLE: Well, we could change the other -– [ 147 ] MS. KLASSEN: So it's -– [ 148 ] MS. TRIMBLE: -- start on the 4th and go to the 18th. [ 149 ] MS. KLASSEN: -- the 18th . [ 150 ] MS. TRIMBLE: But then she'd only get (indiscernible) here and then there would be a whole lot of time (indiscernible). All right. I guess the weekend of the 4th --

[ 151 ] THE COURT: It seems to me, though, that –- [ 152 ] MS. TRIMBLE: I'm okay with that. [ 153 ] THE COURT: It is not confusing to me, but I might be the only one. She would normally have seen DB the weekend of July 4th. [ 154 ] MS. KLASSEN: Only now on your orders -– Your Honour's schedule, but if we went back to our alternate weekends from April, I'm not sure that that would have been the schedule. [ 155 ] THE COURT: But you see, if you keep the

schedule where Ms. HD gets to see DB July 4th and that means that Mr. PB drives to Hope on the 4th and then he does not need to drive DB on the 8th of July. He can just come to Chilliwack and pick him up on the 22nd. So it is a little bit -- [ 156 ] MS. KLASSEN: She was supposed to get him on the 11th -– no, sorry, Your Honour, it was the 11th to the 25th is the summertime that we had, not the 8th to the 22nd. [ 157 ] THE COURT: Oh, is it? I have given the file back, so I do not have the order. [ 158 ] MS. KLASSEN: Yeah, it's the 11th to the 25th.

Yeah, so that's why, right, so it was a Friday to a Friday, that's two weeks. [ 159 ] THE COURT: That is okay, though. All that means is I –- I do not see a need to change that order. She will have him on the weekend and then next -- [ 160 ] MS. KLASSEN: She'll have him on the 4th and then she'll have him on the 11th –- [ 161 ] THE COURT: -- Friday she will have him for two weeks. [ 162 ] MS. TRIMBLE: Yeah, okay. But I think that's fair. [ 163 ] MS.

KLASSEN: Well, yeah, I -– I don't because if all she was getting was the alternate weekends, she would have him the 18th, so now he is missing weekend time with dad that he would otherwise get. Because then there is the –- but then I guess we have the two weekends to the 15th, or to the -– well, no, then we only have him one week there –- no, it was one week, two weeks there if -- he only gets one full weekend all summer until right before school. [ 164 ] MS. TRIMBLE: Well, he's got him the 8th to the 22nd. [ 165 ] MS. KLASSEN: No. She has him the 8th to the 22nd. [ 166 ] MS.

TRIMBLE: Oh yes, she does . (Indiscernible – away from microphone). [ 167 ] MS. KLASSEN: So this would be the only weekend he would actually have a full weekend. [ 168 ] THE COURT: He has -– [ 169 ] MS. KLASSEN: No, 'cause it's changed on the Friday. [ 170 ] MS. TRIMBLE: What time? [ 171 ] THE COURT: The summer is often a bit of an exception. [ 172 ] MS. KLASSEN: Yeah. [ 173 ] THE COURT: And in these situations it is hard to ideally balance everything. The summer often might be irregular in this way. [ 174 ] MS. TRIMBLE: Yeah, okay. [ 175 ] MS.

KLASSEN: Yeah, no, I -– just thinking (indiscernible) transportation for three weekends out of four weekends in July that Mr. PB, or someone on his behalf, is having to travel back and forth between Chilliwack and here so that's where my concern is that it's a lot of transportation within one month. [ 176 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 177 ] MS. KLASSEN: And I don't think my client is -– would be comfortable with DB being away for a full three weeks at a time either, so... [ 178 ] THE COURT: No, we are not changing it to three weeks at a time. [ 179 ] MS.

TRIMBLE: I suppose we could suspend weekend access for the summer. [ 180 ] MS. KLASSEN: Yeah, there may be times that they come down –- [ 181 ] MS. TRIMBLE: So, on the off-chance that we don't resolve things -– the chance that we don't resolve things August 28th, the weekend access for mom would resume probably September 5th? When does school start, the 2nd?

[ 182 ] THE COURT: I think this interim order will just stay in effect until it is changed, and I am not going to change it. I have made an order and if the parties were going to agree, that would have happened before I had to make the order. So now it is just going to be alternating weekends starting June 6th and -– [ 183 ] MS. KLASSEN: The 6th. Yeah, I just –- I don't think we -– either considered how that

schedule looked until -– until now. [ 184 ] THE COURT: Thank you. (ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)