Z.S.R. v. R.S. Date:, 2016 BCPC 200

Citation: Z.S.R. v. R.S. Date: 20160614 2016 BCPC 200 File No: F8643 Registry: North Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: Z.S.R. APPLICANT AND: R.S. RESPONDENT ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE B. DYER Appearing on her own behalf: Z.S.R.

Appearing on his own behalf: R.S. Place of Hearing: North Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: June 14, 2016 Date of Judgment: June 14, 2016 [ 1 ] THE COURT: The Father applies for increased parenting time and to vary my December 24, 2013 order accordingly. [ 2 ] The parties are parents of a daughter, one A., born [omitted for publication], now almost four years of age in [omitted for publication].

She has no special needs, but does appear to be somewhat delayed in achieving complete success thus far in fully extricating herself from the use of diapers. [ 3 ] At all material times, she has lived with her mother in North Vancouver in the sense that she has been her primary place of residence. The Mother has also been her primary caregiver. [ 4 ] Ms. Z.A.R. works from her home as an accountant approximately 25 to 30 hours a week, on average.

She has a number of clients she services on the North Shore and, in addition, is very close, living some three blocks away from her sister, brother-in-law, and her sister's child, one S., really her only extended family in British Columbia. She testified they were "quite a close family". [ 5 ] There is no evidence that she intends to move off the North Shore in future for any reason. She does not own and does not now drive a motor vehicle.

Her employment situation is not greatly different from what it was when the parties appeared before me for some five days prior to December 2013, and raised various issues for me to deal with, including precisely what parenting time the Father should have with their daughter. He then expressed a desire to be an important part of A.'s life and wanted more time with her, so he and she could bond as father and daughter. This continues to be an important theme for them. [ 6 ] He then, as now, lived in a residence in Burnaby, a dwelling home, with his brother A.

He is an accountant, as well, with a CGA qualification, and in December 2013 was unemployed and said that he drew unemployment insurance as his sole source of income through the month of November 2013. [ 7 ] In reasons I gave on December 24, 2013, I found notwithstanding his having no gainful employment, that he had substantial capital, including with respect to real estate he had prior to the trial transferred, seemingly without receiving consideration, into the names of his siblings.

I then estimated his real estate to be worth some $1.745 million. [ 8 ] The parenting orders I then made when A. was some 15 months of age, and still being very regularly breastfed by her mother, were as follows, in part, commencing December 30, 2013, on a four-week cycle or rotation: Week 1: Two visits not to exceed four hours, during the weekdays Monday through Friday. The parents are to choose the specific days and pick-up times. If they cannot agree, the visits will be Tuesday and Thursday with pick-up at 4:00 [o'clock] p.m. [ 9 ] I note the Father chose Tuesday and Thursday each week for these visits.

The order continued in Week 1 as follows: Saturday for five-and-a-half hours and Sunday for five-and-a-half hours. The parents are to agree on pick-up times. If no agreement can be made, all pick-ups and drop-offs in these orders will be at the Mother's residence in North Vancouver unless otherwise agreed and the weekend pick-up time will be noon each day. Week 2: Weekday visits as per Week 1; Saturday, five-and-a-half hours, or Sunday, five-and-a-half hours; pick-up times to be agreed; if not agreed, the pick-up time will be noon. If the day of the weekend cannot be agreed, it will be Sunday.

Week 3: Weekday visits as in Week 1; Saturday, five-and-a-half hours, and Sunday, five-and-a-half hours. If the pick-up times cannot be agreed to, the pick-up times will be at noon. Week 4: Weekday visits as per Week 1; no weekend parenting time for Father. The Mother will have the Child in her exclusive care throughout this fourth weekend. [ 10 ] I also made the following orders: 4. Commencing on the first Saturday in June 2014, the Father's parenting time on weekends in Weeks 1, 2 and 3 will be varied so as to commence Saturdays at 10:00 [o'clock] a.m., and end Sundays at 1:00 [o'clock] p.m.

The Mother will continue to have the Child in her exclusive care every fourth weekend and the Father's weekday parenting time continue as set out in paragraph 3 of this Order. . . .

7. The Father will have such further and other parenting time with the Child as the parents may agree. [ 11 ] Hence, in June 2014, at A.'s age 20 months, overnight access was to commence. This is the order that the Father seeks to vary. [ 12 ] The Father applied in January 2014 to vary the above orders I made, unsuccessfully, and on October 21, 2014, filed the application that I am considering, less than one year after my December 24, 2013 decision. [ 13 ] In this application, he seeks increased parenting time which he comments upon in his opening at some length.

He asserts that the December 2013 parenting time orders were made when A. was a 14-month-old infant, and now she has different needs as a young girl, very soon to be age four. He wants what he calls a "shared parenting plan" whereby A. spends equal time with each parent.

This is so, notwithstanding he works in Langley and lives 13 kilometres away from the Mother in Burnaby. [ 14 ] He expressed concern and I think, too, frustration that the Mother refused to permit his having additional time with A., by which I find he really meant as much additional time as he wanted and, importantly, on the dates he wanted. [ 15 ] In practice, my December 24, 2013 order resulted in the Father initially having parenting time with A. in Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m., and each Saturday and Sunday in Weeks 1, 2, and 3, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., whereas in Week 4 he had no weekend parenting time with A. at all. [ 16 ] The evidence is clear in this case that with some regularity the Mother has provided extra parenting time to him, although often not what he wanted, and certainly not the number of consecutive overnights he has requested.

Some examples are found at Exhibit 19 showing that five additional overnight visits occurred from February 9 to April 23, 2016. [ 17 ] Based on all the evidence, my impression of the extra parenting time requests is that his requests are often, but not always, a matter for discussion and some negotiation, and this rarely involves a stress-free, straightforward process between the parents. [ 18 ] There is also evidence (see Exhibit 2) that on quite a number of occasions, the Mother offered the Father additional parenting time with A., but he declined to take up her offers, some of which were for dates that were not convenient to him, for example, by reason of work commitments. [ 19 ] There have been some regular changes put in place by agreement between the parties since the December 24, 2013 orders on point relating to parenting time were made. [ 20 ] The four-hour Tuesday and Thursday visits in Weeks 1, 2, and 3 have been increased to approximately nine to 10 hours, commencing typically between 11:00 a.m. and noon and ending at 9:00 p.m., with the Father picking up A. and dropping her off at her mother's apartment in North Vancouver. [ 21 ] In Week 4, the Tuesday visit is nine to 10 hours in duration, from approximately 11:00 a.m. to noon, to 9:00 p.m., but an additional 24 hours has been added with an overnight visit on Thursday night. [ 22 ] The weekend visits in Weeks 1 and 3 are now all overnight from 10:00 a.m. on Saturday to 1:00 p.m. on Sunday, as I have understood the Mother's evidence. [ 23 ] The Father's brother A. testified that, from his observations, the three weekend visits each month commenced with a pickup typically at noon on Saturday at the Mother's apartment, and ended with a drop-off usually around 3:00 p.m. on Sunday, or as late as 5:00 p.m.

He described A. as a wonderful child and felt that both parents were doing a good job raising her. [ 24 ] For all visits, the Mother testified that she prepares all of A.'s meals and provides them to the Father on pickup. The Mother makes all medical and dental appointments to be convenient to the Father, and he attends most with her and A. [ 25 ] At trial there was an issue as to who would be A.'s dentist in future. [ 26 ] In addition to the above changes to my December 24, 2013 order, I understand that the Father has had some further parenting time with A.

For example, at Christmas 2015, A. was with her father December 24, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to Christmas Day, December 25, at 3:00 p.m. The Mother would like to have A. during these dates and times in 2016, and feels the parties should alternate, in essence, so that in odd-numbered years the Father would have A. as above over Christmas Eve, whereas in even-numbered years, she would have A. [ 27 ] She testified that she celebrated what she called the Catholic Christmas, notwithstanding she is a member of the Russian Orthodox faith.

She believed she had celebrated its Christmas usually in January approximately twice in the last 20 years. [ 28 ] A. will not attend school full-time until she starts kindergarten in September 2017. The Mother would like A. to attend [omitted for publication] in North Vancouver, a seven-minute walk from her apartment on 6th Street, but equally has no objection to her attending [omitted for publication], a Catholic school, also in North Vancouver, being a six-minute walk from her home.

As yet, which elementary school she attends has not been discussed and agreed to by the parents. [ 29 ] This context, for now, simply is in aid of the proposition that not until the spring of 2018 will a division of parenting time with A. be an issue for these two parents at the school spring break, and further, I understand there will be no such break until the year 2018. [ 30 ] The Father testified that Easter 2015 was shared between them as follows: Thursday, A. was with him noon to 9:00 p.m., from noon to 4:00 p.m. was additional time; Good Friday, A. with him noon until 9:00 p.m., all additional time; Saturday, A. with him noon on and overnight; Easter Sunday, A. with him to 3:00 p.m. drop-off to Mother; Easter Monday, the Mother offered this additional time, but he had to work.

[ 31 ] The Mother testified that Easter 2016 was shared, according to her memory, as follows: Good Friday, A. with her; Saturday, I assume with Dad after noon; Easter Sunday, A. was with her mom and dad for a time when they were both together, I do not believe I was given precise hours; Easter Monday, A. with Dad. [ 32 ] I note, according to the Father, Easter, unlike Christmas, is celebrated on the same day in both the Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches.

Easter is a particularly important Christian holiday for the Father, due to his regularly practising his strong Catholic faith. [ 33 ] When asked about summer holiday plans in 2016, the Mother said this was yet another issue that she and the Father had not discussed.

Neither had taken a proper holiday with A. in the summer of 2015; however, she said the Father had had three extended visits with A. in 2015, going twice, she felt, to Kelowna, where he has a summer home (which he says is in fact his brother's home) and once to Sechelt for three days. [ 34 ] The Father said he had been once to Kelowna, but once as well to Campbell River and Nanaimo, and that these trips did not exceed two overnights each time.

He later clarified that the Nanaimo/Campbell River trip from November 14 to 16, 2015, in fact involved three overnights with A. [ 35 ] The Mother felt that if an order were to be made for a 2016 summer vacation as part of a parenting time order in favour of the Father, it should not be for more than three overnights once in every two months, which she felt was workable and would allow her to preserve her routine with A. and her own, a constant theme in her evidence before me as to why the limits she proposed on his parenting time were, in her view, in A.'s best interests.

She said on several occasions in her testimony that when A. returns from visits with her father, particularly overnight ones, there were difficulties with her that she experienced, trying, for example, to get A., who got disorganized, to settle at bedtime or nap time, which then disrupted her own work as an accountant, done mostly at home while she is caring for A. She felt A. was too young to be away from her for too long. [ 36 ] She also admitted that when A. was with the Father, he facilitated regular FaceTime visits on his cellphone between her and A. before A.'s bedtime.

One particularly good example of this was the twice daily visits when A. and her dad were in Campbell River for two nights in November 2015, and one on the Monday when I understood that they were in Nanaimo. [ 37 ] This seems, to me, excessive. When A. is with her father, she, in my view, should be with him exclusively. That said, this process was not free from criticism on her part.

She testified that the Father permitted A. to watch cartoons before the FaceTime visits, and thus when A. spoke to her mother afterwards, the Mother perceived what I would call a lack of quality and commitment on A.'s part with the discussion which was also ended too quickly, again from her perspective. [ 38 ] I note that this is not an uncommon refrain in my court on the part of a non-custodial parent, often a mother, saying goodnight to her child while on an overnight visit with the Father.

I often feel such parents' expectations are set too high in the circumstances. [ 39 ] The Father testified that perhaps, save for rainy days, he was generally okay with what he understood was the Mother's rule that there be not more than one hour of screen time daily for A., and nothing after nine p.m.

FaceTime visits are now between 8:45 and 9:30 p.m., and he felt an order should be made that they occur earlier, between 7:30 p.m. start and not go beyond 8:30 p.m. [ 40 ] As to summer vacations in 2016, the Father said that his brother A. and his girlfriend lived on the Sunshine Coast, and said he would like to visit with him or go perhaps to Vancouver Island for a period of time up to 10 days. [ 41 ] The Father says that three or four overnight visits in a four-week cycle are not enough and not in his daughter's best interests, and asserts that she would benefit from spending more time with him.

He agrees that the current main area of contention between the two parents is the number of overnight visits A. would have with him in a given month or 4-week cycle. He feels she is now better able to tolerate overnight visits with him and longer separations from her mother. [ 42 ] Both he and the Mother are capable parents and each does different activities with A. and gives different things to her. He seemed to suggest this diversity in activities and inputs was beneficial to her.

I agree. [ 43 ] In my view, it is quite okay and indeed optimal for each parent to enrich their child's life with different experiences while their child is in their respective care. I accept that it is important for a child to have a routine, but that having one, with the hope or wish that it be exactly the same, where two parents are separated, in each of their households is not realistic, in my view. [ 44 ] I do accept and suggest that the gold standard in such cases is parents learning to compromise.

If one parent, for example, believes there should be no electronics past 7:30 p.m., and another feels 9:00 p.m. is a proper cut-off for electronics, one compromise, of course, might be a rule in both households that none be made available to the child past 8:15 p.m.

This is not rocket science, but unhappily compromising is a concept that these two parents seem to struggle with at times. [ 45 ] The Father testified, without real challenge from the Mother, that he is well set up in Burnaby in his residence for overnight visits and is actively engaged with A. when she is with him, for example, taking her swimming regularly. [ 46 ] What changes have occurred in the parents' lives and in A.'s life since December 24, 2013? [ 47 ] The Mother testified that she believed in the last two years she had become more open and flexible with respect to A.'s parenting time with her father, as compared to how she felt when A. was a very young child.

She had come to the decision that some increase in his parenting time would now be appropriate, but not involving a significant additional amount, and certainly not the 50/50 co-parenting regime that the Father now proposes. [ 48 ] This self-assessment is some strong evidence, in my view, that there has been a material change in at least the parties' circumstances since my December 24, 2013 orders were made some two and a half years ago.

[ 49 ] The Mother also testified that A.'s important nap times had now changed from two a day then to one only now on most but not all days, now generally between 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. daily when A. is with her. She readily admitted that there were days when A. did not nap when with her. [ 50 ] This is common behaviour for almost any young child, in my experience. [ 51 ] The Mother was very critical of the Father's inability, if not refusal, to ensure A. had a nap when with him. She even went so far as to assemble a

schedule (see Exhibit 7) showing apparently that on parenting time visits during the course of the hearing before me, A. had had only 11 naps from October 1, 2015, to mid-January 2016. The Father did not seem to disagree with this tally, but said A.'s lack of naps when with him was not due to a lack of effort on his part to have her take the same. He said sometimes she had a nap when with him, but sometimes she would not fall asleep.

He put her on the couch, not apparently at a regular nap time, and would watch television, and sometimes A. went to sleep and sometimes she did not. [ 52 ] He did agree that in principle it was a good idea that a little kid have a regular nap at the same time, more or less, each day. [ 53 ] I note that insofar as he picks A. up at noon on any given day, a nap at the Mother's usual nap time would be a challenge for him and an unreasonable expectation on her part that it would occur on her

schedule at his place in North Burnaby. [ 54 ] The Mother testified that her breastfeeding routine with A. had changed, in my view in a very material way. Whereas in 2014, A. was being breastfed three to four times a day, every four to six hours for about 15 minutes each session, that now, and as early as late January 2016, she breastfed A. only twice a day for about 10 minutes to soothe A., and not as part of her now normal feeding routine, which involves her eating normal hard foodstuffs.

On one of these occasions, in the morning, she said it is not uncommon for A. to request to be breastfed and the Mother to oblige. She gave no evidence as to what A.'s reaction might be if she refused. [ 55 ] I find that this change is a material one as compared to how things stood in December 2013 and earlier. A very fundamental aspect of an infant's early years is the manner in which he or she is nourished. This mother said in her testimony she had difficulty expressing her own breast milk.

A.'s need to breastfeed as an infant was then a very significant factor in determining parenting time issues, as is often the case with a breastfeeding infant. [ 56 ] In my view, breastfeeding is not now really an event that must continue and is necessarily in A.'s best interests. A. is now well past the age where the vast majority of breastfeeding mothers have weaned their babies. [ 57 ] In Cavannah v. Johne , [2008] O.J. No. 5027 , a case referred to by the Father in his materials, Ingram J. dealt with access by a father to his two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, one Kai.

She said this on point at paragraphs 40, 42, and 43 of her reasons: [40] Despite the enormous commitment to this child by Carl, his contact has been restricted by the breastfeeding. He has shown patience with Jen's desire to breastfeed the child, patience that has restricted his time with Kai. Now, due to the fact that the child appears to be thriving, Jen argues that there is no need to alter the status quo in a radical way.

While status quo is important, the result for a baby would be to deny the father an equal opportunity to parent a child if he acquiesces to the mother’s request to breastfeed. . . . [42] Jen has been unwilling to give a timetable as to when the breastfeeding will end. She believed strongly, through medical advice, in the merits to Kai of breastfeeding; however, the breastfeeding has a secondary impact upon Carl in that it is used as an excuse to restrict his access. Kai is now more than twenty-nine months of age and is still being breastfed.

Jen continues this practice not because of literature that suggests that it is important to breastfeed a child after the age of two, but rather because there is no literature suggesting that it is not in the interests of the child to continue this practice. Hopefully, Jen recognized the comment from her own mother, Millie with whom she lives who recognized the importance of the child having much contact with both parents.

Millie testified that the continued breastfeeding was interfering with Kai spending time with Carl such that it was not in the best interests of Kai. [43] The medical evidence that Jen presented supports the practice of breastfeeding until a child has reached his/her second birthday. Carl respected her views, but now the time has come for Jen to have greater consideration for the relationship between Kai and Carl.

If she used a breast pump and provided the milk to Carl, he would be willing to give it to Kai. [ 58 ] To her credit, the Mother in the case at bar before me has not suggested her desire to continue to breastfeed A., who will be four in [omitted for publication], is any form of impediment to an increase in the Father's parenting time with A. [ 59 ] A.'s exclusive move to hard food for the vast majority of her nutritional needs is also a material change in her circumstances, in my view, since the orders I made in December of 2013. [ 60 ] A. continues to co-sleep with her mother in her mother's bedroom, but apparently has a crib next to her mother's bed.

Not a great deal of time was spent on this issue at trial. It was not made clear to me the frequency with which A. was actually sleeping with her mother in her mother's bed and when she would be in her crib, apparently adjacent to the mother's bed. [ 61 ] To some extent, this situation may be driven by the size of the Mother's apartment. However, based on all the evidence I have heard from the Mother, I would believe it has a strong cultural component due to her background.

Based on all the evidence I have heard in family law cases when at the bar for over 30 years or in my 11 years as a judge, and my own life experience, in my view, co-sleeping in British Columbia is a very, very rare parenting methodology. Insofar as every child over time is engaged in the process of

individuation or maturing to become an adult, one might wonder exactly how co-sleeping helps such a process occur in a normal way. Individuation means or refers to the ongoing process through which a person achieves a sense of individuality or a unique self-identity separate from the identities of others, including his or her parents, and begins to consciously exist as a human in the world. [ 62 ] Co-sleeping would arguably encourage the sort of stronger bond between a female child and a mother that most right-thinking persons would perhaps feel should not be regularly repeated with a father and a daughter.

Thus, it could potentially be an impediment to a female child, as here, being fully comfortable with overnight visits with her father. [ 63 ] I have no expert evidence on point as to whether a mother's co-sleeping with her daughter is an impediment to a father achieving a proper bond or quality bond with particularly a young daughter, nor do I have any evidence as to its benefits and down sides where two adults seek to co-parent a young female child and the Mother regularly engages in such a practice. [ 64 ] I do, however, see this as an issue and one that will hopefully not have negative effects on the Father's relationship with A. going forward. [ 65 ] The Father testified that he also slept in the same room as A., at times on the bed beside her or on the floor in a sleeping bag.

It was my understanding that he did so based on his own admission not really to comfort A. particularly or give her any enhanced sense of security, but rather to gather evidence for this case that A. slept through the night when with him. He felt A., nonetheless, found it comforting to have him there.

How this could be so when she was asleep is beyond my apprehension. [ 66 ] I understood he also said going forward probably he was soon going to sleep on the floor, a better idea, or in his own room, in my view the best idea of all. [ 67 ] The Mother gave extensive evidence as to the new activities A. now does in North Vancouver, some but not all of which were first discussed with the Father. One activity was A.'s attendance at the [omitted for publication] preschool one afternoon a week (Friday) from 12:30 to 3:00 o'clock p.m.

She was there enrolled on January 14, 2016, in the midst of the hearing in this matter, and according to the Mother, initially with the Father's agreement, but which consent was later withdrawn the next day by his email (see Exhibit 9, Tab 16). [ 68 ] The Mother did agree at trial that she had made a very recent decision to enrol A. after first hearing the Father's evidence in court before me that he had enrolled A. in a Burnaby preschool called [omitted for publication] on Tuesday for two hours in the afternoon from 12:45 to 2:45 p.m., but without first consulting with the Mother.

Nonetheless, I understood that the Mother was in agreement with A. attending the Burnaby preschool. [ 69 ] The Father, according to his January 15, 2016, email is not entirely okay with A. attending the North Vancouver preschool, hoping that two sessions a week do not overwhelm her, but being charitable enough to conclude in this email in part, "if she does well, that is great". [ 70 ] The Mother testified that she felt A. was doing really well in the North Vancouver preschool and wanted her to attend there on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday in the four-year-old program from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. each day commencing in September 2016.

She said she had not discussed this yet with the Father, but I understood that A. was now somehow registered for this program, in any event. [ 71 ] Both parents want A. to go to preschool and see its value in the socialization process relating to their daughter. According to the Mother, A. now has a circle of little friends in North Vancouver, primarily children of mothers she interacts with on play dates arranged by her for the most

part in her own apartment. [ 72 ] The Father is now employed, unlike in December 2013. He has a permanent part-time job at a company carrying on business in Langley. He works two and a half days each week for a fixed salary with some flexibility in his schedule, in the sense that apparently he can, to some extent, choose the two and a half days that he works. He said he could increase his hours, which are between 16 to 24 hours each week, on days he did not have A. with him.

He testified variously that the days he usually works were Mondays, Wednesdays, and Friday for a half day, and then again that he worked most Tuesdays and therefore could not have additional parenting time with A. on Tuesdays. [ 73 ] He said generally he worked from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 or 5:00 p.m., but could start as early as 7:00 a.m. or as late as 10:00 a.m., depending upon A.'s requirements.

He testified variously he had to go into the office in Langley one day a week, but then said he had an ability to work one of the two and a half days a week at home, and did so from October 1, 2015, to January 11, 2016. [ 74 ] I found his evidence somewhat confusing and inconsistent as to when he could work at home or had to go to the Langley office, and as to his flexible hours, as well. [ 75 ] He said his new company took over his old former employer when it shut down. He had been with the new company since February of 2014. This employment was the first offer he received after December 2013.

He said, like the Mother, he, too, could work at home but did not say on a full-time basis, as is the case with the Mother. [ 76 ] He testified that because of his work flexibility, he could drive A. to kindergarten, for example, or preschool, even if she attended same in North Vancouver.

He lives some 13 kilometres or a 20- to 30-minute drive away from where the Mother resides in North Vancouver. [ 77 ] Strangely, the Mother did not seem to be bothered by the Father driving A. from her place to his over this distance, at least on the current basis. [ 78 ] I turn now to the proposal each party suggested should now form the basis of a parenting time order. The final iterations of same were marked as Exhibit 25 and 26 at the trial.

The Mother (Exhibit 25) [ 79 ] She proposes two plans, namely A and B (and her preference is Plan

A) each of which proposals have two parts, one for when A. is age three to four to [omitted for publication], and one dealing with her at age four to five years to [omitted for publication], shortly after she will start kindergarten full-time in September 2017. Each involves a four-week rotation.

Plan A, age three - four years • Week 1 to 3: Tuesday and Thursday or any other two non-consecutive weekdays, A. with Father from 10:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.; Saturday, A. with Father 10:00 a.m. to Sunday at 8:00 p.m. • Week 4: Tuesday, A. with Father 10:00 o'clock a.m. to Wednesday at 10:00 o'clock a.m., and Friday 10:00 o'clock a.m. to Saturday at 10:00 o'clock a.m.

Plan B, age three - four years • Week 1 to 3: The same as Plan A. • Week 4: Tuesday, 10:00 a.m. to Wednesday at 1:00 p.m., Thursday 10:00 a.m. to Friday, 1:00 p.m. [ 80 ] The Mother proposed two plans, again A and B, when A was age four to five as follows: Plan A, age four - five • Week 1 and 3: Each Tuesday from 10:00 a.m. to Wednesday at 10:00 a.m.; each Friday, 10:00 a.m. to Saturday at 10:00 p.m. • Weeks 2 and 4: Each Tuesday, 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; each Friday, 7:00 p.m. to Sunday at 7:00 p.m.

Plan B, age four - five • Week 1 and 3: Tuesday, 9:00 a.m. to Wednesday, 9:00 a.m.; Friday 10:00 a.m. to Saturday, 1:00 p.m. • Week 2 and 4: Tuesday the same as Plan A; Friday the same as Plan A. The Father (Exhibit 26) [ 81 ] The Father's final proposal has two parts, as well, again a Plan A and B. They are as follows: Plan A (50/50 sharing based on a two not a four-week rotation) • Week 1: Monday and Tuesday, A., with Mother; Wednesday and Thursday, A. with Father; Friday to Sunday, A. with Mother.

This would involve three exchanges per week, all of which would occur at the Mother's apartment at 7:00 p.m. and the Father would do all drop-offs and pickups. • Week 2: Monday to Thursday as above; Friday to Sunday, A. with Father. This would involve two exchanges per week. [ 82 ] Plan A as per Exhibit 26 shows Week 3 to be the same as Week 1, and Week 4 the same as Week 2.

This results in the two parents sharing weekends equally, as compared to the current plan where the Father has parts of three weekends and the Mother has the entire fourth weekend in a four-week cycle. [ 83 ] The Father firstly suggests that the advantages of Plan A are that each parent could go away on a weekend. I note the Mother does not drive or own a car and has never really expressed any desire in her testimony to travel anywhere with A. on a weekend. However, this arrangement would clearly benefit the Father, who wants to be able to take A. places on weekends. [ 84 ] He says, as well, his proposed

schedule does not change Monday to Thursday each week, and insofar as A. now participates, or will in future, in extracurricular activities, she will know which home she will leave from for activities on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights, two of which, Tuesday and Thursday nights, are proposed exchange times. Thus, an activity on a Wednesday night in North Vancouver would involve A. being driven potentially from Burnaby to North Vancouver, if she were not already there and in full-time attendance, for example at school. If she were, the picture, of course, becomes more complicated.

How would a 7:00 p.m. start for an activity be handled?

Would A. be picked up, as the Father proposes, after school at say 3:00 p.m., driven to Burnaby, thence driven from Burnaby to North Vancouver and thence back to Burnaby to sleep, and the next morning driven from Burnaby back to North Vancouver? [ 85 ] During his testimony, the Father said if Plan A were to be adopted, he would not be averse to the Mother in Week 2 having A. overnight on Thursday from 7:00 p.m. to Friday at 4:00 p.m., provided he be given the same concession by the Mother, I understood in her five-day block of time, starting Friday in Week 1 to Tuesday in Week 2. [ 86 ] He said he had not discussed Plan A with the Mother as he essentially instinctively knew she would reject it.

Plan A would again give the Father equal time with the Mother every 28 days. [ 87 ] In answer to a question from the court, the Father said he would be really interested in a parenting time scheme whereby each parent had A. on alternate weekends commencing Friday at say 5:00 p.m. to Sunday evening, which would occur twice a month on average. He said he had not discussed this rather traditional approach with the Mother. [ 88 ] Plan B is said to be "up to A. turning five, [omitted for publication]". This is also based on a two-week rotation. In Week 1, A.

would be with her mother Monday to Wednesday, and with her dad, Thursday to Sunday. In Week 2, there would be no change in the Week 1 scheme, Monday to Wednesday, however, A. would be with Father Thursday and Friday, and Mother Saturday and Sunday. This scheme would involve five pickups or transfers every two weeks and give the Father 12 days and the Mother 16 days with A. every 28 days. [ 89 ] Both parents in their final proposals and in their testimony before me made representations as to how special periods or dates should be handled, for example, A.'s birthday and Mother's Day. I do not intend to take time in these reasons to set out their various positions on point, even in a

summary way. Suffice it to say I have considered them. [ 90 ] I am of the view that these two parents will do best going forward if the court imposes a very detailed parenting plan on them, once called a "defined access order" so they will each be very clear when they are to have A. or not, as the case may be. However it must be one (

a) subject to change by their joint written agreement; and (

b) augmentation with further times again by their joint written agreement.

The order will set out their basic parenting time rights. [ 91 ] Before dealing briefly with both the parties' helpful closing written submissions, I wish to deal with a point I raised with both parties, as I recall, the prospect of their living closer together, not in two separate municipalities separated by an ocean and a very busy Ironworkers Bridge and highway. [ 92 ] I pointed out the obvious, as I recall, late one afternoon in court, that if they lived in more or less the same area of the same municipality, most, if not all, the decisions they would be required to make as parents could be made far more easily.

A. could likely attend a preschool and school and participate in social and extracurricular activities by joint agreement, and also attend a church, community or recreation centre, and try out for one only sports team in the event she is to participate in team sports. [ 93 ] These parents are now and I have no doubt in future may become engaged in a ruinous form of competition with one another potentially over such things as which preschool should A. attend, one in North Vancouver or Burnaby? Activities are now straightforward. When A. is five or six, she may wish to play a team sport, for example, soccer.

Does she play in North Vancouver or North Burnaby? Where will she go to kindergarten? All these decisions potentially lie ahead. They are far more easily made if the parents reside close together. I think the decided case law on 50/50 parenting makes this abundantly clear. [ 94 ] The Mother testified that she recalled discussing with the Father his moving to North Vancouver about three years ago and his saying, "Maybe, we'll see." She said the point was never discussed again.

She also testified that if he moved to North Vancouver, she would want to include him in things A. did and felt it would be beneficial to A. [ 95 ] The Father said various things on point, some in potential conflict. He agreed that the matter had been discussed and that he had not said no. In October 2015, he said he had thought about moving to North Vancouver, it was a possibility, but he had made no decision yet.

At one point he testified, in effect, that he had no concern that if he did move, that the Mother would then, in response, in effect, relocate further away. [ 96 ] He also testified that he had asked her if she would consider moving to Burnaby and she said no, giving as her main reason that she has her sister, brother-in-law, and niece living nearby in North Vancouver. [ 97 ] I am also alive to the fact that her clientele she services are mostly, probably substantially North Shore entities, and at the moment she does not drive a motor vehicle. [ 98 ] Later in the Father's testimony, I believe given in the spring of 2016 before me, he seemed to suggest that his move to North Vancouver had not been discussed with the Mother and said he felt he could deal with all A.'s needs while living in Burnaby as he now is, due to the flexibility of his work hours allowing him to drive her to all her activities once her

schedule was known. [ 99 ] I am far from convinced his work

schedule has the flexibility he would have me believe that it does, and have little doubt that it would be a factor in what A. could do in terms of her activities.

Position of the Father in closing argument [ 100 ] He invites me to find that the Mother is not a credible witness and again sets out reasons why he feels the evidence now supports my making a 50/50 parenting time order, all of which are referred to in his copious materials and opening in this case. [ 101 ] He invites me to make an order that he have the final say on decisions relating to A.'s religion (page 3), and seeks a further order as to what A. might be permitted to do when she is in Grade 2, including having her first communion celebration and confirmation services at his Catholic church.

This relief was not sought in his application on October 21, 2014, and thus I cannot now consider it. [ 102 ] He is critical of the Mother's proposal because parenting time would again need to be revisited as A. ages beyond, for example, age four to five. He seems not to appreciate that as children grow older and change, so, too, may parenting time arrangements need to change to take into account what is going on in their life. [ 103 ] He asserts that A. has developed a strong bond with both her parents thus far, and that both are fully able and capable to look after all her needs.

He says his plan involves more consistent time and less back-and-forth travel, often called "toing and froing", on exchanges. He asserts he offers A. stability in his home, but agrees she does well in both homes. He stresses that he follows a strict routine when A. is with him. [ 104 ] At page 5 of his written argument, he seems to assert that I am now in a position to make an order that A. will attend school in Burnaby which, not surprisingly, he says he would welcome and notes there is a Catholic school some 2.3 kilometres away, a point not given in his evidence before me at trial that I recall.

This relief was also not sought in his application. [ 105 ] He refers me to four cases as follows, none of which were provided to me:

1. M.S. v. B.W., 2012 BCPC 464 , 2012 BCPC 0464; 2. Cavannah v. Johne, (ON) or [2008] O.J. No. 5027, referred to above; 3. N.U. v. G.S.B., 2015 BCSC 105; 4. D.F.Z. v. S.B.Z., 2009 BCPC 172. [106] He submits that these cases support his 50/50 parenting plan, saying, "50/50 shared parenting plans have been in place for manychildren three years and up," a rather vague and unhelpful statement, in my view. [107] The decisions in these cases, including my own in M.S. v. B.W., are all fact dependent. I do not intend to take a significantamount of time in these reasons stating why this is so.

I will, nonetheless, take some time to comment on each case. [108] In Cavannah, the father moved to live closer to his son so as to facilitate mid-week access visits. Ingram J. said this on point atparagraph 26 of his or her reasons: [26] While living in Collingwood, Carl signed a lease to move to Duntroon, the town where Jen and Kai resided. Unfortunately, justas he moved into Duntroon, Jen made plans to move to the town of Maxwell, approximately twenty kilometres away and across thecounty line from Duntroon.

Jen felt that the trailer that she was living in was not an appropriate residence for a child and, therefore,moved into her mother's new residence in Maxwell. I do not find that this move was made to make access more difficult for Carl, butthat it was done without giving proper consideration to the role of Carl in Kai's life.

The move does not facilitate the equal time sharingrequested by Carl. [109] As I have said above, this case is of some significance, in addition, as it deals with the mother's desire to breastfeed atwo-and-a-half-year-old daughter as not being a reason to limit the child's time with her father, whom the trial judge found had made anenormous commitment to the child Kai.

The access order made was not a 50/50 order, but close to it, with the child being, during theschool months, with the mother who ran a daycare in her own home, from Sunday at 6:30 p.m. to Thursday at 4:30 p.m. each week, andthe remainder or 44 percent of the time with her father. [110] In D.F.Z. v. S.B.Z., the parties had a boy age four.

During the course of prolonged litigation, their family home sold and WoodsJ. recommended that they both attempt to relocate in Maple Ridge from respectively Mission and Port Coquitlam, Maple Ridge beingclose to their employment and a home community for both (see paragraph 114-115). He made a 2-2-5-5 order as sought by the father inthe case at bar. [111] In M.S. v. B.W. both parents worked outside their homes full-time and their three-year-old son was in daycare five days a week.

The mother lived with her parents in Port Coquitlam, and the father resided in Maple Ridge, some 30 to 40 kilometres from the mother'sresidence. Because they both worked full-time, it was necessary to have their son in daycare five days a week. The father worked inNew Westminster, the mother worked in Surrey and dropped her son daily at the daycare before 7:30 a.m. [112] The father had to pass the daycare on his way to and from work. He was found to be as capable of putting his son in daycare andretrieving him as was the mother.

The only difference in the son staying overnight with his dad as compared to the mother was he wouldhave to be up 15 minutes earlier in the morning to get to daycare, as compared to his

schedule on an overnight stay with his mother. [113] The father, perhaps unlike in the case at bar, had no plans to change his son's daycare, nor was there any looming disagreementas to which elementary school the boy would attend, whereas I perceive there may be in the case at bar. [114] The order made was week on and off parenting time and I gave consideration to the reduction in toing and froing on exchangesin so doing as compared to the existing status quo. [115] In N.U. v.

G.S.B., Warren J., in dealing with an almost three-year-old boy where both parents worked full-time and their childwas in daycare five days a week, ordered that a parenting coordinator be appointed for two years, the costs of whom were to be borneequally, and gave him or her, in the event the parties could not reach agreement on any significant decision with respect to their son,authority to make such decisions. [116] The 2-2-5-5 order Warren J. made was not to fully commence until approximately 60 days after he rendered his decision. Thiscase factually has some similarities to M.S. v.

B.W. above. [117] These four cases are examples of when a court has granted an order like the order sought by the Father. Each case mustnonetheless be determined on its own unique facts, bearing in mind the principles in

Part 4 of the Family Law Act, and in particulars. 37(2). Position of the Mother [118] Counsel for the Mother makes the following points in her written submission: 1. The Mother has been flexible in accommodating the Father's requests for additional parenting time with A., includingto recognize his religious practices and for special days, for example, Christmas. 2. A. is a very happy little girl, meeting all her developmental milestones and is, in essence, thriving and respondingwell to the stability and routine while in her mother's primary care. 3.

The Mother intends to remain living on the North Shore close to her sister, and where her client base is located, andclose to two elementary schools within 600 metres, at most, from her apartment.

4. A. is registered for preschool in the fall of 2016, Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays, and in the fall of 2017 will attendkindergarten five days a week from 9:00 o'clock a.m. to 3:00 o'clock p.m. 5. His parenting proposals are unrealistic and do not take into account the parties' real-life circumstances. 6. Any orders I make should avoid a further hearing and changes dictated by A.'s full-time attendance at kindergarten. Ivery much agree with this submission. 7.

There has been no material change in the needs or circumstances of A. within s. 47 of the Family Law Act to permitme to make any changes to the orders I made on December 24, 2013, when A. was an infant. She cites the case of Gordon v. Goertz, (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27 at paragraph 12, as to what is required as follows: 12 What suffices to establish a material change in the circumstances of the child? Change alone is not enough; the change musthave altered the child's needs or the ability of the parents to meet those needs in a fundamental way . . .

Moreover, the change shouldrepresent a distinct departure from what the court could reasonably have anticipated in making the previous order. "What the court isseeking to isolate are those factors which were not likely to occur at the time the proceedings took place . . . The Mother argues that the following facts in this case do not amount to a material change in circumstances:

a) A. being older, the passage of time from age one to age three, citing the case of Jellis, 2014 BCSC 375;

b) the Father, due to his choice of part-time work, being more available to care for A., his situation in December 2013 was one offuller flexibility as he was then unemployed. [119] I have really dealt with this issue above.

Insofar as a material change is required to clothe me with jurisdiction to vary myDecember 2013 orders, I find there have been such changes, as discussed above. [120] There is a sea change of difference, in my view, between the requirements and circumstances of a small, regularly breastfeedinginfant and a young child, almost age four, bound for full-time school in 14 months' time. [121] The Jellis decision is not a binding authority which requires me to find that court orders made when a child is one cannot bevaried at the child's age three.

If this was the intent of the Family Law Act and our legislature, it might have so stated in s. 47 of the Act. [122] I am also mindful of the fact that both parents seem to recognize the need to revisit not only my parenting time orders, but eventheir own

schedule referred to at the outset of these reasons. [123] In paragraph 24 of her written submission, Ms. Fogelberg states, and I quote [as read in]: It is submitted that the father's continued verbal abuse and his acquiescence in his brother's aggressive and abusive behaviour towards themother meets the definition of family violence set out in the Family Law Act, s. 1, and A. and her mother should be sheltered from suchbehaviour.

The father takes no responsibility for subjecting A. to the conflict between his family and the mother, and simply stands bywhen such behaviour is occurring. [124] The brother in question is A., who testified before me. Clearly he and the Father have a very close relationship. He, like theFather, is a relatively big man.

I find on all the evidence in this case, which I do not intend to summarize, that there is no need for A. toattend A.'s drop-offs and pickups at the Mother's apartment. [125] I find on one occasion he filmed an event, apparently delivery of documents to the Mother, and on another displayed to theMother in A.'s presence a sign he had created which said in block letters "LIAR" on it. This latter conduct is infantile and exceedinglyinappropriate, unhelpful, and cannot help but be a destructive element in the relationship between these two parents.

Whatever the faultsof the Mother, and she has some, she ought not to be exposed to such behaviour. [126] The Father's filming of events as proof that they occurred as a defence against the Mother's untruthfulness also seems heavyhanded. Process servers and registered mail should suffice to prove, if necessary, that the Mother received important documents. [127] As long as Ms. Fogelberg is counsel for the Mother, the Father can deliver such important papers to her, or at least request thatMs.

Fogelberg obtain instructions from her client to accept service of anything that, by the rules, must be personally served on her. Theuse of these methodologies is the normal, civilized way in which litigation is prosecuted in any court in British Columbia, whether or nota party perceives his opponent lacks candour in her dealings with him. [128] Thus, on this point there will be orders as follows: 1. The respondent, R.S., will ensure that his brother shall not:

a) be present at any transfers whereat A. is picked up or dropped off at the start or end of a parenting time visit; or

b) in the same room when FaceTime or like visits occur between A. and the applicant using any electronic technology, including acellphone. 2.

The respondent will not film or digitally record in any fashion whatsoever, nor permit any person to do so, any eventwhereat the applicant Z.S.R. is present without her consent to do so first being given in writing; writing to include a text message. [129] By way of clarification, these orders would prevent the Father from, among other things, having his brother film delivery ofdocuments or his filming A.'s treatment or examination in A.'s dentist's office in future, as I find occurred in this case. To do so in futurewould be a breach of this order and a serious matter.

[ 130 ] The order, of course, would not prohibit a dentist from taking photographs of A.'s mouth and teeth for treatment purposes. [ 131 ] Ms. Fogelberg concludes that there should be no changes in the existing parenting arrangement now in place, that A.'s settled routine, which works well, should not now be disrupted, and that her Plan A or B referenced above would provide him with ample parenting time. Discussion [ 132 ] The parenting time orders I make herein are made having regard only to what I consider to be in A.'s best interests, not the best interests of the parties or either of them.

I have carefully considered all s. 37(2) factors. I find that both parents are capable of caring for A. and responsible, and that they both clearly love A. very much. [ 133 ] I do agree that A. is now apparently flourishing, but for the one issue I have alluded to at the outset of these reasons. I have carefully considered their various proposals. I accept as truthful and sincere the Mother's testimony that she does care how A. bonds with her father and recognizes this as an important interest or goal.

I also accept as truthful her evidence that she appreciates, in essence, the qualities he provides as A.'s father, and that generally the two of them speak very well by telephone with one another regularly and easily twice per week concerning matters of importance to A. [ 134 ] I do, however, find that the Mother needs to learn to be more flexible as to the requirements of A.'s routine.

It is unrealistic to expect that A. will play by exactly the same rules in the Father's home as she does in her own home. [ 135 ] This expectation, even if only partly held, fails to take into account such things as A.'s obvious excitement to be with her dad in completely different surroundings, with very different stimuli, and her small child reaction to these new surroundings. [ 136 ] That said, this father could, in my view, try harder to find more common ground on basic rules with the Mother, as I have suggested above. [ 137 ] The orders I make are intended to remain in place to at least the conclusion of A.'s first year in elementary school.

A.'s emotional well-being, need for stability, having regard to her age and stage of development, absolutely now require, in my view, that these parents cease in any way using her as an object to be fought over for their own purposes. This has been an ongoing factor in this case and it must end. [ 138 ] For now, A.'s primary caregiver is her mother and A. lives in North Vancouver. It is important she have roots and a sense of her community moving forward.

That is now in North Vancouver, something this father, despite all his very fine qualities, does not want to accept. [ 139 ] It is not in A.'s best interests to have a further round or rounds of contested family litigation over where she will go to preschool, church, or elementary school.

Hence, the further orders I make are to be in effect until at least June 30, 2018, at the conclusion of A.'s first year in kindergarten in elementary school. [ 140 ] Save for paragraph 7 included in these reasons above, which will remain in effect, I rescind all December 24, 2013 orders dealing with parenting time in paragraphs 3 to 6 and in their place I make the following orders. 3. Commencing June 21, 2016, or such other date as the parties may agree upon in writing, the Father's parenting time with A. on a four-week rotation or cycle will be as follows: • Week 1 and 3:

a) each Tuesday from noon to 7:30 p.m.; and

b) each Friday from 3:00 o'clock p.m. to Sunday at 7:30 p.m. • Week 2 and 4:

a) each Wednesday at 3:00 o'clock p.m. to Friday at 8:30 a.m. 4. Commencing September 5, 2017, the Father's weekend parenting time in Week 1 and 3 shall conclude with his dropping off A. at her elementary school on Monday morning on time and not later than 8:50 a.m. 5. Excluding Christmas and Easter long weekends: (

i) if the Father's parenting time commencing on a Friday ("a father's Friday") is a statutory holiday or Pro-D day, his parenting time with A. will commence on the preceding Thursday at 3:00 o'clock p.m. By way of an example and not part of the order, Canada Day this year is Friday, July the 1st. If that is a "father's Friday" his weekend parenting time would commence on Thursday, June 30th at 3:00 o'clock p.m.

Continuing with the order. (ii) if the Monday following a father's parenting time weekend is a holiday, for example, the August 1st, 2016, Civic Holiday, his parenting time will terminate on the following Tuesday, with the drop-off at 10:00 o'clock a.m. 6. All transfers, drop-offs, and pickups of A. prior to September 5, 2017, shall occur at the Mother's residence, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing, for example, at a daycare. 7. After September 5, 2017, all weekday pickups and drop-offs will occur at A.'s school at 3:00 o'clock p.m. and 8:50 a.m., unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.

[ 141 ] The current regime, as I understand it, and I note that in this case I was truly inundated with various schedules and proposals made over time by each parent, involves 11 toings and froings (being a drop-off and pickup) in a fourweek cycle, and A. travelling some 286 kilometres, by my calculation, in her father's car or some 26 crossings of the Ironworkers Second Narrows Bridge, eight of which are at night for a 9:00 o'clock p.m. drop-off. Strangely, the parties do not see this as a factor or a big deal.

Perhaps this is because the Mother herself does not drive a motor vehicle. [ 142 ] I do see it as a big deal on the facts of this case. [ 143 ] In M.S. v. B.W. , above, both parties had to drive to their full-time work, and the child's daycare was more or less equidistant between their two homes, and the father had to pass the daycare daily to get to and from his place of work.

Here by counterpoint the driving that is implicit in the Father's proposal or even the current situation is due in my view only to exercising parenting time and not because of employment dictates. [ 144 ] I have driven the route the Father takes for transfers for the most part over a thousand times, by reason of having worked as a judge in the Provincial Court in Port Coquitlam and because I, too, live on the North Shore where I now sit. This route gets extremely busy in the mornings and after 3:00 o'clock p.m. on many afternoons. A single accident can stop traffic for hours.

It is one of only two exits for vehicular traffic onto or off of the North Shore. In my view, it is in A.'s best interests that she be exposed to transportation on these very busy main roads as little as possible during parenting time visits. [ 145 ] The above parenting time

schedule accomplishes, in my view, the following:

a) the Father's wish to have more overnight visits is recognized with an increase from currently four to at least eight and to at least 10 after September 5, 2017;

b) each parent has two weekends apiece each 28-day cycle;

c) the driving times are not at peak rush hour traffic times;

d) there are six toings and froings, down from 11 in the current scheme, as long as the Father resides in North Burnaby. 8. Neither party may file an application or notice of motion to vary any of the within orders:

a) without first conducting a family case conference in this court; and

b) in no event prior to June 1, 2018. [ 146 ] There is to be a minimum two years' peace between these two parents during which they can practise their compromising skills, and in the event there is some unresolved issue in dispute, perhaps seek the assistance of a counsellor or parenting coordinator under Division 3 of the Family Law Act . The litigation process is not to be used by one to either bully or seek control over the other. [ 147 ] I note in passing that the Mother must read the Father's emails, as this is the mode I am ordering them to use to deal with all changes in parenting time in future.

Her current methodology of putting them in her junk file in her computer is sheer nonsense, in my view, and must end immediately. [ 148 ] The Father must, for his part, appreciate that his emails are to be polite and not bullying in content. Judges regularly get to read parents' emails, and if they are wretched in content or overly frequent in transmission, judges can form negative opinions of their authors. [ 149 ] I believe the time has come for me to direct that I will not in future hear matters pertaining to these parties, unless there is some emergent situation and no other judge is available.

I say this because I now have a real concern that rather than struggle to reach a fair compromise on issues, these parties, and particularly the Father, will elect to have someone who knows all about them resolve the issue. In a sense, I am a known quantity.

I believe the time has come for these parties to face perhaps an unknown quantity, a new judge in this court, if they cannot, including with the help of, for example, a parenting coordinator, reach agreement themselves. [ 150 ] I think having to face a new judge who knows nothing about them will add a strong incentive or impetus to their resolving issues outside court, rather than litigating them before a known judge. [ 151 ] I also make the following orders which replace parenting time pursuant to the above orders with respect to the four-week cycle: 9.

Each summer commencing in 2016, 2017, and 2018, the Father will have a summer holiday with A. with not fewer than four consecutive overnights in 2016, five in 2017, and six in 2018. These summer holidays will replace the parenting time in paragraph 3 above, but not be in addition to it, and be on dates the parties agree to in writing. In 2016, this holiday will be somewhere between August 1 and September 5, 2016. In 2017 and 2018, it will be upon dates the parties agree upon in writing, upon the Father first giving the Mother not less than 60 days' notice of his intended vacation period.

If the parties cannot agree on summer holiday dates in the years 2017 and 2018, the Father's summer holiday with A. will commence in each year on the Friday of the August civic holiday weekend and be for the next five or six consecutive overnights as the case may be. 10. Halloween in October each year will be an overnight with each parent from 3:00 p.m. to 8:50 a.m. the following day. The Mother will have A. this year, 2016, and the Father will have A. with him in odd-numbered years commencing in the year 2017. If Halloween falls on a day when the parent in question is otherwise to have A., no change is required.

If the parent who is to have A. pursuant to this order would not otherwise have her, A. is to be transferred as required by this order to the other parent. This order supersedes those in paragraph 3 above in this way. 11. The Mother will have A. with her on even-numbered years commencing in the year 2016 from noon on December the 24th to December the 25th at 3:00 o'clock p.m., when she will be picked up by the Father and in his care to 3:00 o'clock p.m. December

26th, when he will return her to the Mother. On odd-numbered years commencing in 2017, the Father will have A. on the above times. 12. Commencing in the year 2016, each parent will have A. on her birthday from noon October 3rd until noon the following day, the Father having her on even-numbered years and the Mother on odd-numbered years. 13. A. will spend all day with Mother on Mother's Day and all day with Father on Father's Day, commencing in the year 2016. "All day" on these days means from 10:00 o'clock a.m. to 7:30 p.m. 14.

A. will spend all day with Mother on her Mother's birthday and all day with Father on his birthday. "All day" as used in this order means from 10:00 o'clock a.m. to 7:30 p.m. 15. Subject to paragraph 16, A. will be with her Father on Good Friday and Easter Sunday commencing in 2017, and in odd-numbered years thereafter, from 9:30 a.m. to 9:00 o'clock p.m. 16.

Commencing in 2018 and in even-numbered years thereafter, A. will be with her mother from 9:00 o'clock a.m. to 9:00 o'clock p.m. on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. [ 152 ] My impression is that of these two parents, the Father's involvement with his faith in terms of actual church attendance at services seems to be more significant than that of the Mother.

If the Mother does not wish to attend a church service on either Good Friday or Easter Sunday on her days as per the above orders and the Father does, and what I am stating now is not a court order, and in the event that the Father would like to take A. with him to a church service, I would hope that the Mother could facilitate A. doing so with her father without the need for a court order. [ 153 ] I am aware that both parties, and particularly the Mother, wish me to make even more detailed orders as to how various other statutory holidays and usually resulting long weekends would be shared up.

I do not have the time to plot out the four-week cycle referred to above for one year going forward so as to see, without making such orders, which parent gets which statutory holiday or Pro-D day when A. commences school. [ 154 ] Under the orders I have made, each parent gets two weekends, and in the Mother's case, Week 2 and 4 has in each case both a Friday and a Monday as of right. The Father does not, in Week 1 and 3, and hence the order in paragraph 5(

i) and (ii) above. My intention is that each parent should ultimately have more or less half the long weekends in each year, Christmas and Easter aside, and be responsible for about half of A.'s Pro-D days, which are often on Fridays, and of course occur when she commences attending school. I hope the parents will be able to fine tune the above orders to achieve something resembling this result. [ 155 ] There will be an order with respect to FaceTime parenting time, now something that I understand only the Mother utilizes, as follows: 17.

The Mother shall have FaceTime parenting time with A. during the Father's parenting time in the Lower Mainland in the four-week cycle, once every second night between the hours of 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m., such communications to start not sooner than 7:30 p.m. and conclude not later than 8:30 p.m. The Father will facilitate such calls. FaceTime calls on other occasions (for example if the Father takes A. to visit his brother in Sechelt for a few days or on a summer holiday somewhere) will be optional and not mandatory.

The Father would, of course, be well advised to tell the Mother where he is going on each occasion. (REASONS CONCLUDED)