J.C.P. v. J.B. Date:, 2013 BCPC 297

Citation: J.C.P. v. J.B. Date: 20131007 2013 BCPC 0297 File No: F8879 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: J.C.P. APPLICANT AND: J.B. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE MERRICK Appearing in person: J.C.P. Counsel for the Respondent: C.C. Place of Hearing: North Vancouver , B.C.

Date of Judgment: October 7, 2013 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on September 15, 2014. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum isappended to this document. [1] THE COURT: S.R.D.P. is the four-year-old daughter of J.P. and J.B.. S. resides with her mother, grandmother, and otherfamily members in Surrey. Mr. P. resides in Vancouver and has parenting time with S.. [2] Ms. B.'s application to relocate was permitted in June of this year. Prior to that, S. and her parents resided on the SunshineCoast: see J.P. v. J.B., 2013 BCPC 168 . [3] Mr. P. and Ms. B. are S.'s guardians: see P. v.

B., 2013 BCPC 94 . [4] The issues that are to be determined are as follows: 1. What acts of family violence have occurred? 2 How should parenting responsibilities be allocated? 3. How should parenting time be allocated? 4. What is the appropriate amount of child support? 5. Did Mr. P. fail to disclose information in accordance with the Provincial Court Family Rules and the Family Law Act, and if so,should I make an order pursuant to s. 213(2) of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25? 6. Since Mr. P. did not comply with the orders for child support, should I make an order pursuant to s. 230(2)(

b) of the Family LawAct? 7. What conduct orders, if any, are appropriate? [5] In making orders with respect to parenting arrangements, I must only consider S.'s best interests: see s. 37 of the Family LawAct. In doing so, I must assess the impact of any family violence: see s. 38 of the Family Law Act. [6] I will now deal with the issue of family violence. [7] Mr. P. alleges he was assaulted by Ms. B. in S.'s presence, and during the assault, his cell phone was broken. Mr. P. alsoalleges Ms. B. has sent inappropriate text and email messages. [8] Ms.

B. alleges that S.'s conception was as a result of a sexual assault. She further alleges that Mr. P. has inappropriatelytouched S. and has made inappropriate sexual comments about S. In addition, Ms. B. alleges that the secret video recording of aparenting time exchange constitutes family violence. [9] Ms. B. also alleges that, without prior discussion, Mr. P.'s invitation for breakfast in S.'s presence was controlling behaviourthat constitutes family violence. [10] Finally, Ms. B. alleges that Mr.

P.'s consistent refusal to pay child support, combined with his other actions and comments, is aform of psychological and emotional abuse and controlling behaviour that also constitutes family violence. [11] Ms. B. acknowledges breaking Mr. P.'s phone and sending inappropriate texting and emails. Ms. B. denies assaulting Mr. P. [12] I am not able to resolve the conflict in the testimony. There is no independent evidence.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied on abalance of probabilities that an assault occurred. [13] The incident with the cell phone occurred in 2011, and the inappropriate texting and emails occurred in 2010 and 2011. Ms.B.'s behaviour has changed since then. I am not satisfied that this family violence has impacted S.'s safety, security, or well-being, nordo I think that this impairs Ms. B.'s ability to care for S. or meet her needs. [14] With respect to Ms. B.'s allegations of sexual assault, inappropriate touching, and inappropriate comments, these are denied byMr. P.

Again, I am not able to resolve this conflict in the testimony. There is no independent evidence. I am not satisfied that theseallegations have been proven on a balance of probabilities. [15] With respect to Mr. P.'s failure to pay child support on time and in the full amount, I am satisfied that this failure, combinedwith his other actions and words, constitutes family violence. I am satisfied that his failure to pay was a calculated and deliberate actdesigned to inflict psychological and emotional harm and to control Ms. B.'s behaviour. I am satisfied that Mr. P.'s goal was todestabilize Ms.

B.'s parenting of S. [16] I have come to this conclusion based on the following: (

a) Mr. P.'s repeated failures to pay monthly child support, as ordered, for more than a year despite having an ability to do so;

(

b) Mr. P.'s communication to Ms. B. that other than child support, what could he do to assist her in parenting S.; (

c) Mr. P.'s actions in placing $20 in S.'s backpack which went back and forth with S. as if it was some form of an allowance for Ms. B.; (

d) Mr. P.'s view that child support was not due on the 1st of the month, as ordered by the court, and that he could choose to pay it within the month and whenever he chose to within the month; (

e) Mr. P.'s initial reluctance to contribute to the cost of S.'s required dental care; and (

f) Mr. P.'s steadfast refusal to pay child support despite the considerable number of urgings and the explanation by the court as to the importance of child support. [ 17 ] While it is true that, recently, Mr. P. has been fulfilling his obligation to support S., I have concluded, based on the repeated urgings of the court and the repeated warnings to Mr. P. about the provisions of s. 231 of the Family Law Act , that his recent compliance is due to the fact that he reasonably believed he would be imprisoned if he did not pay child support in accordance with the court order. [ 18 ] While I am of the view that the failure to pay child support will not often constitute

an act of family violence, when the failure is the result of a determined decision not to pay, knowing the impact it would have on Ms. B., who had limited income, and my rejection of Mr. P.'s explanation for failing to pay, I have concluded that this was designed to inflict psychological and emotional trauma to Ms. B. and is therefore

an act of family violence. [ 19 ] I am also of the view that this has impacted S.'s well-being and that Mr. P.'s ability to care for S. is impaired. [ 20 ] Mr. P. used a secret surveillance camera to record a parenting time exchange and then used those images in court to show how well the exchange went. Mr. P. submitted that he did this to rebut any suggestion that a third party was required at the exchanges. If this was, in fact, the case, however, why would he not have advised Ms. B. of that? The use of the images in court created a real concern for Ms. B. as to what else has been secretly recorded.

I am of the view that the use of the images in court was designed to inflict emotional trauma on Ms. B. This does raise concerns about the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the parties to cooperate. [ 21 ] Finally, I agree that Mr. P.'s recent breakfast invitation to Ms. B. in S.'s presence, without prior notice to Ms. B., was designed to be coercive and controlling behaviour. Mr. P. knew that if he had asked Ms. B. in advance, Ms. B. would likely have declined the invitation. This, too, demonstrates that Mr. P.'s ability to care for S. is impaired. In S.'s presence, Ms.

B. had no choice but to agree. [ 22 ] Mr. P. suggested that this showed that he and Ms. B. could act as a family. It was controlling behaviour which, in the context of all of the evidence in this case, demonstrates Mr. P.'s poor decision-making in matters relating to S. [ 23 ] Having assessed the impact of family violence, I will now deal with the allocation of parenting responsibilities. [ 24 ] Having determined that as a result of the family violence Mr. P.'s ability to care for S. is impaired, I also have concerns regarding Mr. P.'s commitment to S. and his willingness to work cooperatively with Ms.

B. concerning decisions that need to be made for S. [ 25 ] I am of the view that Mr. P. puts his interests ahead of S. I have reached this conclusion based on the following: 1. Mr.

P. testified on September 11, 2012, at the first hearing in this matter which resulted in a mistrial, that he had recently received an ICBC settlement and that as part of his plan for sole custody, he would use some of the settlement proceeds to "do some marketing and computer courses and to do some start-up ventures." He further testified that he planned to put some of the money away for S.'s future: see transcript of proceedings September 11, 2012, page 44, lines 20 to 47. Mr. P. further testified that his ICBC settlement gave him "a buffer" to ensure he does not get into arrears in child support.

He added "that he wasn't happy with how support has been, that he could understand how Ms. B. wouldn't be either, and that was legitimate, and that he would aim to make powerful and lasting amends in that regard": see transcript of proceedings, September 11, 2012, page 47, lines 25 to 38. Mr. P. did pay child support for three months. He saved nothing for S.'s future. In December 2012, when Mr. P.'s money was running out, and knowing that his January 2013 child support payment was soon due, he chose to pay for his girlfriend's tattoo. He did not make his January 2013 child support payment. Mr.

P.'s explanation was that he promised his girlfriend. 2. Mr. P.'s position on relocation. Mr. P. opposed the application knowing that if he was successful, S. would live with him in poverty on the Sunshine Coast. Relocation provided the parties better employment opportunities and the ability for S. not to live in poverty. Mr. P. knew this. Mr. P. acknowledged that there was no work in his field on the Sunshine Coast. He provided no explanation as to how he would care for S. It is beyond belief that Mr. P. would choose poverty for his daughter rather than relocation. 3. Mr. P.'s reaction to S.'s dental issue. Mr.

P. blames Ms. B. for causing the problem, and he was unwilling at first to help pay the cost. He sought to terminate Ms. B.'s guardianship. Of note, it was actually Ms. B. who noticed the dental issue and made the dentist appointment, not Mr. P. This is just one of the examples of how difficult Mr. P. is in his dealings with Ms. B. In my view, this is rooted in Mr. P.'s lack of respect for Ms. B. as he demonstrated by his response to the question, What is the best thing about Ms. B. as a mother? His initial response was effectively her genetics.

Later, he added, "She's invested and present in the care of our daughter." 4. When S. initially started daycare, she had trouble adjusting. Rather than trying to be supportive of S. and help her through the transition, Mr. P. expressed his concerns about the daycare and suggested that S. switch to the daycare of his choosing. He did this

knowing the relocation plan, including the choice of daycare, had been approved by the court. He was not supportive of S. 5. Mr. P. submitted that S. should attend a daycare located midway between his residence in Vancouver and Ms. B. in Surrey, this to reduce his travel. 6. In choosing an apartment in Vancouver, Mr. P. chose a one-bedroom apartment despite the fact he is seeking equal parenting time. [ 26 ] Mr. P. has alleged that Ms. B. cannot adequately exercise parenting responsibilities. I am not satisfied that the evidence supports those assertions. Mr. P. asserts that Ms.

B.'s decisions are calculated to limit his involvement in S.'s life. That is simply not true, as demonstrated by Ms. B.'s proposal for the allocation of parental responsibilities. [ 27 ] Ms. B. has demonstrated that she will make decisions that are in S.'s best interests as exemplified by her decision to relocate and the decisions that followed relocation. Based on the entirety of the testimony I have heard, I have concluded that Mr. P. is far too critical of Ms. B. Parenting is not about perfection. Ms.

B.'s exercise of parental responsibilities falls within the widely acceptable range of parenting. [ 28 ] I have therefore concluded that it is in S.'s best interests to allocate parenting responsibilities as suggested by Ms.

B. as follows. [ 29 ] Both parents shall have the responsibility with respect to making day-to-day decisions affecting S. and having day-to-day care, control, and supervision of S. [ 30 ] Both will have the responsibilities of making decisions respecting the child's cultural, linguistic, religious, and spiritual upbringing and heritage. [ 31 ] Both shall have the responsibilities, subject to s. 17 of the Infants Act , for giving, refusing, or withdrawing consent to medical, dental, and other health-related treatments for S. [ 32 ] Both shall have responsibilities for giving, refusing, or withdrawing consent for the child if consent is required. [ 33 ] Also, both shall have responsibilities for receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive, and both shall have equal responsibilities for requesting and receiving from third parties health, education, or other information respecting S.. [ 34 ] Ms.

B. shall have sole parental responsibilities in the following areas: 1. making decisions respecting where S. will reside; 2. making decisions respecting with whom S. will live and associate; 3. making decisions respecting S.'s education and participation in extracurricular activities, including the nature, extent, and location; 4. applying for a passport, licence, permit, benefit, privilege or other thing for S.; 5. subject to any applicable provincial legislation, starting, defending, compromising, or settling any proceeding relating to S. and identifying, advancing, and protecting S.'s legal and financial interests, and the catchall responsibility for exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture S.'s development. [ 35 ] I will now deal with the allocation of parenting time. [ 36 ] Both the s. 15 report and the s. 211 report prepared by Dr.

Aube support Mr. P.'s position that he should have increased parenting time, including overnights. Except for a few recent overnights at Mr. P.'s mother's home in Davis Bay, Mr. P.'s parenting time has been limited to daytime. I agree and adopt in principle the

summary of empirical and clinical research prepared by Dr. Aube, which is page 1 of Exhibit 45, and shall be Appendix "A" to my reasons. However, this requires effort and commitment. Mr. P. has given me reason to question his commitment for the following reasons: (

a) his decision to rent a one-bedroom apartment; (

b) his inability to call S. at 6 p.m. and his reasons for not doing so: 1. after a hard day's work, he was just too hungry to call; 2. he seemed to suggest a phone call to S. just was not worth it; (

c) his failure to contact S. or spend time with S. during the 2012 holiday season. [ 37 ] Page 1 of Exhibit 45 also requires parental stability. Mr. P.'s situation remains uncertain for the following reasons: (

a) Will he continue to reside in Vancouver, and if so, will he continue to reside in a one-bedroom apartment? (

b) What is his employment situation and how will that impact on his ability to care for S.? [ 38 ] Accordingly, until further review in June of 2014, the parenting time shall be as suggested in the parenting plan put forth by Ms. B., including the requirements for overnights and the plan for holidays. This requires the parties to agree to some aspects. If the parties

cannot agree, then I will specify those aspects later today. [ 39 ] I would also ask the parties to consider amending the plan to include parenting time on the Sunshine Coast at S.P.'s residence, but I am not suggesting that this has to be on a monthly basis. I point out for the parties that this is not for negotiation, but I am accepting the parenting plan put forward by Ms. B. as being in S.'s best interests, and essentially, I need the parties to assist in wording the order so that I can be definite in the order itself. [ 40 ] With respect to child support, as I will detail later in this judgment, Mr.

P. has not been forthcoming in providing his financial disclosure as required by the Rules and the Family Law Act , nor has he provided full financial disclosure. Based on the financial statements filed by Mr. P., I am imputing income to him at $28,000. Child support is therefore $249 per month. [ 41 ] Mr. P. is also required to contribute to the daycare costs, which at the time of submissions were to be either $150 per month or $175 per month.

At the conclusion of these reasons, I will seek clarification from the parties and then pronounce that portion of the order. [ 42 ] Also, by the 15th of May each year, commencing May 15, 2014, Mr. P. shall provide to Ms. B. a copy of his tax return with all attachments and his notice of assessment for the purpose of determining child support payable each year. Based on the tax return and notice of assessment, the parties will adjust child support, with the adjustment to occur on the 1st of June each year. [ 43 ] I am of the view that conduct orders are necessary.

This trial commenced March 13, 2013, and there were proceedings on 20 days, concluding with submissions August 29, 2013. Not all the days were full days, but nonetheless, approximately 70 hours of court time was utilized. The 70 hours is an actual approximate of the on-the-record time. [ 44 ] There has been considerable conflict between the parties. C.A. described Mr. P. as argumentative. In fact, she said that this was one of his worst characteristics. S.W. testified that Mr. P. means well but that he gets lost in the fight and he loses sight of the goal and that his degree of criticism of Ms.

B. is far too high. S.P., the paternal grandmother, testified that both parents suffer from anxiety, the anxiety of new parents and their first child, and there is a lack of trust. Finally, Dr. Aube, she testified that the parties dislike each other more than parenting S. [ 45 ] Accordingly, the parties shall attend at a parenting coordinator to assist them in resolving issues that arise from the parenting responsibilities that they share. The parties will share the cost of the parenting coordinator equally.

This is made pursuant to s. 15 of the Family Law Act . [ 46 ] The parties have been involved in the court process since November 2010 when Mr. P. filed the first application. There have been a number of applications since. The application to cancel Ms. B.'s guardianship was a misuse of the court process. This trial could have been completed in less than 20 days.

Therefore, pursuant to s. 221 of the Family Law Act , neither party may make an application to the court without first obtaining leave to do so. [ 47 ] Considering the amount of testimony I heard in this case and the number of applications I have heard, I am seized of all matters relating to this file until further order of the court. [ 48 ] There also shall be a review of the parenting time and child support in June 2014.

That date is to be set by the judicial case manager here in North Vancouver as this file has been transferred to North Vancouver by consent and by desk order. [ 49 ] For the reasons I have given, I am of the view that Mr. P. needs to change his behaviour. The family violence must stop. There must be increased cooperation. Conflict must be minimized. This is an example of the type of conflict and criticism that must stop. At the conclusion of this case, Mr.

P. submitted, "I maintain and present that what the sum of the evidence shows is that there was an intention to run the clock as long as possible to make me have as many mistakes, to reduce and imperil, even with the most serious complaints, completely imperil my relationship and the ability to have a relationship, a fulfilling relationship, a complete parental involvement with my daughter S.." [ 50 ] I do not agree that there is any evidence to support that what occurred here was the "running of the clock." I think this is again but one illustration of the conflict and criticism that must end. [ 51 ] Therefore, pursuant to s. 199(1) (

b) of the Family Law Act , Mr. P. shall attend, participate in, and successfully complete counselling, including psychological counselling and parenting courses, and provide proof of his attendance at counselling. Such proof must be filed no later than 3 p.m., May 31, 2014, at the court registry in North Vancouver. [ 52 ] Ms. B. seeks $5,000 as a remedy for Mr. P.'s failure to provide proper financial disclosure in accordance with the Family Law Act and the Rules of Court. A party to a family law dispute must provide to the other party full and true information for the purposes of resolving a family law dispute: see s. 5 of the Family Law Act .

Section 213 of the Family Law Act is to be used to secure proper disclosure in a timely and cost-efficient way: see J.D.G. v. J.J.V. , 2013 BCSC 1274 at paragraph 25 . [ 53 ] The severity of the order made under s. 213 should depend on the circumstances of the case, the degree of nondisclosure, the reasons for late disclosure, and when disclosure was made: see J.D.G. v. J.J.V. , paragraph 28 . [ 54 ] If a party is required to apply to the court for an order for financial disclosure, then the party making the application should be compensated.

The greater the effort, the greater the compensation. [ 55 ] On July 30, 2012, Mr. P., with the assistance of counsel, filed a financial statement with attachments and was, for the most part, compliant with his obligation to disclose. On March 13, 2013, Mr. P. filed an incomplete financial statement, but on March 21, 2013, Mr. P. filed another financial statement with more information. It was in this financial statement that he disclosed his sources of income. Understandably, it did not include his 2012 tax return.

[ 56 ] In May 2013, Mr. P.'s work situation improved. From then on, Mr. P. was not compliant with his obligation to provide full and true information. Mr. P. had also not filed his 2012 income tax return. [ 57 ] On August 1, 2013, Mr. P. filed another financial statement. It was incomplete. Mr. P. had still not filed his 2012 income tax return. This resulted in an application and a series of orders, including that Mr. P. must complete and file his 2012 income tax return. Mr. P. was given until August 19, 2013, to comply with the orders, and to his credit, he did. [ 58 ] It should be noted, however, that Mr.

P. was reminded by the court prior to August 1, 2013, of his s. 5 obligation to disclose. His actions fly in the face of the goal of s. 5 of the Family Law Act : see J.D.G. v. J.J.V. , paragraph 23 . [ 59 ] Aggravating the situation is the reason for the nondisclosure. I am satisfied, based on the efforts and the urgings of the court, that Mr. P. only pays child support now because he feared being imprisoned if he continued to breach the child support order.

He was aware that if he filed his income tax return, he was entitled to a refund, and that refund might be attached by the family maintenance enforcement program for the benefit of Ms. B. [ 60 ] Although Mr. P. is self-represented, and I have taken that into account, in the areas that Mr. P. chose to prepare for, he was extremely well-prepared and organized. His failure to disclose was not due to any inability or due to the fact that he was representing himself. He simply chose to defy.

I am satisfied that he complied with my August 1, 2013, order for disclosure only because one order contained a clause that if he did not comply, he would be required to show cause why he ought not to be penalized. [ 61 ] Of the approximately 70 hours of on-the-record court time, it is difficult to determine exactly how much time was used trying to get Mr. P. to comply with his disclosure obligation. That said, it certainly seemed like there was a considerable and therefore inappropriate amount of time used for that purpose. [ 62 ] Mr. P. failed to provide basic financial disclosure.

The efforts to get him to comply were extreme. The reasons for failing to disclose are aggravating. It verges on contempt. I agree with Mr. Justice Punnett that the approach to s. 213 is that the significance of timely disclosure must be brought home. It should not be taken lightly. Proper and timely disclosure will be enforced: see J.D.G. v. J.J.V. , paragraph 30 . [ 63 ] Accordingly, pursuant to s. 213(2)(d)(ii), Mr. P. is ordered to pay to Ms. B. the sum of $2,880 at the rate of $80 per month commencing December 1, 2013, and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter until the entire sum is paid.

Due to Mr. P.'s limited resources, I have reduced the amount. For a person of greater means, the amount would have been $4,000. [ 64 ] Ms. B. seeks as well $5,000 in trust for S. as a remedy for Mr. P.'s repeated failure to pay child support. Most of the noncompliance occurred prior to the coming into force of the Family Law Act and Mr. P. has made considerable efforts recently to comply. The noncompliance is similar to his refusal to provide full financial disclosure, and similar efforts were made by the court to get Mr. P. to comply.

He only complied because he feared imprisonment. [ 65 ] In the extreme circumstances of this case, a remedy pursuant to s. 230 is not appropriate. Also, Mr. P. lacks the financial resources. In my view, had Mr. P. continued not to comply with the order for child support, I would have been satisfied that there was no other way for the court to secure compliance, and Mr. P. would have been ordered to show cause why he ought not to have been imprisoned in accordance with s. 231(2) of the Family Law Act .

I decline to make any order pursuant to s. 230 . [ 66 ] So I will now stand this case down for the parties to fine-tune the order with respect to what the amount is for extraordinary expenses related to daycare and for what the parenting arrangement should be, going forward, in accordance with the parenting plan. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 67 ] J.P.: I have a fine to pay and so on.

I'd like to clear up this debt. [ 68 ] THE COURT: It will be in accordance with the parenting plan, and if the provision is that there must be a two-bedroom apartment, then that will be the provision and it is not reviewable until June of 2014. (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED) (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED) [ 69 ] THE COURT: So Mr. C., first with respect to the extraordinary expenses related to daycare and such? (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 70 ] THE COURT: Okay. So then what I am going to order is that in addition to the Table amount of child support, and of course the order should reflect that Mr.

P. is a resident of B.C. for the purposes of the Child Support Guideline, he will pay the Table amount, as I said earlier, plus extraordinary expenses in the amount of $122.50 per month, and that number is to be altered either upward or downward on February 1, 2014, reflective of the actual cost for daycare. So if for some reason the subsidy goes up and the after-subsidy care is less, then Mr. P.'s share should go down. If it is more, then it should go up, and if for some reason it is astronomical, then somebody will have to apply for leave before I would consider changing it. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE)

[ 71 ] MR. C.: Now, in terms of the parenting arrangements and the parenting time, we've had some discussions and it is mostly sorted out. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 72 ] THE COURT: I do not think, for the reasons I have given, that Ms. B. should have to go near your residence. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 73 ] THE COURT: The recommendation I certainly agree with with Dr. Aube is things need to be specific. So it will be the Nanaimo Station and King George Station and that is part of something we can review in June and see how things have gone, but for now it will be Ms. B. dropping S. off at Nanaimo Station and Mr.

P. dropping S. off at the King George Station. [ 74 ] And what do you say about the phone calls? (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 75 ] THE COURT: I would consider Sunday at 6:00 but not on Saturday. [ 76 ] J.P. : Sunday at 6:00 is suitable. [ 77 ] THE COURT: What about Sunday at 6:00? Because in all likelihood that is before -- a school night. [ 78 ] MR. C.: So Sunday at 6:00 and Thursdays? [ 79 ] J.P.: Tuesdays. Those would be prior to my evening visits on the week of both Monday and Wednesday, so it would be Sunday and Tuesday at 6:00. [ 80 ] THE COURT: Yes. And I want to make it clear, Mr.

P., you are responsible for letting the daycare know that you are picking S. up and what time, and the order will contain a clause that you are responsible for any late fees on the days that you are responsible for picking S. up. [ 81 ] J.P.: I'm aware. [ 82 ] MR. C.: And that needs to be the day before pick-up. [ 83 ] THE COURT: Yes. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 84 ] THE COURT: So there will be a specific term of the order that Mr. P. is to text Ms. B. confirming that he will be attending after school to pick S. up and the time, and that he, Mr.

P., is responsible for all costs associated with a late pick-up. [ 85 ] MR. C.: And also it should be also made clear that if he does not make that text message Ms. B. cannot fill out that form and the daycare will then not release S. to him. [ 86 ] THE COURT: That will be the consequence. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 87 ] THE COURT: Okay. The email is going to go like this: Mr. P. is to send an email that says, "I confirm that I will be picking S. up tomorrow at X time." The text or the email is to contain nothing else. No salutations, nothing. And Ms. B. is to text back one letter, "K," and that is it.

And I do not know what the answer is if for some reason the cellphone service is not working well and Ms. B. does not receive the text or does not receive it until 11:00 o'clock. I do not know. You will have to work that out. [ 88 ] MR. C.: Then the next we talked about was the alternating holiday schedule. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 89 ] MR. C.: So a calendar is essentially part of one of the terms. [ 90 ] THE COURT: Yes. That would be an appendix to the order. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE)

[ 91 ] MR. C.: Now, Your Honour's suggestions about some Sunshine Coast visits. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 92 ] THE COURT: The whole tenor of my decision is that starting immediately there has to be a change. So it will be December 24th, 25th and 26th on the Sunshine Coast, and you will have to work with Mr. C. and Ms. B. to arrange those other two time periods. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 93 ] MR. C.: Now, just in terms of those Sunshine Coast overnights, Ms.

B. proposes that the transfer times occur in line with your previous order for the Sunshine Coast overnights, that the return times on the ferries set right in the order, the drop-of times by Ms. B. set right in the order. [ 94 ] THE COURT: Yes, exactly. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 95 ] MR. C.: And unless I'm mistaken, I think that addresses everything in the parenting plan proposal other than to reiterate that that term that we included regarding the 30 minutes. [ 96 ] THE COURT: The 30 minutes? I was going to ask. [ 97 ] MR.

C.: That's going to stay. [ 98 ] THE COURT: Yes, I think that should stay in the order. [ 99 ] MR. C.: Oh, and for the time being, actually, the alternating sick days we proposed for practicality's sake should be gone. Mr. P. doesn't have a car right now and transiting a sick child just makes no sense and it seems to me at this point in time especially to be fraught with conflict. [ 100 ] THE COURT: Yes, I agree. So that will not continue. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 101 ] THE COURT: Well, what you can do is this.

When you feel that there has been a significant change you can outline all that in an affidavit and you can seek approval for a review prior to June, but I am not changing my order. My order was that you were not to have overnight parenting time at this point in time. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 102 ] THE COURT: Mr. P., the standard on getting leave will be very, very high. What is in S.'s best interest, quite frankly, is that you not have to come back here before June. At some point in time -- litigation is not good for S. and this just cannot be in four or six weeks you are back.

I have given my reasons and before there is to be overnight parenting there has to be significant change. The conflict, the criticism, your commitment, all of the things I pointed to, there has to be change and it has to be significant and it has to be demonstrated. If all of this happens and it is the beginning of May and Ms. B. will not agree despite all these fantastic changes, well that is one thing. But let us not put the cart before the horse. The first thing is significant demonstrated and consistent change.

So I am not even going to entertain any discussions about when you can do this and putting an affidavit together. [ 103 ] MR. C.: I think it also needs to be clear to Mr. P. that that's leave from you, not just any judge. [ 104 ] THE COURT: That is right. It is leave from me, and the two years that Mr. C. referred to, I did not specify two years because it may be longer, it may be shorter, but it is leave from me.

This is one of the rare opportunities where a judge has basically had information about S. from birth to today's date where the parties have been in court where essentially in one month it has been two years and 23 months, if my math is right, since November of 2010. There has to be a break from the court process, and I will leave it at that. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 105 ] THE COURT: You must apply for leave for anything related to the court process related to this file, as must Ms. B.. [ 106 ] MR. C.: One more thing, Your Honour, if I may. I was struck by Mr.

P.'s questioning about how quickly he can get his hands on a copy of your ruling. It raised the spectre of potential appeal which causes me some concern.

(DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 107 ] THE COURT: I will leave that to the supreme court to deal with. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 108 ] THE CLERK: [Indiscernible/not near microphone] scheduling instructions to take to the JCM. (DISCUSSION RE ABOVE) [ 109 ] MR. C.: Right. Thank you. [ 110 ] THE COURT: Okay. [ 111 ] MR. C.: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 112 ] THE COURT: Thank you. (REASONS CONCLUDED) CORRIGENDUM – Released September 15, 2014 [1] Further to the Reasons for Judgment filed October 7, 2013, Appendix A was attached to the court filed copy of the judgment but was inadvertently not included on the electronic versions.

Attached hereto is Appendix A. [2] My Reasons for Judgment are hereby amended. CORRIGENDUM – Released September 15, 2014 [3] Further to the Reasons for Judgment filed October 7, 2013, Appendix A was attached to the court filed copy of the judgment but was inadvertently not included on the electronic versions. Attached hereto is Appendix A. [4] My Reasons for Judgment are hereby amended.