S.H. v. G.J. Date:, 2016 BCPC 61

Citation: S.H. v. G.J. Date: 20160215 2016 BCPC 0061 File No: F9018 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: S.H. APPLICANT AND: G.J. RESPONDENT ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE B. DYER Appearing on her own behalf: S.H.

Appearing on his own behalf: G.J. Place of Hearing: North Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: February 15, 2016 Date of Judgment: February 15, 2016 [ 1 ] THE COURT: The applicant, G.J. (the "Father"), applies for an order to permit him to have overnight parenting time with the parties' daughter, one N. born in [omitted for publication] 2003 and now aged 12 and in Grade 7, in her last year of elementary school in Burnaby, at his current residence located [omitted for publication] on Vancouver Island.

He commenced living there in August 2014 and testified that he had been in a relationship with one A. for between two to three years. She rents the above three-bedroom residence where they reside, and she has a 21-year-old daughter one M., who lives with them in [omitted for publication]. M. is not now in school and at the moment is not working. A. works full-time somehow managing staff at a hotel near [omitted for publication]. In addition, she owns a motor vehicle. [ 2 ] Both A. and M. attended the one-day hearing before me and remained throughout most, if not all, of it, but neither testified.

This is so notwithstanding my comments and reasons earlier given in this matter on July 5, 2013, as to how important it is in cases like this for the court to hear from here the applicant's new partner. [ 3 ] The Father indicated that the residence is, I assume, leased by A. until June 2016, and then the lease is up for renewal. He explained that if I were prepared to amend my earlier order of July 5, 2013, to allow N. to live with him halftime, he and A. would move to Burnaby to reside closer to her school. N. will commence high school in September 2016 in grade 8.

If I did not increase his parenting time to "50/50," he suggested he and A. would seek to renew the tenancy arrangement for [omitted for publication] and remain there on and after June of 2016. [ 4 ] The Father's application does not expressly ask for increased parenting time, including an equal amount, and it was only after some discussion at the outset of the hearing that I initially comprehended that for now his real focus seemed to be on enforcing the order I made on July 5, 2013, with respect to overnight access on Vancouver Island.

His May 12, 2015, application simply asks that my above order be terminated and provides an incorrect date, "6/13/15," for same. [ 5 ] Mr. J. admitted during the hearing before me that it was not now practical for him to have 50/50 parenting time with N. while he was living on Vancouver Island and she was attending grade 7 in an elementary school located in Burnaby. He has said in his closing written submission, much of which is irrelevant to the issues before me, that he would be acquiring a place in the Lower Mainland within the next few days as close as possible to N.'s school.

His submission was filed on January 22nd, 2016. [ 6 ] None of the content of his written submission not given in court in evidence is fact or evidence that I can in any way rely on for purposes of this decision. Written submissions are to be based only on facts established at the trial in sworn testimony. [ 7 ] Insofar as the Father expects me to order a 50/50 parenting time regime so he can then move to Burnaby, I decline to do so. I must decide any case before me based on existing facts, not based on what might or might not occur on a future date. In any event, I am unable to take Mr.

J. at his word for reasons which I set out below. His application for 50/50 parenting time is dismissed. It is not in N.'s best interest that I now make this order. [ 8 ] The mother does not oppose N. having overnight visits with her father on Vancouver Island. However, she says this should now only occur on her terms, only one of which is alluded to in my order. I will shortly deal with her position. [ 9 ] She testified that N. wants to travel to and spend time with her dad on Vancouver Island and that she loves her father and does not doubt that he loves her.

She testified that it is hugely important that N. and her father have a positive relationship. Parenting time orders are, of course, all about assisting certainly the noncustodial parent to have and maintain such a relationship.

I understand that since the Father commenced living on Vancouver Island in mid-August 2014, there have been either no overnight visits there with N. or possibly one only. [ 10 ] The Father was permitted overnight access, now called "parenting time," with N. as early as March 26, 2012, when Janzen P.C.J., in an order the Mother consented to, granted him weekly access from 10 o'clock a.m. on Sunday to 3 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday.

I believe he was then living in the Lower Mainland and that he generally exercised this overnight access. [ 11 ] On August 21, 2012, Steinberg P.C.J. made an order giving the Father overnight access every second weekend from 3 o'clock p.m., Friday, until Monday at 8:30 a.m. when he was to deliver N. to her school.

I understand he exercised this access as well. [ 12 ] Following a lengthy hearing, I, too, made access-like orders, now called "parenting time" orders under the Family Law Act , on July 5, 2013, including every Monday, 3 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., every Wednesday 3 o'clock to 7:30 p.m., and on every second weekend from Saturday at 10 o'clock a.m. to 7:30 p.m., and every Sunday from 10 o'clock a.m. to 7:30 p.m. The orders states "a.m.," which I believe is an error.

I also made the following orders: THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the parenting time with N. the respondent is entitled to, as described in the Order, shall be changed to the following: (

a) every second weekend from Friday at 3:00 p.m. until Monday at 8:30 a.m., such parenting time to commence the week following the respondent providing to the applicant the following information:

i. his current residential address where he would intend to exercise overnight parenting time with N.; ii. his current telephone number where he can be reached; and upon: iii. the respondent permitting the applicant to attend and view his premises where he resides. [ 13 ] I recall these orders were made because there was some issue then as to exactly where Mr.

J. was living in the Vancouver area (and certainly not on Vancouver Island) and with whom, and he was reluctant to provide the Mother with his address, a recurrent theme with him first addressed by Judge Angelomatis on September 20th, 2005, when he ordered the Father to provide the mother with his address and telephone number. [ 14 ] As well, at the time, there was a concern, I think, on the Mother's part as to the suitability of his accommodation and fellow renters for a then quite young female child.

The Father, in July 2013, was not then in a relationship with A., as I recall, but with another woman who had an apartment in Vancouver and thence one in White Rock.

The above orders in part were intended to bring home to this father, as I think Judge Angelomatis had attempted to do in 2005, the very simple proposition that mothers, in particular, like to know something about where their children will be staying when with a father exercising parenting time and be able to reach them by telephone. [ 15 ] The above order at paragraph (a)(iii) concerning the home inspection was an effort on my part, I think, to facilitate the Mother in a timely way, if she really wanted to, to see where he lived and to satisfy herself that it was suitable accommodation and not, for example, a den of iniquity.

This last order was never intended to be used as an impediment to the Father having reasonable overnight access on Vancouver Island, or anywhere else for that matter, with his daughter. As I will explain, in my view, the Mother has improperly and unreasonably interpreted it in this way. [ 16 ] The Father testified that he had provided the Mother with his address about a year to a year and one half ago. He, in fact, sent her an email December 15th, 2014 (see Exhibit 1, page 46) stating as follows: Hi S.

My new address is: [omitted for publication] where N. has her own room of course is a viewing possible, however i expect 24 hours notice prior to viewing. i take it that we start on friday after School with the bi weekly weekends till monday to school. Regards G. [ 17 ] I understand that this address was not correct and should have been on [omitted for publication]. This error could have easily been sorted out if the Mother wanted to inspect the premises and made the usual reasonable arrangements to do so; for example, sending an email to Mr.

J. asking for directions to his home and confirming the correct address. I find that in this email Mr. J., as per my above order, permitted the Mother to attend his residence so she could satisfy herself that the same was reasonable. His requirement of 24 hours' notice was not, in the circumstances, unreasonable. [ 18 ] Her response at 4:50 p.m. the same day was as follows: Hello G., I am sure you are aware that [omitted for publication] is on the Island and is not part of the Lower Mainland. You will recall that you

are not able to remove N. from the Lower Mainland. Therefore, unfortunately, sleepovers will be not be occurring at this location. You will not be taking N. after school on Friday, but instead can pick her up on Saturday morning from 10:00 am until 7:30 pm as usual. [ 19 ] This email, of course, refers to the Angelomatis order referred to above made some nine years earlier which did, on its face, allow N. to go to Vancouver Island with the Mother's approval. On December the 17th, 2014, she did not approve.

Her lack of approval was, therefore, the reason N. did not go, not the language in the court order. [ 20 ] The Father admitted in his testimony before me that the above address was an error and should have been on [omitted for publication]. In any event, the Mother admitted that in December 2014, at least, she had his address on Vancouver Island.

The accuracy of that address certainly mattered in the event the Mother intended to visit, as I find the Father, reasonably in compliance with my order, invited her to do at least by December 15th, 2014, in the above email. [ 21 ] The Mother testified that she had his telephone number in 2015 but gave, in my view, some rather vague and unsatisfactory evidence that she may not have had it at some period of time she could not specify in the year 2014 because his cellphone was not operating, or for some similar reason.

I would believe that N. had a cellphone in these years based on the Father's unchallenged testimony that he would communicate with her and not the Mother when he was going to be late for a parenting time visit or possibly not come. I am not suggesting that he made such communications on every such occasion. He did not. [ 22 ] I find that the Mother at all material times since July 5, 2013, has had an ability to send emails to the Father using her cellphone or a computer.

This communication in a number of formats was and is possible from July 5, 2013, to date. [ 23 ] The Father testified that from approximately November 2014 to March 18th, 2015, he was in Germany and not in Canada. He did not tell the Mother that this was so, and according to her, she learned, I believe, from N. in mid to late December 2014 that indeed he was in Germany. During his absence in Germany, which the Mother ultimately knew about, the Mother nonetheless allowed access to N. to continue: (

a) on Monday and Wednesday when R.H.' son, D., would pick up N. at her school by bus and the two would spend time together at a local library; and (

b) on weekends when A. would pick up N. on Saturday and Sundays for parenting time visits. [ 24 ] N. told her mother at this time she was spending a lot of time with A. and D. and that she enjoyed her visits with A. The Mother testified that, refreshingly, A. was on time for weekend visits, I assume pickup and drop-off, and that she generally was comfortable with these visits.

However, she never made a point of going out to meet or interact with A., fearing, I find, without any real foundation, that she might somehow be confrontational because she was, after all, with the Father who she found to be so; in other words, a form of guilt by association. [ 25 ] She said she has never made any effort to get to know A. This, in my view, was a poor life decision on the Mother's part. Both these women would do well to at least meet one another.

A. currently is part of the Father's reality. [ 26 ] While it would have been helpful to have heard A. testify, the single fact that the Mother, on numerous occasions, trusted A. and allowed N. to be with her on parenting time visits ordered by this court for the Father, and absent evidence from the Mother that there were any untoward events that occurred on these visits, speaks volumes, in my view, as to the Mother's assessment of the type of person A. must be, which includes her being a full-time employed mother herself, just as she is. [ 27 ] It makes no sense to me to be concerned, based on the evidence that I have been given, that A., her daughter, and the Father would now live in a place that is inappropriate for overnight parenting time visits.

Why would the Mother have no qualms about allowing her daughter, N., to spend all day on a multitude of occasions with A., but harbour any realistic concerns about her home environment? This inconsistency makes no sense to me. [ 28 ] The Mother testified that she learned from the Father in an email in early 2015 that he would be returning to Canada in March 2015.

She then had concerns about his exercising overnight access with N. and set them out twice: on March 20th, 2015, in an email to the Father (see Exhibit 1, page 38), and later again on June 5th, 2015 (Exhibit 1, page 26). [ 29 ] The first such email states in part as follows: 1) You state you intend to have overnight access on Vancouver Island.

According to the best of my knowledge, Vancouver Island is not part of the Lower Mainland and as such is in violation of the non-removal order which (again, according to my understanding) still applies to you. 2) The court order states that I must view the premise prior to any overnight access taking place. Unfortunately, at this time I am unable to afford the cost associated with taking the ferry to view said place. 3) I am concerned about the cost the back and forth on the ferry would incur for you. To date, you are $30,000 in arrears on child support, and as far as FMEP can tell, still unemployed.

I am quite curious how it is you will be able to provide proper shelter, food, and transportation to N. while you remain unemployed. If your employment circumstances have changed, I would be most glad to hear about it.

4) How do you propose to have N. at school in Burnaby by 8:50 am Monday morning? I do not see how it is possible for you to transport her from your purported residence on Vancouver Island, over a ferry, and to school on time. If by chance you were also intending on spending Sunday night here in Vancouver, that residence would also need to be viewed prior to the granting of any overnight access.

As you seem to have this habit of continually bringing N. around R.H. against my wishes and against the court order, and as how you normally seem to reside with R. when you are in the city, you can understand my hesitation in allowing such a thing. I am not trying to prevent overnight access. I simply have a few concerns which I feel are valid points.

Should we be able to come to terms on these points, I am all for overnight access commencing. [ 30 ] This was followed by a further email from her on March 22nd, 2015 (see Exhibit 1, page 36), as follows: Until you are able to speak to the concerns I have expressed in my previous email, there will be no overnight access. [ 31 ] She later in her evidence referred to these concerns as "safeguards" she wanted in place before overnight Vancouver Island parenting time could commence. [ 32 ] As I have said, on June 5, 2015, the Mother sent the Father a further email (Exhibit 1, page 26) at 8:52 a.m. reiterating the above four concerns verbatim, I expect because the Father had not responded.

He did respond at 12:55 p.m., and his email and ones following it failed to resolve the Mother's concerns because no overnight access occurred as per my July 5, 2013, order. [ 33 ] When she testified before me on January the 8th, 2016, she said, in essence, that overnight parenting time as I had ordered had never occurred as the Father had never opened a dialogue about her concerns and had never addressed any directly. I find this is simply untrue. More accurately, the real problem was seemingly he did not address them to her satisfaction.

She eventually agreed that his above email was, in a sense, a response but stated she found it unsatisfactory. [ 34 ] She testified that he had never offered to pay for the cost of her trip over to Vancouver Island and, in essence, thus she had never gone.

Later in her evidence, she testified and offered a further excuse for overnight visits not occurring: that this inspection trip, in her planning process and thought, was to be the last step when all the other concerns or safeguards, as she started to call them, were first put in place. [ 35 ] She testified that she had never asked to go to his place in Brentwood Bay before all other safeguards in her Exhibit 1, page 38, email to him were in place as this would be putting "the cart before the horse," that is to say, to inspect first before the other safeguards or concerns were addressed and in place to her satisfaction.

Very, very importantly, she admitted most of these concerns were not requirements in the court order of July 5, 2013. She felt, when they were somehow in place, she would then take N. to Brentwood Bay and leave her, but only when his residence satisfactorily passed her inspection. [ 36 ] The Mother testified that she works full-time as an emergency room nurse at the [omitted for publication] and earns $90,000 a year.

The Father said he was now unemployed and gave some very vague and, frankly, unsatisfactory evidence that he travelled around B.C. meeting with people that had the same interest in his field of electronics. [ 37 ] When I asked him, when he gave reply evidence, how he could afford to pay for N.'s travel to and from Vancouver Island and for some food to feed her while with him, he testified that he had several bank accounts in Germany where he has a business of some kind and had $1,500 Euros held therein (or the Canadian equivalent of $2,325 at a current rate of exchange) and was able to wire-transfer money to local Money Marts to use for such purposes.

He also suggested he had credit available to him in Germany and in B.C., including via family members and through his girlfriend, A. He offered to pay, as necessary, the Mother's return ferry fee to Vancouver Island to facilitate her inspection. [ 38 ] The Mother testified that if she breached a court order, there should be consequences.

As well, she gave some considerable unchallenged evidence to suggest that the Father had done so for example, by not attending on most Monday and Wednesday access visits, being frequently late for pickups and drop-offs, not showing up at all on some, and in having parenting time with N. in the presence of R.H., something that I ordered was not to occur on July 5, 2013, in lengthy reasons where I attempted to explain why this was not to occur. As well, she made a point of testifying that he had paid her no child support ever and that there were now arrears of over $30,000 owing.

Thus, in this case, the evidence discloses that both parents have some difficulty complying with court orders, the Father, I think, more so than the Mother. [ 39 ] I want to address her concerns, paragraphs 1 to 4, in her above email, Exhibit 1, page 38. I find the Mother is simply wrong in her statement, paragraph 2, that my order provides that she must view the premises prior to any overnight access taking place. It provides only that he permit her to attend and view the same.

"Permit" means "to allow, to give consent to, or to give an opportunity": see Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus , 1997 edition. [ 40 ] I repeat that I find the Father's email of December 15, 2014 (Exhibit 1, page 46), was in compliance with the July 5, 2013, order and that the erroneous address was really a de minimis issue. Had the Mother wanted to inspect his residence in a timely way, in short order, this address issue could have been easily clarified.

Item 2 is not, therefore, a reason for the Mother to refuse overnight access. [ 41 ] I also find that the court order does not require him to defray the cost of her inspection trip to Vancouver Island and that she could then and now well afford this expense. Her evidence that she could not is sheer nonsense, in my view. Such a trip could be done

in a single day. The inspection was intended for her benefit, not his. She has used it and her other non-ordered concerns to prohibit the overnight parenting time her daughter wants, that the Father wants, and which she says she does not oppose, a point that I do not accept as truthful, from occurring. [ 42 ] This visit can and could be waived by her or accomplished with a film of the interior of the Father's residence in Brentwood Bay emailed to her in the event he and, no doubt, Angela consented to this technology being used.

This type of thing is commonplace in the real estate industry in this province. [ 43 ] Item 3, his arrears of support, is not a matter referred to in the court order and not any lawful basis for the Mother to refuse overnight access. I accept that notwithstanding his unemployed status, he does have or can access sufficient resources to pay a reasonable amount for travel costs and food for N. on weekend visits.

This hearing is not about child support issues. [ 44 ] I fully and completely understand how frustrating it must be for this mother, who has received no child support, to have to deal with a parenting time issue of benefit to him without his addressing this financial issue at the same time, but in truth, parenting time is really one of benefit to their daughter, N.

Neither the law nor my order of July 5, 2012, makes or made it a precondition to his having overnight parenting time with N. that he pay child support to her as ordered earlier by this court. [ 45 ] I am certain FMEP and her counsel, if still engaged, will be able to assist the Mother on this issue if she wishes to proceed on it. Her counsel, Ms.

Jones, or any competent family law lawyer will be well aware of the provisions in the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act , including the procedures for default hearings which, in an appropriate case, can permit the defaulting parent to be imprisoned: see s. 21 of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act . [ 46 ] As to point 4 in her email, it is clear the order was made at a time when both parties lived in the Lower Mainland. I accept the Mother's evidence that her daughter's school starts at 8:50 a.m. most days.

Having N. back at school then was a non-issue if an overnight visit proceeded, as per my July 5, 2013, order, if both parties lived in the Lower Mainland. [ 47 ] The Father says he now believes if he took a 7 o'clock a.m. ferry from Swartz Bay, that he could have N. in school a few minutes after 9 o'clock a.m. on Monday if she spent overnight with him on Vancouver Island. He believes this might be acceptable to her school twice a month.

The mother seemed to suggest, if overnight parenting time occurred, it should be until, say, 7:30 p.m. on Sunday so N. would be rested for school the next day. [ 48 ] In my view, point 4 was not a safeguard or concern that should have prevented overnight parenting time. It is and was a technical point that, with some good faith, could have been easily overcome.

One way, in the event the parties could agree on such a visit, would have been a joint letter, for example, to N.'s school to explain that every second weekend, on the Monday following, N. might be, say, 20 minutes late for her first class as she would be travelling by ferry from Vancouver Island where she was visiting her father and an indication that the Father would telephone the school if this was likely so on the ferry's arrival at Tsawwassen. [ 49 ] Another solution would have been to agree on N. being returned at 7:30 p.m. on Sunday, clearly, the Mother's choice.

There is now no evidence before me that would rationally support N. staying overnight in the Vancouver area on Sunday night with some friend or even relative of A.'s as against being returned to her mother to be readied for school the next day. [ 50 ] As to point 1 in the email, it is true that Judge Angelomatis' order of September 20th, 2005, did preclude N. from going to Vancouver Island but only with the above-explained exception. I was alive to this order's existence in July 2013 and, thus, exceptions for both parents were carved out, so to speak, for holidays for each party.

The Mother was well aware of this order and, for example, as far back as November 10, 2005, sought a variation to allow her to go to Williams Lake. It seems she sought no such variation with respect to the trip March 7 to 12, 2015, referred to in her email of February 20th, 2015 (Exhibit 1, page 43), which, if it occurred, would seem not to be permissible under the September 20th, 2005, Angelomatis' order or my own of July 5, 2013. Thus, as to item 1, it seems the Mother expected the Father to respect the restriction but was seemingly not prepared to do so herself.

This, of course, has potentially led, in this case, to the Father feeling he need not respect court orders made by the court, for example, that N. is not to be in R.H.'s presence. [ 51 ] I repeat, had the mother truly been supportive of N. having overnight access with the Father on Vancouver Island and been acting in good faith, she could easily have agreed to such visits or to a consent variation of my July 5, 2013, order to permit them.

Such an order would only be required in the absence of written consent to a trip outside the permitted area from the other party, in this case, from her. [ 52 ] I have considered s. 47 of the Family Law Act .

It states as follows: 47 On application, a court may change, suspend or terminate an order respecting parenting arrangements if satisfied that, since the making of the order, there has been a change in the needs or circumstances of the child, including because of a change in the circumstances of another person. [ 53 ] I am satisfied that there has been a change in the circumstances of another person, the Father, in that he now resides not in the Lower Mainland but on Vancouver Island. As well, there has been a change in N.'s needs.

I find that she needs and wants to spend overnight time with her father on Vancouver Island and that this is not occurring substantially due to her mother's rather technical construction of existing court orders. [ 54 ] N. is now two-and-a-half years older than she was hitherto, and her views on point, fairly expressed by the Mother, are to be given significant weight. She is now 12-and-a-half years of age. There is thus a need to vary my earlier July 5, 2013, order, and I find that it is in N.'s best interests that I do so. 1.

I agree that the Monday and Wednesday parenting time provisions at page 4, paragraphs (

b) and (c), of this order should be rescinded, and I now do so. I agree with the Mother's position that N. should be free to pursue her own extracurricular interests on these

evenings and that the recent past history shows that the Father has failed to attend most of these visits. 2. In their place, there will be a new order that the Father may have such further or different parenting time with N. as the parties may agree upon in writing. By way of explanation, this means that they are free by consent: (

a) to arrange more parenting time than is set out in any existing court order; or (

b) vary or change any parenting time as ordered by the court at any time. If they cannot agree, the parenting time will be as per the existing court orders. [ 55 ] I also make the following parenting time orders: 3. Commencing on February 19th, 2016, and on alternate weekends thereafter, and subject always to the following orders, the Father shall have parenting time with N. on Vancouver Island, commencing from the conclusion of her school on Friday, at or about 3 p.m., until Sunday night at 8:30 p.m. 4.

The Father will cause N. to be picked up at her school on Friday afternoon and will cause her to be dropped off at the Mother's residence in Burnaby, B.C., not later than Sunday at 8:30 p.m. at the conclusion of the parenting time visits. 5.

In the event there is a holiday or Pro D or like day on one of the Father's alternating weekends, on a Friday or Monday, as the case may be, the pick-up and drop-off times will be adjusted accordingly so that the pick-up occurs, for example, on Thursday (if Friday is a holiday, Pro D or like day) and the drop-off is on Monday (if Monday is a holiday, Pro D or like day) so that the Father will have the benefit of a long weekend with N. on alternating weekends, if they occur. [ 56 ] I invited Ms.

Jones, in her closing submissions, to deal with the law in British Columbia relating to the status of the Father's driving licences in this province. I find as a fact that he is not now a visitor or student but a resident of B.C. and has been so for many years. I find that he now holds a German and an international driver's licence. I am in no position to find they are now valid in accordance with, for example, German law. I make no such finding, nor do I assume they are or are not valid pursuant to laws outside British Columbia. [ 57 ] According to the information attached to an affidavit sworn by Ms.

Jones' legal assistant, Ms. Briggs, on February 4th, 2016, our British Columbia legislation on point required Mr. J. to either exchange his German licence for a B.C. licence within 90 days or apply for a B.C. licence, I suppose, if he did not wish to surrender his German licence. Thus, he was able to use his German licence as a new resident in British Columbia for only 90 days. This period of time, in my view, has long since passed. Thus, the current appearance of things is that Mr.

J., if driving without a current B.C. driver's licence, is not now properly licensed to drive a motor vehicle in this province. [ 58 ] On the last day of the hearing in this matter, I had thought I raised with both parties a further and related issue, namely, if Mr. J. drove, for example, A.'s motor vehicle without a valid B.C. licence, and assuming she had valid insurance on the vehicle, and with N. with him as a passenger and he was in a motor vehicle accident that was his fault, would there be insurance coverage to cover any losses and injuries that N. as a passenger might suffer?

This point remains outstanding. [ 59 ] Under these circumstances, I make this further order: 6. The Father will not, until such time as he shows the Mother, in person, his original valid B.C. driver's licence and permits her to inspect it, drive N. anywhere during any parenting time visit. I will spell this out for these parents.

It means that he must, in a personal meeting with her, take from his person the original B.C. licence, hand it to her, allow her to inspect it, and the same will then be returned to him so he can again put it into his wallet or into his pocket. [ 60 ] The earlier orders I made on July 5th, 2013, which are still in effect, preclude R.H. from driving N. anywhere, whether or not Mr.

J.is present in the motor vehicle or not. [ 61 ] The above order, of course, will only be a consideration for the Father until such time as he complies with our laws in British Columbia and obtains a valid British Columbia licence which, in my view, is not at all a difficult task to achieve. 7. The above parenting time orders numbers 3 to 5 only apply while N. is in school and not during the summer months. Neither party seeks any change to the summer holiday order I made on July 5th, 2013. 8.

In the event the alternating weekend visits continue over the summer non-school months, and I order that they shall, the pick-up place will of course be changed from the school to the mother's residence or such other place if the parties first agree upon one in writing. The drop-off place will be at her home or such other place as the parties first agree upon one in writing. 9.

There is no reason in the summer non-school months that the drop-off time, after an alternating weekend parenting time visit, not be on or before noon on the Monday, permitting N. to spend Sundays twice a month overnight with her father, and I so order. Otherwise, for now, I agree with the Mother's submission that N. needs to be rested to do well in school on Mondays during the school year and that an early morning ferry run and associated even earlier morning driving to get to the ferry itself would not be in N.'s best interests as she moves forward into more difficult years in high school.

This is an important issue while the Father continues to reside on Vancouver Island. Any child must be rested to do well in school. [ 62 ] Ms. Jones asked that I make other parenting time orders. They were referred to in her opening remarks at the trial and at page 3 to 4 of her excellent and very helpful closing written submission. I will set out each in turn where I have not already dealt with them above and deal with it in turn using her helpful numbering system.

10. Given the history of tardiness and his frequent failure to exercise his parenting time, Mr. J. must confirm by email with Ms. H. that he will be exercising his parenting time with N. between 24 and 48 hours before his scheduled parenting time. If he does not, his parenting time will not take place. [ 63 ] Mr. J. is frequently late on exchanges and seems, on all the evidence, to be indifferent to these requirements. In my reasons of July 5, 2013, I tried to explain to him why this was important. He appears to be unpersuaded. Thus, a different approach is now called for. 10.

I make the above order sought by the Mother which will state that his advance notice is to be not less than 24 hours and not more than 48 hours from the commencement of the parenting time visit. These visits, of course, are to occur on known alternating weekends. An email or text from him to the Mother, (and I emphasize to the Mother , and not to N.) will suffice. This is not rocket science but simple politeness. [ 64 ] In passing, I would encourage the Mother to make it clear to her daughter, N., that on parenting time visits, she can text her mother, while in transit, as to her travel progress.

Likewise, the Mother can tell N. in advance what the duration of her visit with her dad, either ordered or agreed upon, is so that N. will not again be put in the position of not herself knowing when she is to return home to her mother. I am not, by these remarks, to be taken as here suggesting it is somehow up to N., at age 12-and-a-half, to police her father's compliance with court orders. [ 65 ] I return to Ms. Jones' written submission in paragraph 11 as follows: 11. If Mr.

J. is more than 30 minutes late for a parenting time session, his parenting time will not take place. [ 66 ] I agree with this suggested order, with two caveats. Mr. J. will potentially be travelling long distances while he resides on Vancouver Island in order to pick up and drop off N. Thus, the first exception to Ms. Jones' proposal is the 30 minutes should be modestly extended to 45 minutes, in my view. [ 67 ] Secondly, an overall exception that if the ferry he intends to take is late, as compared, for example, to Mr.

J. being late himself for the ferry, he must text or email the Mother immediately and so advise, and if he is to be late for more than 45 minutes due only to a travel delay caused by BC Ferries and the lateness will exceed 45 minutes, the visit will still occur. [ 68 ] This is not a licence for Mr. J. to, for example, intend to travel on, say, a 7 o'clock a.m. sailing, but due to his late arrival, sleeping in, and even summer congestion, having to take a 10:30 a.m. ferry and thereby be three-and-a-half hours late without loss of a visit.

He can and should reserve ferry passages so as to ensure his own on-time ferry travel. He must also leave his home in a timely way to line up appropriately for ferry travel just as any British Columbia citizen is required to do, especially during heavy summer months of ferry travel. This order (#11) will be drawn in accordance with these two exceptions. [ 69 ] I return now to paragraph 12 of Ms. Jones' submission as follows: 12. If Mr.

J. is more than an hour late in returning N. on any two occasions during a 30 day period, or is more than 4 hours late in returning N. on any one occasion, his overnight parenting time will be suspended for three months and will return to day visits on every other Saturday and Sunday. [ 70 ] I decline to make this order. I do, however, make the following order. 12. In the event the Father is more than one hour late returning N. from a parenting time visit, not caused solely by an unavoidable delay on the part of BC Ferries, his next parenting time visit with N. will not occur. [ 71 ] I refer again to Ms.

Jones' submission: 13. Mr. J. must advise Ms. H. via email if he is going to be late returning N. [ 72 ] I make this order (#13) save he may inform her, as well, by text or email. [ 73 ] Ms. Jones says this in paragraph 14 of her written submission: 14. If Mr. J. allows N. to be in the presence of R.H., his subsequent parenting time session will not take place. [ 74 ] I make this order (#14). I found Mr. J.'s explanation for how it was that he happened to be with Mr. H. on his 2015 summer holiday unconvincing and untruthful. [ 75 ] I return to paragraph 15 of Ms. Jones' written submission as follows: 15. Mr.

J. must pay Ms. H. for the price of a return trip for a passenger and a motor vehicle on the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay ferry prior to overnight access commencing to allow Ms. H. to inspect his residence.

[ 76 ] I decline to make this order. Had the Mother truly, in good faith, wanted to see where Mr. J. lived, she might have done so at any time in the last year. Her explanation as to putting "the cart before the horse" is unconvincing and, frankly, in my view, nonsense. If she was content to allow N. to be with A. on parenting time visits, as discussed above, surely she cannot have any real concern about the suitability of where A. now lives. I repeat, in July 2013, there was an issue as to the suitability of persons the Father was living with.

That is not an issue at this time based on the evidence before me. [ 77 ] Returning to Ms. Jones' written submission in paragraph 16: 16. Mr. J. must advise Ms. H. of all the occupants of his residence and allow Ms. H. to meet the occupants if possible. [ 78 ] I decline to make this order for the reasons immediately above expressed. [ 79 ] Returning to paragraph 17, finally, of her written submission as follows: 17. Mr.

J. must provide a detailed plan for how N. is going to be transported to and from his residence on Vancouver Island, including who will pick up and drop off N. [ 80 ] I decline to make this order as proposed. I do order (#15) that at the time Mr.

J. gives the Mother written notice of his intent to exercise alternate weekend parenting time with N., that he must then also advise in writing who will be doing the driving on the pickup and on the drop-off, which driver is not to include himself (until he has complied with the above order and obtained a valid British Columbia driver's licence) or R.H.. [ 81 ] I should state that I consider all of the above additional parenting time orders to be in N.'s best interests.

It is very much in her best interests to know if she will be seeing her dad or not and that if she is, that he will not disappoint her and be on time. His frequent lateness or non-attendances, I accept, have been an emotional hardship for her. This father needs to be a dependable role model for his daughter. All of the above orders will encourage him to be so and add to her sense of security in dealing with her own father. 16. All other parenting time orders will remain in place. [ 82 ] I also make the following orders: 17.

The non-removal order of Judge Angelomatis made September 30th, 2005, is varied in accordance with the orders herein to permit the Father to exercise parenting time with N. on Vancouver Island as provided herein. 18. No future hearing date shall be set in this matter in this court for any application or motion for any non-emergent matter unless a family case conference is first set and heard by a judge of this court and at which the applicant party must attend in person.

In the event he or she fails to do so, no hearing in court is to be set with respect to any application or motion filed by the non-attending party. 19. Judge Dyer will no longer be seized of applications, motions, or hearings in this action. 20. The signatures of the parties on the typewritten order will be dispensed with. (REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)