A.H. Applicant - v. –, 2022 NBKB 201

FDSJ-270-2022 IN THE COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK FAMILY DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SAINT JOHN Neutral Citation: 2022 NBKB 201 Date of Decision: October 24, 2022 BETWEEN: A.H. Applicant - and – J.L. Respondent DECISION BEFORE: Madam Justice Chantal N. Daigle AT: Saint John, N.B. DATE OF HEARING: September 2, 2022 DATE OF DECISION: October 24, 2022

APPEARANCES: David M. Lutz, K.C. and Holly Anna E. Burns, for the Applicant, A.H. Tandiwe Nyajeka, for the Respondent, J.L. Daigle, J.: I. BACKGROUND: [ 1 ] The parties are the parents of a child who was born on […], 2021. [ 2 ] The parties resided in Nova Scotia throughout their relationship. They separated on July 1, 2022. The mother moved to Hampton, New Brunswick on that day. [ 3 ] On July 6, 2022, the mother filed an Application in the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench seeking various relief, including a parenting order under the Family Law Act . II.

ISSUES: [ 4 ] The main issue to be resolved is whether the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench has jurisdiction to hear this matter. III. FACTS: [ 5 ] The parties began dating in July 2020 and moved in together in October 2020. [ 6 ] They resided in Nova Scotia throughout their relationship and during that time, they purchased a home together in Lake Loon, Nova Scotia. [ 7 ] The mother grew up in Quispamsis, New Brunswick and her family still lives in this area.

The mother visited with her family from time to time, particularly after the child was born in […] 2021 and while she was on maternity leave. [ 8 ] According to the father, he and the mother had discussed her visiting New Brunswick again in the summer of 2022. According to his affidavit, they had agreed it would be for “ two weeks at the most, and then she would return to our home in Nova Scotia. ” [ 9 ] Sometime on July 1, 2022, the father discovered that the mother was considering filing a police report against him with regards to unwanted sexual advances. He became very upset.

The couple argued and the mother left the home with the child to go visit a friend. While she was visiting her friend, the parties had the following text exchange: - FATHER: “You’ve gotta go tonight, you can’t stay here anymore” - FATHER: “& I’m not gonna be talking to you anymore so when you’re on your way back to get your stuff let me know I’ll leave for 2 hours” - MOTHER: “You should leave for a couple days so [the child] can have a place to sleep and then by Sunday I can be gone” - FATHER: “No I paid for the house. Go to NB” - FATHER: “You’re crazy & I will not be around you anymore.

Doing to me exactly what you did to your ex” - MOTHER: “I can’t get [the child’s] stuff in 2 hours” - FATHER: “Just get out it’s not up for discussion” - MOTHER: “Give me one day” - FATHER: “You can get what you need then come back in a few weeks” - MOTHER: “I’ll get Luna and Noah and I’ll go but I need time” - FATHER: “Yah I think 2 hours is plenty” - MOTHER: “Please [J.] just go to your dads for one night” - MOTHER: “Please” - MOTHER: “I’ll get everything and leave in the morning”

- FATHER: “No. You’re literally trying to file a police report against [me]” - MOTHER: “Just give me and [the child] one night” - FATHER: “No” - MOTHER: “And I’ll be gone” - MOTHER: “You want me to just drive to nb overnight?” [ 10 ] According to the mother, this exchange took place at approximately 4:24 pm on July 1, 2022. As stated above, she was visiting a friend at the time. She returned home, packed a bag for the child, gathered her animals and drove to New Brunswick.

As stated above, the mother grew up in New Brunswick and her family continues to reside in this area. [ 11 ] In his affidavit sworn on August 8, 2022, the father indicates that the parties had a disagreement on July 1, 2022 and that the mother “ chose to go to her parents’ home in New Brunswick for a visit ”. I do not accept his

interpretation of the events that day.

I find as a fact that he unequivocally told her to leave and go to New Brunswick. [ 12 ] As indicated above, the father states in his affidavit that he and the mother had agreed “ that her visiting New Brunswick would be for a short period of time, two weeks at the most, and then she would return to our home in Nova Scotia. ” The father acknowledges that this conversation took place before he found out that the mother was contemplating filing a police report. [ 13 ] In his affidavit sworn on August 31, 2022, the father states that he and the mother had another series of text exchanges where they “ discussed her going to New Brunswick to visit her parents for two weeks at the most .” In support, he relies on the following text exchange which, according to the father, took place on July 1, 2022: - FATHER: “No. [the child] was always allowed to stay here.

Obviously I can’t not (sic) live with some one making false police reports about me” - MOTHER: “You did not say that you told us both to get out.” - FATHER: “No, I didn’t actually.” - MOTHER: “I asked if I could come back with her” - FATHER: “You can’t come here again, until you seek help” - MOTHER: “You said to go to nb for a couple weeks” - FATHER: “You can stay there till you’re better” - FATHER: “But I will be seeing [the child] in the mean time” - MOTHER: “Not once did you say [the child] could stay at home with you” - FATHER: “It’s pretty obvious & yes I did” - MOTHER: “No you didn’t” - FATHER: “Yes I did.

You can’t stay because you are trying to ruin my life” - MOTHER: “Even when I asked about her sleeping there just tonight” - FATHER: “Obviously YOU can’t stay” [ 14 ] This text exchange appears to have taken place after the mother left on July 1, 2022. Again, the father is clear in this exchange that the mother was not welcome back. I reject his contention that he told the mother the child could stay home with him. The various text exchanges contained in the record before the Court do not support this position. More importantly, he was not home when the mother left.

He told her he would leave the house for two hours while she gathered what she needed. The mother could certainly not leave the child unattended until the father returned. I find that the father was well aware that the mother would be travelling to New Brunswick with the child. [ 15 ] That said, the above text exchange supports the notion that, at some point, the parties had talked about the mother going to New Brunswick for “ a couple weeks ”.

This is acknowledged by the mother. [ 16 ] According to the father, after this exchange took place, he went upstairs and realized that most of the child’s belongings were gone. [ 17 ] The father indicates that he proceeded to text the mother to find out what was going on. He states that the parties then had the following text exchange: FATHER: “Is [the child] sleeping” MOTHER: “Yes”

MOTHER: “Stop calling” FATHER: “OK well answer the phone, it’s a lot safer than texting” FATHER: “Alright, I am calling the police then” FATHER: “You don’t just get to decide what’s going on with [the child]” FATHER: “You’re not kidnapping [the child] I’m calling the police right now & lawyers will be involved” MOTHER: “You said to leave” FATHER: “Yeah & you think you’re just gonna take her with no plan no communication?” MOTHER: “I already looked into all of this” [ 18 ] The father further indicates in his affidavit that he called the mother many times and that he kept calling to find out what was going on.

The affidavit of the mother confirms that he called multiple times while she was driving to New Brunswick. [ 19 ] According to the mother, the father accused her of kidnapping the child “ after he kicked [her] out ”. She states that he threatened to call the police and report her for kidnapping the child.

The father states in his affidavit that he called the Halifax Police on July 1, 2022 but was told the matter would need to be sorted out in family court. [ 20 ] In another text exchange, the father asks: “ When are you bringing her back ”, to which the mother responds: “ You told me to be gone for multiple weeks ”. The text message is undated. [ 21 ] In yet another text message, the father asks: “ When are you coming back ”, to which the mother responds: “ I’ll come back in a few weeks like you told me to ”.

Again, this text message is undated. [ 22 ] These last two exchanges again support the notion that, at some point, there had been some discussion between the parties regarding an eventual return to Nova Scotia. [ 23 ] As stated previously, the mother traveled to New Brunswick on Friday, July 1, 2022. She filed an Application in the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick on Wednesday, July 6, 2022. Her affidavit in support was sworn on July 5, 2022. [ 24 ] On August 8, 2022, the father filed an Application in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court (Family Division) seeking various relief with respect to the child.

That matter was placed on hold by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court pending the outcome of the New Brunswick hearing on jurisdiction. IV. LAW AND ANALYSIS: [ 25 ] First and foremost, I wish to emphasize that the focus of this analysis is to determine the issue of jurisdiction, not any parenting issues. Much information was provided with regard to the child’s best interests. However, that is not the test. [ 26 ] Similarly, the question of jurisdiction should not be confused with the issue of residence and relocation. Where the child should ultimately reside is not the issue before this Court.

The jurisdictional determination is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the application and may, therefore, result in a determination of jurisdiction in one forum without prejudice to the child remaining in another location pending the determination of the application. In K.N. v.

S.Q. , 2013 BCSC 1433 , a decision which stems from joint applications which were concurrently heard in both the British Columbia and Alberta Supreme Courts, it was determined that the proper jurisdiction to hear the trial was B.C. but that mother and child could remain in Alberta pending a final hearing. [ 27 ] The parties in this case are not married. If the Court is to grant a parenting order, it must do so under the Family Law Act , 2020 S.N.B. ch. 23. [ 28 ] The authority to make or vary a parenting order is found at

section 68 of that Act which states as follows: Prerequisites for parenting order or contact order 68(1) The Court shall only exercise its jurisdiction to make or vary a parenting order or contact order in respect of a child if (

a) the child is habitually resident in the Province at the commencement of the application for the order, or (

b) although the child is not habitually resident in the Province, the Court is satisfied (

i) that the child is physically present in the Province at the commencement of the application for the order, (ii) that substantial evidence concerning the best interests of the child is available in the Province, (iii) that no application for a parenting order or contact order with respect to the child is pending before an extra-provincial tribunal in another place where the child is habitually resident, (iv) that no extra-provincial order with respect to the child has been recognized by a court in the Province, (

v) that the child has a real and substantial connection with the Province, and

(vi) that, on the balance of convenience, it is appropriate for jurisdiction to be exercised in the Province. 68(2) A child is habitually resident in the place where the child resided most recently, either (

a) with their parents, (

b) if the parents are living separate and apart, with a parent under a separation agreement or with the implied consent of another parent or under a court order, or (

c) with a person other than a parent on a permanent basis for a significant period of time. 68(3) The removal or withholding of a child without the consent of any other person having a parenting order with respect to the child does not alter the habitual residence of the child unless there has been acquiescence or undue delay in commencing due process for the return of the child by the person from whom the child is removed or withheld. [ 29 ] Thus, pursuant to section 68(1) of the Family Law Act , the Court can only make a parenting order if the child was habitually resident in the Province of New Brunswick at the commencement of the application on July 6, 2022 or the criteria found at paragraph 68(1)(

b) has been met. [ 30 ] There is no dispute that the child had resided in Nova Scotia with her parents until July 1, 2022 and she was therefore habitually resident in Nova Scotia until July 1, 2022. [ 31 ] However, on July 6, 2022, the parties were living separate and apart – the mother in New Brunswick and the father in Nova Scotia. Subsection 68(2)(

b) provides that if the parents are living separate and apart at the commencement of the application, the child’s habitual residence is the place where the child resided most recently (

i) with a parent under a separation agreement, or (ii) with the implied consent of the other parent, or (iii) under a court order. In this case, there was no separation agreement or court order in place. As a result, the Court must determine whether, on July 6, 2022, the child was residing in New Brunswick with the implied consent of the father. [ 32 ] In T.M.A.H. v. J.J.G. , 2010 NBCA 4 , Larlee J.A. sated: 21 Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench in this Province have concluded, and I would agree, that "the determination of [a child's] 'habitual residence' is largely a fact driven process": Tucker v.

Savoy (2009), 346 N.B.R. (2d) 390 , [2009] N.B.J. No. 256 (QL) , 2009 NBQB 210 , at para. 20 ; Richard v. Karibian , [2003] N.B.R. (2d) (Supp.) No. 37, [2003] N.B.J. No. 187 (QL) , 2003 NBQB 198 , at para. 9 . In the case of parents who are not residing together, an examination of the facts is required to determine whether the child was brought to another jurisdiction without the express or implied consent of the parent that had custody.

If no consent was given, the child's habitual residence cannot be altered, absent acquiescence by the custodial parent or undue delay in commencing the process to have the child returned. [ 33 ] In support of their respective positions, both parties put several text messages before the Court. None were date stamped or time stamped. The order in which they were exchanged is unclear. Several text messages were attached to affidavits without any explanation or context provided. [ 34 ] I find as a fact that the mother brought the child to New Brunswick with the implied consent of the father.

She did not surreptitiously leave with the child. She was given no other choice. However, while these text messages convince me that the mother did not wrongfully remove the child from Nova Scotia, I am unable to conclude based on a few impetuous text messages exchanged during the course of an argument that the father was thereby consenting to change the child’s habitual residence. [ 35 ] In Duman v. Duman , 2017 ONCJ 629 , the Court had to consider the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice in light of one parent’s move with the couple’s child to Edmonton, Alberta.

In response to the moving parent’s argument that the other parent had consented to the move, Sager J. of the Ontario Court of Justice stated the following: 88 A parent who moves a child's permanent residence any significant distance from the other parent without a court order or Separation Agreement permitting such a move, must be prepared to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that the other parent consented to the move. Unequivocal consent to such a move must be clear and concise, not based on inferences.

Clear and concise consent cannot be found in cryptic text messages or bad behaviour. 89 Family courts strive to make orders that have the effect of encouraging parents to act within the law when making decisions that affect their child and his or her relationship with their other parent. In order to achieve that goal, court orders must be unequivocal in establishing what is and is not reasonable behaviour by a parent.

Family court Judges who are asked to determine if a parent consented to a long distance move of their child should be extremely cautious when being asked to find consent by digging deep into the meaning of an angry text message, voice mail or Facebook post.

To rely on such flimsy evidence will send a dangerous message to parents and, undoubtedly result in the unintended result of parents engaging in self-help measures under the most questionable of circumstances. 90 The mother relied unsuccessfully on the incredibly offensive language and tone used by the father in his text messages to her to demonstrate that the father pushed or forced her to move to Edmonton with A.. While the mother was not successful in demonstrating consent through the text messages, the court cannot remain silent about the hideous and offensive nature of the text messages.

The court finds that the text messages sent by the father to the mother amounts to emotional abuse. It was very difficult for the court to read the text messages, as many of them use appalling language directed at the mother. [Emphasis added] [ 36 ] While Duman is not binding on this Court, I find the comments of Sager J. to be helpful and persuasive.

[37] As stated, I have no hesitation to find that the mother did not surreptitiously remove the child from the Province of NovaScotia. The mother was told to leave the home in no uncertain terms and she was given two hours to do so. The father had left the houseand there is no indication that he returned before the mother left for New Brunswick. The mother had not choice but to leave with thechild.

However, while I have no hesitation to conclude that the father impliedly consented to the child going to New Brunswick on July1, 2022, I am unable to conclude on a balance of probabilities that he was thereby consenting to the mother permanently relocating toNew Brunswick with the child.

It is simply too much to infer, particularly in light of the discussions they had had regarding an eventualreturn to Nova Scotia in “a couple weeks”. [38] Therefore, I find that the child continued to be habitually resident in Nova Scotia on July 6, 2022. [39] If a child is not habitually resident in the province at the time the application is commenced, New Brunswick courts may stillexercise jurisdiction if all of the criteria found at ss. 68(1)(

b) of the Family Law Act have been met. All of the criteria must be satisfiedbefore the Court can assume jurisdiction under ss.68(1)(b). [40] In this case, the child was physically present in New Brunswick when the application was commenced on July 6, 2022. Therewas no application pending in Nova Scotia at the time and there was no extra-provincial order with respect to the child. Criteria (i), (iii)and (iv) are therefore satisfied.

I will address the remaining three criteria in greater detail. (ii) Is there substantial evidence concerning the best interests of the child available in New Brunswick? [41] The test is whether there was substantial evidence concerning the child’s best interests when the application was filed on July6, 2022. [42] Given that the child was just a few weeks short of her first birthday, the vast majority of the evidence concerning her bestinterests will come from the parties and perhaps members of their extended families. [43] The mother and her extended family are located in New Brunswick while the father and his extended family are located inNova Scotia. [44] The child was not attending daycare at the time.

Her doctor was in Nova Scotia but there is no evidence that she sufferedfrom any health issues and thus, there would be no need for this individual to testify. [45] I do not see this as an onerous component of the test to meet. Given that the mother had relocated to New Brunswick by July6, 2022, I find that there was substantial evidence concerning the child’s best interest in New Brunswick. I note that the mother had beenon maternity leave since the child’s birth in July 2021. She would likely have the most knowledge with regard to the child’s needs. (

v) Does the child have a real and substantial connection with New Brunswick? [46] In T.M.A.H. v. J.J.G., 2010 NBCA 4, our Court of Appeal discussed the test of “real and substantial connection” in a caseinvolving the removal of a child from one jurisdiction to another. At para. 26, the Court stated: The law regarding "real and substantial connection" in New Brunswick was set out by Drapeau C.J.N.B. in Coutu v. Gauthier Estate(2006), 296 N.B.R. (2d) 34, [2006] N.B.J. No. 38 (QL), 2006 NBCA 16.

In Coutu, Drapeau C.J.N.B. cites with approval the followingpassage from Professor Castel, Canadian Conflict of Laws, 4th ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1997): The real and substantial connection to the province or territory when its courts exercise jurisdiction over litigants, a test designed to givesubstance to order and fairness, is neither very demanding, nor should it be applied rigidly, although there must be limits on claims tojurisdiction. In Morguard, the Supreme Court refrained from determining those limits as no court can anticipate what constitutes areasonable assumption of jurisdiction.

Traditional rules of jurisdiction are a good place to start. Each one must be defined in accordancewith the broad principles of order and fairness. The approach is a constructive one. However, it should not be restricted to interprovinciallitigation.

The Supreme Court speaks of a real and substantial connection, not the most real and substantive connection, thereforea minimal connection with the province may be sufficient as long as it is not superficial. (…) [Emphasis added] [47] The Court of Appeal then goes on to state: Trial courts in New Brunswick have previously dealt with the issue of what constitutes a real and substantial connection within thecontext of s. 130.3(1) in the Family Services Act. In J.L v. L.M (2001), 237 N.B.R. (2d) 90, [2001] N.B.J.

No. 147 (QL), 2001 NBQB20, at para. 13, Boisvert J. cited with approval the following statement of Steel J. (as she then was) of the Manitoba Court of Queen'sBench in Bluebird v. Tanowski (1999), (MB KB), 135 Man.R. (2d) 105, [1999] M.J. No. 5 (QL): The child does not lose his real and substantial connection with Alberta simply because less than two weeks earlier his mother took himto Manitoba on her own action without any disclosed reason and without notice to the father. An infant's connection to a place isinextricably linked with that of its primary caregiver.

Yet that real and substantial connection cannot be broken by one parent's unilateralaction taken without the knowledge of the other parent. This is especially so where there is no allegation of harm to either the primarycaregiver or the child and the other parent takes action to obtain the return of the child as soon as is reasonably possible. A parent shouldnot be able to unilaterally change a child's residence by surreptitiously removing the child from one province to another.

To holdotherwise would make a mockery of the Act. [para. 11] 30 In addition, Steel J. stated in Bluebird: A court should not allow a parent to advance her claim by establishing a real and substantial connection based on a wrongful removal. Itis certainly tempting to accept jurisdiction in a case such as this where many of the prospective witnesses are before the court. However,

that would run contrary to one of the purposes of [ Manitoba's Child Custody Enforcement ] Act which is "to discourage the abduction of children as an alternative to the determination of custody rights by due process. [para. 13] [ 48 ] As I have stated, the child was not surreptitiously or wrongfully removed from Nova Scotia. However, the father objects to her permanent relocation to New Brunswick and he has filed an application in Nova Scotia.

That alone would suggest that the child continued to have a real and substantial connection to Nova Scotia on July 6, 2022. [ 49 ] Given the age of the child, her connection to a particular location is necessarily through her parents. Older children may be connected to a particular jurisdiction through a network of friends, attendance at school, participation in sports or extra-curricular activities, or other involvement in the community.

This is not the case with a one-year-old child. [ 50 ] The mother was on maternity leave for the year after the child was born and I accept that she was the child’s primary caregiver (although the father was nevertheless quite involved and had taken 8 weeks of parental leave himself). The mother grew up in Quispamsis, New Brunswick and her family continues to reside in the area. The child visited New Brunswick multiple times between December 2021 and July 2022. [ 51 ] On the other hand, the mother had been living in Nova Scotia for several years.

At the time the application was commenced, the mother had employment in Nova Scotia. She also owned a home with the father in Nova Scotia. [ 52 ] Overall, I find that the mother, and the child, had a real and substantial connection to Nova Scotia when the application was commenced on July 6, 2022. (vi) On a balance of convenience, is it appropriate for the Court in New Brunswick to exercise jurisdiction? [ 53 ] There will be additional expense and inconvenience to each parent if they are required to litigate in another jurisdiction. [ 54 ] Both indicate that their respective family members would testify.

The mother’s family is located in New Brunswick and the father’s in Nova Scotia. [ 55 ] The Nova Scotia Department of Community Services conducted an investigation regarding the family. The social worker is located in Nova Scotia and the father has indicated that he would be calling this social worker as a witness.

The father also states in his affidavit sworn on August 31, 2022 that certain neighbours had regular contact with the child and would provide evidence relevant to the child’s best interests. [ 56 ] In her application, the mother also claims a division of property and debts that accumulated during the relationship. The property consists of the father’s pension and the home where they cohabited. Evidence relating to these assets is more likely located in Nova Scotia. The father has retained an expert to appraise the property.

That expert is located in Nova Scotia. [ 57 ] Overall, I am satisfied that the balance of convenience favours the jurisdiction of Nova Scotia. This is where the child was living up until five days before the application was filed. [ 58 ] Since the criteria found at ss.68(1)(

b) have not all been met, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under this subsection. [ 59 ] Even if I had concluded that this Court had jurisdiction, I would nevertheless have declined to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to s.70 of the Family Law Act which states: Refusal to exercise jurisdiction 70 When the Court has jurisdiction to make or vary a parenting order or contact order in respect of a child, it may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it is of the opinion that it is more appropriate for jurisdiction to be exercised outside the Province. [ 60 ] This is essentially a case where one parent wants to permanently relocate a child to another province over the other parent’s objections.

That determination should be made in the province of origin after all of the evidence has been canvassed. That determination should not be based on one argument and a series of text messages. To allow the mother to proceed in New Brunswick promotes the mother’s interests over the interests of the child. [ 61 ] Two peripheral issues remain to be addressed. [ 62 ] During the hearing the mother also argued that the father had attorned to the jurisdiction of New Brunswick by filing an Answer (Form 81C) wherein he disputed jurisdiction, as opposed to filing a Notice of Motion.

The mother relied on Rule 19.05(3) of the Rules of Court . [ 63 ] I find that this argument is without merit. Firstly, no other relief was sought in the father’s Answer. The father merely sought to clarify to the Court that he was disputing jurisdiction. Secondly, Rule 19.05(1) states that a party who has been served outside New Brunswick with an originating process may apply to the Court by Notice of Motion for an order setting aside such service and dismissing the proceeding on the ground that the Court does not have jurisdiction.

The Rule states that a party may apply, as opposed to shall apply, by Notice of Motion. Thus, the Rule does not preclude filing an Answer as the father has done. Thirdly, the parties cannot simply attorn to the jurisdiction. The Court can only exercise jurisdiction to make a parenting order if the requirements of s.68(1) of the Family Law Act have been met: see A.M.L. v.

D.C.L. , 2012 NBQB 10 which dealt with s.130(1) of the Family Services Act , the predecessor legislation. [ 64 ] Finally, during the hearing, counsel for the father sought to strike from the evidentiary record one of the exhibits attached to the mother’s affidavit sworn on August 30, 2022. That exhibit consists of a letter from the Nova Scotia Department of Justice dated August 25, 2022, which confirms that the Nova Scotia Department of Community Services-Child Welfare had received a referral in

relation to this family and had conducted an investigation. The fact that the Department received a referral and conducted an investigation is not in dispute. The only relevance to the issue of jurisdiction is to show that the Department has been involved. In fact, the father has argued that he intends to have the social worker testify on the hearing of the application. While there may be a dispute as to the conclusion reached by the Department, that evidence is only relevant to the issue of parenting and the child’s best interests which I am not required to address and have therefore not considered. V.

DISPOSITION: [ 65 ] I therefore conclude that the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench does not have jurisdiction under s.68(1) of the Family Law Act to make a parenting order with respect to the child. For this reason, the mother’s application is stayed. [ 66 ] The father did not request costs in his Answer or in either of the affidavits he filed with the Court in support of his position. There was also no mention of a request for costs in his brief. Consequently, I decline to award costs in this case.

DATED at Saint John, New Brunswick, this _____ day of October, 2022. ___________________​​​​​​​​​_____________ Chantal N. Daigle Justice of the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick - Family Division