D.N.D. v. W.S.C.
- Citation
- 2013 BCSC 336
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 25 January 2013
- Posture
- Family Law Variation of Custody/access / Application to Vary Consent Order Heard in Chambers (oral Reasons)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 25 January 2013
- Posture
- Family Law Variation of Custody/access / Application to Vary Consent Order Heard in Chambers (oral Reasons)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found the respondent did not establish a material change sufficient to vary sole custody and guardianship, and even if such a change were shown, joint custody/shared parenting would be denied because the respondent's persistent hostile and intimidating conduct toward the mother and her family would increase conflict and harm the child. The proposed extended alternate‑weekend access in Camrose was denied as contrary to the child's interests because of excessive travel and disruption. The court instead ordered limited increases to access: short, supervised enhancements including twice‑weekly Skype contacts of 10 minutes, optional Friday extensions to alternate weekends with seven days' notice, and two week‑long summer visits in 2013, and awarded costs to the claimant at Scale B.
Court disposition
Application dismissed to the extent of seeking joint custody/guardianship and extended Camrose access; limited access increases granted as set out in orders; costs awarded to claimant at Scale B.
Orders
- Liberty to bring non‑urgent applications in New Westminster or Vancouver if Cranbrook court dates not available within three weeks
- Respondent to have two Skype/Internet contacts per alternate‑weekend cycle: 10 minutes on the Thursday evening following respondent's personal access and 10 minutes on the next Monday evening at mutually agreeable times (7:00 p.m. suggested); claimant may increase duration in her sole discretion as child tolerates
- Alternate weekend access may begin Friday at 5:00 p.m. on respondent's alternate weekends if respondent can be in Cranbrook and provides seven days' notice by e‑mail each time (advance notice for multiple dates acceptable)
- Respondent entitled to two week‑long summer access visits in 2013: one in July and one in August, commencing Saturday at 9:00 a.m. and ending the following Sunday at 4:30 p.m., with at least three weeks between the end of one and the start of the other
- Claimant awarded costs at Scale B
02
Material facts
Parties
D.N.D.
Claimant Counsel: S.G.L. LabelW.S.C.
Respondent Counsel: A.S.K. Wormeli03
Procedural history
Posture
Family Law Variation of Custody/access / Application to Vary Consent Order Heard in Chambers (oral Reasons)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a material change in circumstances exists to permit variation of sole custody/guardianship
- 02
Whether proposed joint custody/shared parenting is in the child's best interests
- 03
Whether proposed extended weekend access in Camrose is in the child's best interests
- 04
Whether court may order increased access without a material change when prior order contemplated increasing access
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Respondent sought to vary the consent order to joint custody and guardianship with a two‑week rotating residence or, alternatively, extended alternate weekend access in Camrose. He relied on changes since the order: child is older and no longer breastfeeding, respondent has more parenting experience, respondent is settled in a veterinary practice, and the child has a half‑sibling. He also argued the consent order anticipated increased access as the child matured and that the court should adjudicate access without requiring a material change finding.
- Respondent
- Claimant opposed any change, arguing there has been no material change since the consent order and, in any event, changes proposed are not in the child's best interests given respondent's history of hostile, harassing and intimidating conduct, videotaping and aggressive gestures, intrusive demands for medical information, and the undue travel burden and disruption to the child.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27
A material change in the circumstances of the child is required before varying a final custody order to prevent an indirect appeal of the original decision
- 02
Family law principle (Family Relations Act/Divorce Act jurisprudence)
The best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in custody and access determinations
- 03
This judgment (D.N.D. v. W.S.C., 2013 BCSC 336)
Where a prior order expressly contemplates increased access as a child matures, the court can adjudicate proposed increases in access without requiring proof of a new material change
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found the respondent did not establish a material change sufficient to vary sole custody and guardianship, and even if such a change were shown, joint custody/shared parenting would be denied because the respondent's persistent hostile and intimidating conduct toward the mother and her family would increase conflict and harm the child. The proposed extended alternate‑weekend access in Camrose was denied as contrary to the child's interests because of excessive travel and disruption. The court instead ordered limited increases to access: short, supervised enhancements including twice‑weekly Skype contacts of 10 minutes, optional Friday extensions to alternate weekends with seven days' notice, and two week‑long summer visits in 2013, and awarded costs to the claimant at Scale B.
Obiter and limits
- The birth of a half‑sibling is generally not a material change as to a child who does not reside with the sibling, though it could be in other contexts
- Shared parenting regimes typically accompany shared custody and guardianship orders
- Apologies do not erase the pragmatic and psychological consequences of ongoing hostile parental conduct
Court disposition
Application dismissed to the extent of seeking joint custody/guardianship and extended Camrose access; limited access increases granted as set out in orders; costs awarded to claimant at Scale B.
- Liberty to bring non‑urgent applications in New Westminster or Vancouver if Cranbrook court dates not available within three weeks
- Respondent to have two Skype/Internet contacts per alternate‑weekend cycle: 10 minutes on the Thursday evening following respondent's personal access and 10 minutes on the next Monday evening at mutually agreeable times (7:00 p.m. suggested); claimant may increase duration in her sole discretion as child tolerates
- Alternate weekend access may begin Friday at 5:00 p.m. on respondent's alternate weekends if respondent can be in Cranbrook and provides seven days' notice by e‑mail each time (advance notice for multiple dates acceptable)
- Respondent entitled to two week‑long summer access visits in 2013: one in July and one in August, commencing Saturday at 9:00 a.m. and ending the following Sunday at 4:30 p.m., with at least three weeks between the end of one and the start of the other
- Claimant awarded costs at Scale B
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 25 January 2013
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Full judgment text is not available for this record.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.