M.P. v. P.P.

2023 BCSC 694 M.P. v. P.P.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: M.P. v. P.P., 2023 BCSC 694 Date: 20230427 Docket: E64676 Registry: New Westminster Between: M.P. also known as M.H.-E. Claimant And P.P. Respondent Before: The Honourable Justice Norell Reasons for Judgment Counsel for Claimant: R. Roxborough Counsel for Respondent: J. Brown Place and Date of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. March 29, 2023 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. April 27, 2023 [1] These are reasons on two applications, one brought by each party. Due to the urgency of the applications and limited court time, I made orders on April 6, 2023 with reasons to follow. These are those reasons. [2] The respondent seeks orders that: a) the claimant has wrongfully denied the respondent parenting time with their two children for the period of March 4 to 28, 2023, and that the respondent be given immediate compensatory parenting time; and b) for the purpose of enforcing the above order sought, and paragraph 6(d) of the order of Master Krentz dated November 4, 2022 ("Krentz Order"), that a peace officer may enter and search any place where he or she has reasonable and probable grounds for believing the children may be and may apprehend the children and take them to the respondent; [3] The claimant seeks orders that: a) pending her application to authorize the relocation of the children to the U.S., the Krentz Order

be varied as follows: i) a professional supervisor shall facilitate the exchange of the children; and ii) the respondent shall personally attend all parenting time exchanges and remain with the supervisor at the exchange location for at least 10 minutes following the departure of the claimant, or an individual facilitating the exchange on her behalf. [4] The areas and specific issues for determination are: a) Parenting Exchanges: Should the Krentz Order be varied to require that exchanges be professionally supervised and that the respondent attend all exchanges and remain there for 10 minutes after the exchange and departure of the children? b) Denial of Parenting Time: Has the claimant wrongfully denied parenting time to the respondent from March 4, 2023 to the date of the hearing of this application, and should the respondent be ordered to have compensatory parenting time? c) Police Enforcement: Should the parenting time orders be police enforceable? [5] This is a high conflict family dispute. The record for this application contains more than 35 lengthy affidavits and about 2,000 pages of material, not including numerous case authorities. The parties have diametrically opposed evidence on nearly every aspect of their lives before and after their separation. [6] Both parties, the claimant more than the respondent, referred to multiple events and disputes prior to the reasons

of Justice Gomery of August 26, 2022, in which he made interim orders on relocation, parenting time, and child and spousal support ("Gomery Order", reasons indexed at 2022 BCSC 1511). The affidavits filed on this application include evidence of events prior to his orders. I will not detail that conflicting evidence here. It is canvassed in the reasons of Justice Gomery. I have reviewed all of the material filed on this application and am aware of the conflicting versions of events leading up to the reasons of Justice Gomery, however, the focus of this application is on events which have taken place since then. I will review the procedural history of this action since its inception, as that is relevant to the current applications, and I will summarize the conflicting evidence of events which have taken place since the Gomery Order. I. Procedural History up to the Gomery Order [7] The parties began living together in a marriage-like relationship some time between 2017, and when they were married in August 2019. They have two children who are now ages three, and one and a half years old. [8] The parties separated on or about March 22, 2022 following an altercation at which the police attended. The respondent was charged with one count of assault, one count of confining, imprisoning or forcibly seizing the claimant, and three counts of willfully resisting or obstructing a peace

officer. [9] The claimant commenced this action on April 8, 2022. On the same day, Master Muir granted a without notice protection order restraining the respondent from contacting or coming near the claimant and the children ("Protection Order"). Master Muir made further without notice orders for the payment of child and spousal support in the amount of $2,513 and $2,000 respectively and restraining the respondent from disposing of family property ("Muir Order"). [10] On May 5, 2022, the respondent was charged with one count of breach of a release order and one count of disobeying a court order. [11] On May 9, 2022, the parties entered into a consent order prohibiting the removal of the children from BC on a without prejudice basis pending further court order. [12] On May 20, 2022, the claimant sought a without notice order before Master Keighley to permit her to relocate to an undisclosed location in Nevada with the children. Master Keighley made that order ("Keighley Order"). The claimant subsequently relocated to Nevada with the children and advised the respondent on May 24, 2022 after she had completed the relocation. [13] On May 25, 2022, Justice Lamb varied the Protection Order so that the respondent could live in the family home in Maple Ridge. [14] On June 2, 2022, the parties entered into a consent order temporarily staying the support orders of Master Muir. This stay

was subsequently extended until the hearing of the respondent's application to set aside or vary the Muir Order. [15] Commencing June 6, 2022, the respondent had parenting time via 15-minute video calls with the children on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. [16] On June 28, 2022, a consent order was made by Master Nielsen which provided for the funding of a trip by the claimant to the Lower Mainland. Orders were made to prevent information regarding where the claimant was staying to be disclosed to the respondent. Master Nielsen also ordered: 3. BY CONSENT, the Respondent shall not ask the Children about where they reside with the Claimant or any questions that are reasonably expected to elicit information about where the Children resides with the Claimant. [17] On July 8, 2022, the respondent had supervised parenting time with the children for eight hours. The respondent had not personally seen the children since March 21, 2022. [18] On August 16-17, 2022, the parties attended a two-day hearing before Justice Gomery. On August 26, 2022, Justice Gomery: (1) set aside the Keighley Order and ordered the return of the children to the Lower Mainland by October 1, 2022 unless extended; (2) imputed income of $140,000 to the respondent and ordered that he pay monthly child and spousal support of $2,037 and $2,198 respectively; (3) ordered that the claimant may choose to reside with the

children anywhere in the Lower Mainland without further notice to the respondent; and (4) ordered that the parties may further apply if they could not agree on the amount the respondent would pay to the claimant for her expenses to move to BC. With respect to parenting time, Justice Gomery ordered: 5. On an interim basis, upon the Claimant's return to British Columbia, the Respondent will have parenting time as follows: a. For the first three weeks, the Respondent will have a minimum of 12 hours of parenting time per week with three (3) two-hour blocks between Monday and Friday inclusive and one (1) six-hour block on Saturday or Sunday; b. After the first three weeks, the Respondent's parenting time will be extended and the Respondent will have 18 hours of parenting time per week in six-hour blocks, with two blocks between Monday and Friday inclusive and one block on Saturday or Sunday.

6. The parties have liberty to apply to review the interim parenting schedule after December 1, 2022. 11.The Without Notice Protection Order of Master Muir made April 8, 2022 and varied by the Change of Protection Order of the Honourable Justice lamb on May 25, 2022 is varied to delete the following words [names and dates of birth of the children]. [19] I pause here to set out portions of the reasons for judgment of Justice Gomery: [39] I will assume that Ms. P's fear that Mr. P may harm her has at least some justification. Ms. P is protected by a no-contact order and by release conditions that will remain in place while the criminal charges against Mr. P are outstanding. Ms. P's concern is that court orders will not suffice to deter him from violent acts against her. [40] In my view, any risk to Ms. P is exceptionally small. It is clear from the history of this proceeding to date that Mr. P is strongly motivated to maintain a relationship with his children. Since the litigation began, he has pursued his claims to parent the children appropriately and persistently. It is highly unlikely that he would do anything that would jeopardize his objective. It would be irrational conduct on his part. [41] Even if Mr. P were motivated to seek out Ms. P with a view to harming her, Ms. P's concern that he might obtain her address from A.P. is far-fetched. A.P. is a two year old child in

diapers. It is unrealistic to think that he knows Ms. P's address. If Ms. P is careful not to discuss it in his presence, it will likely be years before he learns it. [42] On the record before me, I am unable to come to any conclusion as to whether Mr. P is engaged in wholesaling marijuana, has a dangerous lifestyle, or is engaged with dangerous business associates. It would be wrong to make a supervision order on the basis of Ms. P's contested allegations concerning these matters. [43] A supervision order is not needed to ensure that the parents do not interact with one another during parenting exchanges. The exchanges may take place through the offices of a relative or friend of the family, or at a daycare facility, to mention just some possibilities. Counsel in this case are experienced and commendably professional. This is not an unusual problem, and they should be able to work something out. [57] This is a case in which, as Karakatsanis J. explained in Barendregt, the children's welfare and Ms. P's welfare are intertwined. The children's needs will only be well satisfied in British Columbia if Ms. P is able to restore herself to a stable, comfortable, living arrangement. Otherwise, both mother and children would be better off living in Nevada. [67] Ms. P will be in a position to make clear and practical plans for the children's care in British Columbia, as she has in

Nevada, if she has funds to establish herself and an income sufficient to meet her reasonable expenses here. [74] For the reasons I have already given, while I accept that Ms. P is sincere, I do not believe that her fear of being killed if she resides in the Lower Mainland is reasonably founded. [89] Taking all these matters into account, I am not satisfied that Mr. P's failure to comply with Master Muir's orders to the extent made out in the evidence manifests a disregard of the court's authority or provides reasonable cause for suspicion that he will not comply with orders in the future. [90] I will come to address the determination of child support and spousal support payable by Mr. P to Ms. P later in these reasons. At this stage, however, it is important that I state my conclusion that support is payable in amounts sufficient to enable Ms. P to live with the children in the Lower Mainland in reasonable comfort and security. As will be obvious from my reasoning to this point, this is a crucial consideration. [20] On September 1 and 2, 2022, the respondent had unsupervised parenting time with the children for six hours each day while the claimant returned to the Lower Mainland to search for housing for the ordered return to BC. [21] On September 22, 2022, the respondent filed a notice of appeal with respect to the imputation of income and quantum of support of the Gomery

Order. [22] Subsequently the parties were not able to agree on an amount to be paid by the respondent to enable the claimant to return to BC. The claimant filed a request to appear before Justice Gomery to apply to stay her return to BC pending the outcome of the respondent's appeal, and the respondent filed a request to appear before Justice Gomery to apply to enforce the immediate return of the children to BC. [23] On October 19, 2022, the respondent abandoned his appeal. [24] On October 26, 2022, a hearing occurred before Justice Gomery. On October 26, 2022, the parties came to a without prejudice agreement that the respondent would make a payment of $10,000 to the claimant on the condition that she return to the Lower Mainland by November 3, 2022. The respondent represented that he intended to abide by the support orders in place. II. Procedural History after the Gomery Order [25] On November 3, 2022, the claimant and children returned to the Lower Mainland. [26] On November 4, 2022, the parties attended a JCC before Master Krentz and entered into a consent order (this is the Krentz Order). The Krentz Order provides that the parties may communicate for the purpose of facilitating parenting time. With respect to parenting time and the exchange of the children, the Krentz Order provides: 6. BY CONSENT, pursuant to the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act, the Respondent shall have the following parenting time, on an interim without prejudice basis pursuant to the order of Justice Gomery made August 26, 2022: d. Commencing on November 21, 2022: i. Every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm, until further order or agreement between the parties and subject to the review contemplated by the Order of Justice Gomery made August 26, 2022.

7. BY CONSENT, all exchanges of the Children to be facilitated by a third party, unless otherwise agreed between the parties, and to be done at the Police Station with the address of [ ] or such other location agreed between the parties. The respondent may not use his father [ ] to facilitate the exchange of the Children. [27] Commencing November 5, 2022, the respondent began exercising parenting time every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday pursuant to the Krentz Order. [28] On November 10, 2022, the respondent pleaded guilty to wilfully resisting or obstructing a peace officer arising out of the March 22, 2022 incident, and was given a conditional discharge and probation for 12 months, one of the conditions being that he not contact or come near the claimant ("Probation Order") except as provided in a family court order. All other charges were stayed. [29] On December 14, 2022, the parties agreed pursuant to the Krentz Order, that all exchanges would take place at a different police station, now in Mission, BC. [30] On January 12, 2023, the parties appeared before me on an application filed by the respondent for increased parenting time, amongst other relief. The claimant also brought an application seeking several orders. It was clear all matters could not be heard. The hearing did not complete and was adjourned for a new date to be arranged by counsel. [31] On March 1, 2023,

the respondent was arrested and charged with breaching the terms of the Probation Order as a result of what the claimant alleges were events on January 28 and February 28, 2023 which I will describe below. [32] As of March 3, 2023, the claimant has not facilitated the exchange of the children with the respondent, with the result that the respondent has not had any in person parenting time. [33] Although I was not seized of the issues in these applications, I was sitting in long chambers when the current applications came on for hearing. I am presently seized of other applications brought by the parties which were heard on January 12 and continued on March 10, 2023, and which have not yet completed. III. Parenting Exchanges [34] The claimant is most concerned that the respondent not know where she and the children are residing. To that end, she seeks an order that the respondent must attend all exchanges and remain there with the supervisor for 10 minutes after the children are exchanged, to prevent the respondent from following her and discovering the location of her residence. [35] The claimant states she has been the victim of family violence at the hands of the respondent in the past. She submits the respondent is a controlling individual who does not obey court orders, and who has been continually testing the limits of orders to try to break down her boundaries. Although

there is a Protection Order and Probation Order in place, the respondent has breached them. She states the respondent is involved in criminal activities and associates with dangerous individuals. She refers to her evidence which was before Justice Gomery and again on this application, that the respondent is involved in the production and sale of large amounts of cannabis. She states she has received threats because of what she has disclosed in these proceedings. She states she fears for her safety. [36] The claimant states that on February 28, 2023, in breach of the Protection Order and Probation Order, the respondent followed the facilitator she had hired to pick up the children, to the claimant's home. Both she and the facilitator, who has sworn an affidavit, saw the respondent drive by her home, park at the end of the cul-de-sac in which she lives, and then drive out of the cul-de-sac at speed while trying to hide his face. The facilitator states the respondent was wearing the same ball cap he had been wearing when they exchanged the children. A car, alleged to be the respondent's car, is captured on the dashcam of the claimant's vehicle. The next day the police attended the claimant's home after the respondent asked the police to make a wellness check. When the claimant inquired how the police knew her address, the officer told her that the respondent had provided it. [37]

As a result, the claimant felt she had to move to protect herself and the children. At the hearing, she was living in transitional supportive housing at an undisclosed location. She had secured new housing as of April 1, 2023 at a cost she cannot afford, particularly as the respondent is not paying support as ordered. She argues that it is disruptive and unstable to have to move, and not in the children's best interests. [38] The claimant refers to other events which she argues show that the respondent is continually testing her and the limits of orders, and breaching orders. She argues that this shows he has no respect for the authority of the court and a Protection Order and Probation Order are not sufficient to ensure her safety. She states the respondent's conduct toward her had been escalating leading up to the February 28, 2023 event. She referred to the following: a) Following the Krentz Order, on November 5, 2022, the respondent suggested that they try an exchange without a third party. The parties had a protocol where they parked nose to nose and placed the children into the vehicles without comment. They were able to do so without incident. As this appeared to proceed well, the parties continued this arrangement. However, the claimant alleges that the respondent then started testing the order and talking to her inappropriately and was late multiple times. On November

17, 2022, the respondent blocked the claimant while she was trying to place one of the children in the car. Following these events, the claimant was no longer comfortable continuing this arrangement, and began requiring the exchanges to take place with a facilitator as provided in the Krentz Order. b) On December 10, 2022, the respondent withheld the children overnight despite the claimant urging that this was in breach of the Krentz Order and insufficient breastmilk had been provided for the youngest child. c) On December 29, 2022, the respondent swore in an affidavit that the retention of the children was a misunderstanding and that he would not do so again. However, on December 31, 2022, the respondent withheld the children overnight again contrary to the Krentz Order. d) On January 28, 2023, the claimant attended a parenting time exchange and stood about 180 feet from the exchange location. This was the first parenting time exchange that the claimant attended since November 17, 2022. The respondent again approached the claimant, holding the youngest child in front of himself and insisting she take the child. The claimant retreated to the door of the police station and repeatedly protested until the respondent walked away. e) On February 14, 2023, the respondent insisted that the claimant, rather than her facilitator, personally attend the exchange. He did not communicate

with the claimant for a period of 90 minutes or respond to her inquiries about facilitating the exchange. After the claimant confirmed that she was present at the exchange location, the respondent indicated that it was "boys' night" and he withheld the children overnight contrary to the Krentz Order. f) The respondent has not paid the support ordered in the Gomery Order, of $4,235 per month. Since December 2022, the respondent has paid no more than $2,000 per month. On March 1, 2023 the respondent did not make any payment, and on March 10, 2023, the date the parties continued their original applications before me, he paid $1,000. As of the hearing of these applications, arrears were over $20,000. [39] The claimant is currently unemployed and alleges that she will not be able to meet her needs or the needs of the children. The claimant alleges that the respondent has millions of dollars in equity in property, and ample income, and this is another of his controlling tactics. The claimant stresses that she is not arguing that because the respondent has failed to pay support as ordered he should be denied parenting time. She is arguing that the non-payment of support evidences a general disregard for the authority of the court and leaves the claimant in a vulnerable position that magnifies the consequences of the respondent's conduct. [40] The claimant submits there has been a

material change in circumstances since the Gomery Order. The respondent has shown manifest disregard for the court's authority in a manner that places both the claimant and the children's security at risk, by reason of his breaches of the Protection Order, Probation Order and support orders. The respondent's attendance at the claimant's residence has forced the plaintiff to move into transitional housing and placed the children in unstable circumstances. The respondent must be prevented from engaging in such conduct. She submits that parenting time should resume, but only if there is an order for the supervised exchange on the terms she requests. She wants a professional supervisor because the respondent has challenged the credibility of her other facilitators. [41] The claimant has researched supervision services and Access Family Services Inc. is available to facilitate and supervise parenting time at a cost of $70 per exchange. The parties had been paying third parties to facilitate exchanges between them. The claimant pays her facilitator $20. The respondent has an employee of his do the exchange. She can not afford to pay for a professional supervisor to do this because the respondent has failed to pay adequate support. She submits that the respondent should be ordered to pay this. [42] The respondent denies all of the claimant's allegations. He denies any family violence

prior to their separation, and denies that he has any involvement in criminal activity. There is no evidence of family violence against the children ever or against the claimant since the Gomery Order. He denies that he has breached the Protection Order or Probation Order as alleged by the claimant. [43] The respondent agrees he has withheld the children on limited occasions since the Gomery Order, and provides explanations for them. The withholding on December 10, 2022 was a misunderstanding on his part. He thought the claimant had agreed to this and there was a mix-up with a letter his counsel did not receive until after the parenting time was over. He withheld the children on December 31, 2023, but this was after the claimant wrongfully withheld his parenting time on December 20, 22 and 24, 2022, causing him to miss Christmas with the children. On February 14, 2023, the respondent states he had reasons to believe the claimant was not in the Lower Mainland and other unknown people were looking after the children. He denies that he ever approached the claimant inappropriately at an exchange. On the January 28, 2023 event, the youngest child was having a "meltdown" and he was attempting to bring the child to the claimant to soothe the child. He backed away when the claimant stated he was breaching the order. [44] The respondent completely denies the alleged events of February

28, 2023. He denies that he followed the facilitator to the claimant's home. He states the dashcam video could be any of thousands of similar Mercedes vehicles. He states he has known the claimant's address all along from an unidentified friend. The fact that criminal charges have been laid on the basis of the claimant's allegations is not a basis for concluding that he breached the Probation Order. Even if this Court were to conclude that he did breach the Probation Order, no harm came to the children. [45] The respondent submits that the non-payment of support is not a basis to deny him parenting time or order supervision of exchanges. He is paying what he can toward support orders. He has a pending application to seek a retroactive variation of the Gomery Order as he states he does not make the imputed income of $140,000 per year. Further, the support orders were based on the claimant having a Guidelines income of $0, when she actually worked until early January 2023, and received substantial income while living in Nevada and in BC. He has also paid her substantial sums to move to BC. [46] In response, the claimant submits that the respondent's argument that no harm has come to the children is untenable. Proof of even one incident of violence raises safety concerns for the victim, and may overlap with and enhance the significance of other factors such as the need for limited

contact or support. Family violence includes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour that causes another family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person, and in the case of a child, the direct or indirect exposure to such conduct. Family violence includes threats of violence and harassment. With respect to the December 20, and 22 withholding of the children, she did so because the respondent refused to provide a third-party facilitator as required by the Krentz Order and she could not afford one because he has not paid the support ordered. With respect to December 24, a winter storm and a driving advisory prevented her from bringing the children to the exchange. She offered compensatory parenting time. [47] I echo the comments of Justice Gomery in his August 26, 2022 reasons, that on the record before me, and in the context of an interim application, I am not in a position to make definitive findings of fact that involve such hotly contested issues when there is only affidavit evidence. That is a matter for trial. However, I do conclude, as did Justice Gomery, that the claimant has some basis to be fearful and to want to have her address remain unknown to the respondent. I also find that the claimant has a reasonable basis for believing that the respondent did follow the facilitator to her home on February 28, 2023. I note previous orders were

made in a way that the claimant's address was not disclosed to the respondent. I am not prepared on the record before me to find that the respondent has otherwise embarked on a sinister course of conduct to test the limits of court orders to gain some advantage over the claimant on the other occasions as alleged by the claimant. [48] For convenience, I replicate again here, the applicable portion of the Krentz Order: 7. BY CONSENT, all exchanges of the Children to be facilitated by a third party, unless otherwise agreed between the parties, and to be done at the Police Station with the address of [ ] or such other location agreed between the parties. The respondent may not use his father [ ] to facilitate the exchange of the Children. [49] I am satisfied that as a result of the events of January 28 and February 28, 2023, and the failure of the respondent to pay support as ordered, that there has been a change in circumstances of the children, which requires an addition to the terms of the Krentz Order so that parenting time may resume in the best interests of the children. It is not in the best interests of the children that there be high conflict scenes at exchanges, that they should have their stability and homes disrupted with a move, or that they not have parenting time with their father. I am satisfied that a further order is required, but not on the same terms as proposed

by the claimant. [50] I am not persuaded that a professional supervisor is reasonably required or that it would be in the best interests of the children. Effectively, the claimant wants someone to supervise the respondent for 10 minutes, six times a week, at a cost of $1,680 per month. This would be better spent on support. The claimant's statement that the respondent has challenged the credibility of her facilitators is not a sufficient reason to have a professional supervisor. The respondent can challenge the credibility of a professional supervisor as well. [51] Further, I am also not persuaded that having the respondent attend every exchange and be supervised for 10 minutes is necessarily effective. For example, the respondent could attend but have someone else attempt to follow the claimant or her facilitator if that is what he were determined to do. Rather, in my view, there should be an order which will personally bind the respondent from making any attempts to follow the claimant or her facilitator, directly or indirectly through another person, and which will come at no additional cost to the parties. As a result, s. 7 of the Krentz Order remains the same. I dismiss the application for a professional supervisor, and make the following order: The respondent is prohibited from directly, or indirectly through any other person, following the claimant or the claimant's

facilitator after the children are exchanged. Until further order of this Court, if the respondent attends at the exchange location, after exchanging the children, he must remain at the exchange location for 10 minutes before leaving the exchange location. This applies whether the respondent is picking up or dropping off the children. [52] The claimant argued that the facilitator the respondent has been using is not sufficient because he is a friend and employee of the respondent. The claimant fears this person would not report to her if the respondent did not stay 10 minutes. In the absence of evidence, I am not prepared to find that this person will not be truthful. Further, the facilitators the parties choose to attend are not party to this order. It is the respondent who is bound by the order. I also remind the respondent of the term of the order of Master Nielsen which is still in effect, that he prohibited from asking questions of the children designed to elicit where they reside. [53] There were also complaints by the claimant that the respondent has not been attending exchanges on time, causing her facilitator to wait and incur extra charges. Exchange times were ordered. They are 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. unless otherwise agreed between the parties. The parties must obey those terms. IV. Denial of Parenting Time [54] The respondent alleges that since March 4, 2023, the

claimant wrongfully denied him parenting time. The respondent seeks an order for compensatory parenting time. [55] The claimant submits the parenting time was not wrongfully denied. She has properly withheld it because of her safety concerns due to the respondent's failure to adhere to the Protection Order and Probation Order. She repeats the same arguments she made with respect to supervision at exchanges. [56] The relevant portions of ss. 61 and 62 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA], provide: 61 (2) If satisfied that an applicant has been wrongfully denied parenting time or contact with a child by a child's guardian, the court on application may make an order to do one or more of the following: (c) specify a period of time during which the applicant may exercise compensatory parenting time or contact with the child; 62 (1) For the purposes of section 61 [denial of parenting time or contact], a denial of parenting time or contact with a child is not wrongful in any of the following circumstances: (f) other circumstances the court considers to be sufficient justification for the denial. (2) If, on an application under section 61, the court finds that parenting time or contact with a child was denied, but was not wrongfully denied, the court may make an order specifying a period of time during which the applicant may exercise compensatory parenting time or contact

with the child. [57] Court orders must be abided by. The onus is on an applicant to establish there has been a denial of parenting time, and once that is established, the onus shifts to the other parent to show that a denial was not wrongful. Section 62(1) permits reasonable denials, with the best interests of the children being the only consideration: A.N. v. A.M.N., 2021 BCSC 2228 at para. 17. [58] I find the claimant has wrongfully denied parenting time for a portion of the time alleged. Even if I accept the claimant's version of the specific events between November 17, 2022 and February 14, 2023, in my view, these do not justify the claimant withholding the respondent's parenting. None of these events raise safety concerns with respect to the children while in the respondent's care. With respect to the February 28, 2023 alleged event, once the respondent knew the claimant's address, he cannot unknow it. Any risks associated with that knowledge did not decrease by the claimant withholding the children. There are other steps the claimant can take to address her concerns, and she did so. [59] I have already found that the claimant has a reasonable basis for concluding that the respondent breached the Probation Order on February 28, and has some basis to be fearful. In my view it was reasonable for her to take some time to consider the situation. The respondent's failure to pay

child support as ordered has compounded the situation by putting her in a more vulnerable financial situation and affected her ability to take steps she believes are necessary. Currently, she is the primary caregiver of the children. Once she had the opportunity to consider what had taken place, in my view, parenting time should have continued within a week or two. The children and the respondent have a loving relationship and it was in their best interest for that relationship to continue with regular parenting time, while the claimant pursued other steps. [60] In the circumstances, I order that the respondent will have 36 hours of compensatory time to be exercised over the next 12 weeks. Parenting time will be increased by one hour each of the three days per week that the respondent has the children, and parenting time will now end at 4:00 pm unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. V. Police Enforcement Clause [61] The respondent seeks a police enforcement clause. The claimant opposes. [62] The relevant provision of the FLA provides: 231 (1) This section applies if (a) a person fails to comply with an order made under this Act, and (b) the court is satisfied that no other order under this Act will be sufficient to secure the person's compliance. (4) If satisfied under section 61 [denial of parenting time or contact] that a person has been wrongfully denied parenting time

or contact with a child by the child's guardian, a court may make an order requiring a police officer to apprehend the child and take the child to the person. (6) For the purpose of locating and apprehending a child in accordance with an order made under subsection (4) or (5), a police officer may enter and search any place he or she has reasonable and probable grounds for believing the child to be. [63] The remedies under s. 231 are intended to secure compliance with an order: A.N. at para. 33. [64] I decline to grant a police enforcement clause. I am satisfied for the reasons given previously that the denial of parenting time was wrongful after the claimant was able to assess the situation. However, I am not satisfied that no other order under the FLA will be sufficient to secure the claimant's compliance. I have no reason to believe that the claimant will not obey the orders I am making. A police enforcement clause is an order of last resort and would not be in the best interests of the children. They have already witnessed a police encounter that involved violence. [65] Parenting time will resume April 8, 2023, as previously ordered pursuant to the Krentz Order, with the one hour of compensatory time starting then. "Norell J."