N.N.N. v. D.E.B.

2022 BCSC 1847 N.N.N. v. D.E.B.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: N.N.N. v. D.E.B., 2022 BCSC 1847 Date: 20221021 Docket: E51265 Registry: New Westminster Between: N.N.N. Claimant And D.E.B. Respondent Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Armstrong Supplemental Reasons for Judgment The Claimant, appearing on her own behalf: N.N.N. The Respondent, appearing on his own behalf: D.E.B. Place and Dates of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. July 21, 2022 August 9, 12, 2022 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. October 21, 2022 Table of Contents I. Introduction.. 3 II. Issues.. 4 III. Background.. 4 A. Procedural History. 4 B. The 2020 Consent Order 5 C. The September 2021 Incident 6 IV. Evidence.. 9 A. Dr. LaTorre. 9 B. The Parties. 9 C. The Views of the Child Report 11 V. Positions of the Parties.. 14 A. The Claimant 14 B. The respondent 14 VI. DISCUSSION.. 15 A. Choosing a Secondary School for E.B. and Varying the Parenting Schedule. 15 B. Appointing a Parenting Coordinator 23 VII. CONCLUSION.. 24 I. Introduction [1] In reasons for judgement indexed at 2021 BCSC 2433 (the "December 2021 RFJ") I addressed all issues in this family law case except for the parenting roles of each party in the life of their 13-year-old daughter, E.B. In August 2022 there was an urgency to address E.B.'s education plan by September 2022 when she was scheduled to commence her secondary school education. [2] When

the trial ended in April 2021 there were no significant issues raised concerning E.B.'s ongoing relationship with her father, the respondent, or the respondent's ongoing parenting role; the majority of the parenting issues had been settled with a consent order made at the beginning of the trial (the "2020 Consent Order"). [3] Unfortunately, issues concerning the respondent's relationship with E.B. emerged in September 2021 when a physical altercation between E.B. and the respondent took place (the "September 8, 2021 Incident"). In the December 2021 RFJ, I concluded that a final order concerning parenting issues could not be decided without receiving further evidence including a views of the child report under s. 211 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C., 2011, c. 25 and submissions from the parties. [4] A s. 211 report was subsequently produced by Dr. Ronald A. LaTorre, dated March 14, 2022 (the "Views of the Child Report"). The last written submission was filed with the Court on August 19, 2022. [5] The location of E.B.'s secondary school was pivotal to the parenting arrangements needed as the claimant and respondent live in different cities, approximately a one hour drive apart from one another. In order to permit the parties to register E.B. in school for the September term, I informed the parties of my decision on August 26, 2022 with reasons to follow (the "Memorandum to Counsel /

Parties"). These reasons contain the Court's review of the evidence, submissions and analysis informing that decision. II. Issues [6] This proceeding raised the following parenting issues: i. where E.B. should attend high school; ii. whether I should vary the current parenting schedule; iii. whether I should grant the claimant a right of first refusal to provide childcare if the respondent is unavailable to care for E.B. during his parenting time; and iv. whether I should grant the respondent the final authority to make all decisions concerning E.B.'s education; v. a mechanism for identifying a parenting coordinator and the length of that appointment. III. Background [7] This family's history and the background to this dispute are described in part in the December 2021 RFJ at paragraphs 4-25 and 38-52. A. Procedural History [8] A lengthier procedural history of this case is summarized at paragraphs 29-37 of the December 2021 RFJ. I will provide a summary of the recent procedural history here. [9] On October 5, 2021 the claimant made efforts to convene a trial management conference to address these issues and on October 13, 2021 she filed an application to reopen the trial to tender new evidence and request a views of the child report. [10] In the December 2021 RFJ, I declined to make an order concerning the parenting of the child due to indications that E.B.'s relationship with

the respondent had broken down. [11] In those reasons, I ordered the parties to identify a new parenting coordinator to be appointed until further order of the court but not more than two years from December 14, 2021. [12] In January 2022 the respondent applied for an order to obtain counselling records related to the child. On May 13, 2022 the parties appeared before the Court seeking clarification of several terms of the order resulting from the trial judgement in the December 2021 RFJ . [13] In response to the December 2021 RFJ the parties retained Dr. LaTorre who completed a Views of the Child Report which was presented at trial. However, they have continued to be unsuccessful in choosing a parenting coordinator. B. The 2020 Consent Order [14] At the commencement of this trial, the parties said they had reached agreement regarding ongoing parenting plans which included scheduling of their respective roles to be incorporated into a consent order (the "2020 Consent Order") that would contain the following: following: a. the parties would remain joint guardians of the child and share equal parenting time; b. joint guardianship would encompass guardianship of E.B.'s estate and, in the event of a parent's death, the other would be sole guardian; c. parenting responsibilities would be jointly shared as set out in subparagraphs(a) to (l) of Exhibit 1; d. parenting time would be

shared equally with specific allocations of E.B.'s birthdays, Easter weekend, spring break, and Christmas; e. transitions between parents for E.B. would take place at her school and on non-school days in North Delta, BC; f. neither party would schedule activities for E.B. during the other parent's parenting time; g. neither parent would discuss proposed changes to the parenting schedule with E.B. until after agreement was reached between the parents; h. parenting time extending more than seven days away from their homes would require advance notice; i. neither parent would unilaterally make decisions regarding engagement of mental health professionals or counsellors without the express consent of the other parent or order of the court; and j. the parties would make their best efforts to encourage E.B. to have good relationships with the other parent and refrain from making any disparaging remarks to E.B. about the other parent. [15] Joint guardianship of E.B. was not in issue in this trial and guardianship remains a shared responsibility. [16] Until the spring or summer of 2021, the parties were assisted in resolving contentious parenting issues by Diane MacKinnon, a parenting coordinator. After Ms. MacKinnon indicated she would no longer act as parenting coordinator, the parties attempted to choose a replacement, but could not agreement. [17] Although there was some discord

between the claimant and respondent about parenting, there appear to have been no major issues disrupting the relationship between the respondent and E.B. until September 2021. C. The September 2021 Incident [18] Details of the September 2021 Incident were considered in the December 2021 RFJ but will be referred to below in greater detail. [19] Over the summer months of 2021 it appears that several interactions between the respondent and E.B. contributed to a worsening of their relationship. [20] E.B. reported to Dr. LaTorre, as stated in the Views of the Child Report, an incident where the respondent told E.B. to do some homework; E.B. said she did not have any homework and did not believe she should be compelled to do extra homework. Later that day she began taking a shower and in the midst of her shower the respondent turned off the water because she had not completed her homework. [21] Parenthetically, the respondent conceded that he previously recorded one counselling session between E.B. and her school counsellor sometime in 2020. This appeared to have worsened his relationship with E.B. [22] On another occasion, the E.B. had left her school clarinet with the respondent to be repaired. He informed her that he would return the clarinet after she met with him to discuss the deterioration in her treatment of him. [23] Another incident that contributed to a worsening of their

relationship took place in June 2021 when E.B. had attended a taekwondo event at a time that was scheduled as the respondent's parenting time. E.B. was involved at an advanced level of taekwondo and was enrolled in lessons that occurred during the respondent's parenting time. There had been an interim order from Saunders J. prohibiting either party from registering the child in activities during the other party's parenting time. The respondent objected and E.B. was forced to miss some taekwondo events due to the respondent's intervention. He said he was relying on the Saunders, J. order and objected to the claimant unilaterally interfering with his parenting time. The claimant contends E.B. was passionate about this activity and resented the respondent's interference. [24] Several times, E.B. complained that she did not receive enough food for lunch and dinner when she was at the respondent's residence. The respondent disagreed that he had failed in this regard but those complaints were unresolved and I find that they likely had some foundation if not to the extent claimed by E.B. [25] The respondent described the September 2021 Incident as beginning with their encounter outside the home. He testified that E.B. asked if she could play on a computer; he agreed subject to conditions that she must first help him wash his vehicle and then engage in some physical activity before she

could return to the home and use the computer. E.B. defied the respondent and walked into the house going directly to the computer. After five minutes, the respondent went to E.B. who was then seated at the computer and told her she could not use the computer until she had met his conditions. She refused to leave the computer and he repeated his direction that she could not use the computer at that time. [26] The respondent rolled the chair that E.B. was seated on away from the computer and attempted to turn the computer off. E.B. got out of the chair and started punching and kicking the respondent. He pushed her back with his hand and restrained her on the furniture. She punched and kicked at him again and he forcibly moved her to an adjacent couch and held her down for approximately 15 seconds. He told her that she was to stop using taekwondo to hurt others and should not hurt others because she has been denied something she wants. [27] E.B.'s version of these events was similar in some respects to the respondent's although it differed with regard to some details. She told Dr. LaTorre that the respondent asked her to help him wash his truck and said that if she helped him, she would receive some time on the computer. She said she helped wash the truck and before she used the computer he wanted her to do some other physical activity outdoors. She became angry because the

second request had not been part of their agreement and she went upstairs and got on the computer. She said he came upstairs and forcibly removed her from the chair and pushed her on the couch. She punched him and tried to kick him and he punched her back. She said he then threw her on the couch and she got mad and ran upstairs. She said the respondent's punch hurt her. Following the incident she went to a love seat, began reading a book and refused to talk to the respondent about the incident. [28] A few days after the September incident, the respondent was in discussion with E.B. when she told him she was happy the incident had occurred and said "you are stupid, ugly, shut your cakehole, and shut up". She also told him that he could not tell her what to do when she was in her mother's home. [29] In spite of these incidents, the respondent contends that some days later, he and E.B. travelled to visit relatives on the Thanksgiving weekend without objection or opposition from her. However, she refused to discuss the event with him. [30] The respondent corresponded with the claimant and E.B.'s counsellor about this incident. On the counsellor's recommendation, the respondent decided to take a break from his parenting time with E.B. and returned to visit two days per week until December 2021. The claimant and respondent agreed to return to 50-50 parenting time after December

2021. [31] Overall, it was obvious to me that the relationship between the respondent and E.B. has deteriorated, most likely due to the parties' failure to co-parent their child. They appear to have adopted parallel parenting styles which pay little regard to the importance of mutual decision making and the imposition of united decisions regarding E.B. [32] As noted, the September 2021 Incident seems to have triggered a change in circumstances from when the 2020 Consent Order was presented to the Court at the outset of this trial. It is clear that between the end of the trial in April 2021 and September 2021, issues concerning the respondent's relationship with E.B. and E.B.'s disinclination to spend time with the respondent following the September 8, 2021 Incident made the claimant concerned about the respondent's ongoing parenting role and E.B.'s best interests, necessitating the continuation of the trial. IV. Evidence A. Dr. LaTorre [33] At trial, Dr. LaTorre was examined on her Views of the Child Report. B. The Parties [34] The parties made submissions concerning parenting and gave oral testimony on issues deemed by them to be important. A central issue in addressing ongoing parenting roles was whether E.B. would attend secondary school near to the claimant's residence in Vancouver or closer to the respondent's residence in Surrey. [35] E.B. finished her elementary school

education at her bilingual school near to the respondent's residence in Surrey, BC in June 2022 and the parties embarked on discussions concerning which secondary school E.B. would attend commencing September 2022. In anticipation of resolving the question of where E.B. would attend high school the parties agreed that each would register her in the school closest to them. However, Ms. McKinnon's role as parenting coordinator ended by the summer of 2021. In the RFJ, the parties were ordered to retain a parenting coordinator to continue assisting in resolution of parenting issues. That had not occurred by August 2022. [36] At trial, the parties discussed E.B.'s enrolment in secondary school. It was clear that E.B. would not enrolled in a bilingual secondary school. The respondent believed it was in E.B.'s best interest to attend a secondary school near his residence in Surrey whereas the claimant proposed that she attend a secondary school near her residence. The decision concerning the child's secondary school education would have some influence on deciding each parent's role in the life of their child and parenting schedules for each party. [37] The respondent also sought an order that he be given the sole right to make final decisions concerning E.B.'s education. [38] The respondent argued that E.B. should be enrolled in a school closer to his residence because she had

received all of her elementary school education in that community and would be well-served by continuing her education there. [39] The claimant took many steps in searching out the best school for E.B. to attend including taking a tour of the respondent's preferred school and inquiring about programs available there. The respondent had some communications with his preferred school but due to confusion surrounding the registration process and communications with the claimant a misunderstanding arose and E.B.'s registration at the respondent's preferred school was not completed. [40] There was evidence at trial that E.B.'s life-long friend in her childhood community became somewhat estranged from E.B., thus diminishing the importance of her attendance at a school in that community. E.B. told the respondent that she wished to go to school near the claimant's residence and if forced to attend the respondent's preferred school she would run away. C. The Views of the Child Report [41] In the December 2021 RFJ I specifically directed the investigator to examine the circumstances surrounding the claimant's report of the September 8, 2021 Incident and to inquire into any circumstances that may have precipitated a change in E.B.'s relationship with the respondent and the causes of any such changes. [42] In Dr. LaTorre's Views of the Child Report,. he inquired into the circumstances that

may have precipitated any change in E.B.'s relationship with the respondent and the causes of those changes and provided an extensive opinion focused on the breakdown of the relationship between E.B. and the respondent. He reviewed the sources of information he relied on including many emails, messages, and letters. Most importantly, he conducted a video interview with the claimant, a telephone interview with the respondent and carried out two in-person interviews with E.B. [43] Dr. LaTorre had provided as. 211 report under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA] put in evidence earlier in the trial [44] In the Views of the Child Report, Dr. LaTorre referred to several incidents of conflict between the respondent and E.B. as well as some of the dynamics indicating a level of dysfunctionality in this family's relationship. In his conclusions and opinions, he summarized the difficulties between E.B. and her father and between her father and her mother. [45] Specifically, Dr. LaTorre ascertained the following: a) E.B. is hostile toward the respondent, would prefer not to see him, and does not believe any steps or measures can be taken to address or rectify the rift between them; b) E.B.'s long-term goal is to separate from her dependency on both the claimant and respondent; c) E.B. reported greater freedoms and permissiveness in her mother's care and greater restrictiveness

and authoritarianism in her father's care; and d) she experiences difficulties be subject to different rules and expectations when in the care of each parent, with the respondent being stricter and more rigid. A counsellor has recommended the parents work towards greater similarity in their homes insofar as they are able to manage EB's homework, routines and screen time. Disciplinary measures such as the respondent grounding E.B. can be problematic with a child of E.B.'s age when rules and routines in the claimant's home are substantially different and more relaxed. [46] Dr. LaTorre suggested that in the alternative to a parenting coordinator, or in addition, the Court may wish to have the parties reappear periodically for progress updates. The parties do not currently have a parenting coordinator in place although I have ordered that they choose a new parenting coordinator in order to establish and ensure the parties' decisions are made in the best interests of the child. [47] Dr. LaTorre did not find E.B.'s behaviour to be pathological and observed that if the parents shared such concerns she could be assessed by a registered psychologist or psychiatrist specializing in clinical child psychology. He underscored the importance of the parents engaging in a co-parenting role as opposed to a parallel parenting approach. He said they needed to be on the same page in their efforts

to provide the best environment for E.B.. He recommended an agency for establishing a less piecemeal approach to their roles in parenting E.B.. [48] Dr. LaTorre suspected that some level of alienation or estrangement of E.B. from the respondent might be happening. He discussed the differences between distraction and alienation and noted that E.B. has a disproportionate hate for her father given the alleged transgressions. She disrespects him when referring to him by his first name and her antipathy toward his family and " anyone on his side" suggests a level of alienation from him. [49] While making that observation, Dr. LaTorre also noted that the respondent's behaviour has, to some degree, contributed to E.B. becoming estranged. He commented that, at E.B.'s age, estrangement from one parent or alignment with the other parent can stem from gender differences favouring the same-gender parent. In the end, he concluded that neither parent is totally responsible for the current state of affairs. [50] Dr. LaTorre suggested that there need to be standardized routines and regimens between the homes, including parenting approaches to restrictions on E.B.'s screen time and use of other devices along with monitoring of her access to those devices. The parties should come to agreement on those issues to ensure the optimum environment in both homes and to reduce the friction between the

respondent and E.B. As a further example, E.B. receives tutoring when in the claimant's house and should have similar tutoring access when in the respondent's home as these sessions are videoconference meetings and could be consistently used when in both homes. [51] Dr. LaTorre noted that E.B. may not currently have the maturity or problem-solving skills typical of other 13-year-old children and the weight of her wishes might reflect the limits in her maturation. He believed her current views are influenced to some extent by material goods, screen time, unlimited snacks and so forth that are available at the claimant's residence. Nevertheless, as she ages, her views will undoubtedly carry more weight. Overall, the claimant and respondent must consider the possibility that their conflict is influencing E.B. unnecessarily in a detrimental way. [52] Dr. LaTorre suggested to the parties that once E.B. is in high school, the current parenting schedule might not best support her needs. As she moves into her teenage years, her social life is likely to become more important and focused around schoolmates with more resistant to her parents' expectations. [53] E.B. is currently a rebellious child who needs her parents to settle on a co-parenting approach that best reflects their joint assessment of her needs. Dr. LaTorre recommends that the family begin focusing on their family-related

issues that need to be addressed before E.B. is engaged any new ongoing activity or is assigned any academic type of work. [54] As E.B. ages, her needs and the parents' role in meeting those needs may evolve. Sometime in the future, if issues cannot be resolved, a more in-depth s. 211 report might be necessary. V. Positions of the Parties A. The Claimant [55] The claimant argued she was focused on the best interests of their child and that it was important to hear E.B.'s voice and consider E.B.'s preference to attend school in close to the claimant. The claimant pointed out at considerable length the respondent's shortcomings, lack of credibility, lack of reliability, and areas in his care for E.B. that demonstrate an immaturity in his approach to parenting. She argued that, on the contrary, the Views of the Child Report indicates the solid foundations of her ability to parent E.B. [56] The claimant argued that the June 2022 Consent Agreement was a completed agreement as it was drafted by the respondent's then lawyer, signed by her and returned to the respondent's lawyer. She said there was nothing to be done except to implement the terms. She advocated for a parenting schedule consistent with the June 2022 Consent Agreement. B. The respondent [57] Overall, the respondent said the family needs to participate in a reintegration or reconciliation process with an agency or mental

health group that could provide an "all-encompassing service" involving counsellors or parenting coaches for each parent. He believes a parenting coordinator could re-establish relationships in the family ensuring E.B.'s best interests are maximized and conflict is minimized. [58] He said that focusing on E.B.'s education as she transitions into high school is an important goal and will hopefully reduce the crisis this family has been experiencing. He said that changes in the parenting schedule, parenting roles, and EB's education needs are foremost and must be addressed. [59] The respondent argued that the June 2022 Consent Agreement was not binding because his lawyer had failed to include details concerning a tax issue. Nevertheless, the respondent agreed with the claimant that the parenting schedule worked out in June 2022 Consent Agreement would be an appropriate schedule. He suggested that the schedule would work well for E.B. if she was attending either high school and her midweek residence would be in the home closest to her school. [60] He contends that E.B.'s attendance at his preferred high school would afford her the best opportunity at secondary school education in a community where she has lived and gone to school her entire life. He contends the claimant's decision to move to a city approximately one hour's drive from the respondent's residence and to inveigle

E.B. to express a desire to attend school in that city stems from the claimant's deliberate attempt to alienate or align E.B. in a way that has estranged the child from him. Although there are multiple factors at play, he contends the Court should not reward the claimant for her efforts in changing the dynamic of his relationship with their child. VI. DISCUSSION [61] The trial is now complete except for making decisions regarding parenting. A. Choosing a Secondary School for E.B. and Varying the Parenting Schedule [62] Both parties agree that deciding whether and how to vary the current parenting schedule depends on my determination regarding which high school E.B. should attend. The consensus that the parties reached regarding parenting time as laid out in the June 2022 Consent Agreement including changes in the schedule of E.B.'s midweek residence reflects a mutual recognition of how the future could best unfold in her best interests. [63] I have accepted that the June 2022 Consent Agreement was a completed agreement between the parties and it was properly admitted into evidence in this trial. [64] A new arrangement of parenting should be adopted taking into account the June 2022 Consent Agreement to the extent that I determine which arrangement will work in her best interests. [65] The sole criteria in the assessment of the parties' positions and the eventual division of

parenting roles is "the best interests of the child". Assessing the division of parenting roles that will best advance E.B.'s interests is informed by her age, maturity, and the matters referred to in s. 37 of the FLA as follows: Best interests of child 37 (1) In making an agreement or order under this Part respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with a child, the parties and the court must consider the best interests of the child only. (2) To determine what is in the best interests of a child, all of the child's needs and circumstances must be considered, including the following: (a) the child's health and emotional well-being; (b) the child's views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them; (c) the nature and strength of the relationships between the child and significant persons in the child's life; (d) the history of the child's care; (e) the child's need for stability, given the child's age and stage of development; (f) the ability of each person who is a guardian or seeks guardianship of the child, or who has or seeks parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact with the child, to exercise his or her responsibilities; (g) the impact of any family violence on the child's safety, security or well-being, whether the family violence is directed toward the child or another family member; (h) whether the actions of a person responsible for

family violence indicate that the person may be impaired in his or her ability to care for the child and meet the child's needs; (i) the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child's guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child, including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or well-being of the child or other family members; (j) any civil or criminal proceeding relevant to the child's safety, security or well-being. (3) An agreement or order is not in the best interests of a child unless it protects, to the greatest extent possible, the child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being. (4) In making an order under this Part, a court may consider a person's conduct only if it substantially affects a factor set out in subsection (2), and only to the extent that it affects that factor. [66] The goal of a parenting schedule is to establish an environment that will promote E.B.'s development, education, maturity and success. This is a forward-looking process and must be in place to advance her needs well into her teenage years as many changes can be expected to occur in E.B.'s life between her early teens and adulthood. [67] It is my role to decide how E.B.'s best interests can be achieved in all of the circumstances and with a view to her needs into the future. E.B.'s best interests

will be addressed taking into account her views and all surrounding circumstances. There is no doubt her best interests will be served if the parties are able to approach the issue of parenting time with a level of maturity and reconciliation not evident to date. The parties must work toward a co-parenting model. [68] Applying this framework I have considered the views of E.B. concerning her apparent antipathy toward the respondent, her reluctance to be with the respondent, and her preference to attending school at a place near to her mother's home. I have considered the mutual criticisms of the parties about the other parents failings in the care and education of E.B. [69] in view of E.B.'s age , her emotional well-being, the strength of her relationship with both parents, her need for stability, the ability of each parent, and her views, I conclude that E.B.'s best interests will be served if she attends the claimant's preferred high school and that terms concerning the parties' respective parenting roles will reflect the June 2022 Consent Agreement. My analysis is as follows. [70] I was hopeful that Dr. LaTorre's report would provide meaningful and helpful insight into the origins of E.B.'s views towards the respondent and how her relationship with him has deteriorated to its current state. The report functioned much as I had anticipated albeit it offers no easy resolution

of E.B.'s future. [71] The Court is always required to take into account the views of the child concerning their care and relationship with their parents. Those views are not binding in any way on the Court but can represent an important factor in the assessment of ongoing parenting roles. [72] Taking into account all of Dr. LaTorre's recommendations, I see two options: 1) E.B. is compelled to attend the respondent's preferred high school against her current wishes; or 2) E.B. is permitted to attend the claimant's preferred high school, consistent with her wishes. [73] If the Court were to choose the first option, given her age and the significant changes that will occur in the next few years, her visceral reluctance to live with the respondent, and her desire to attend school near her mother's home, there is a risk that her oppositional behaviour toward the respondent would worsen and that the breakdown of that relationship will be deleterious to her in the long run. [74] Nothing in the evidence before me suggests that either school would provide a better or worse learning environment. There is evidence about the opportunities available at the claimant's preferred high school and there is a confluence between her wishes, the claimant's wishes and the opportunities at that institution. [75] In this case, there is a geographical problem: the claimant moved to a residence

approximately a one hour's drive from the respondent's residence resulting in a considerable commuting distance for parenting time. As noted in my December 2021 RFJ, the claimant's decision to move an hour away did not assist in advancing the parent-child relationship with both parties. [76] Nonetheless, that change has happened and E.B. is now on the verge of entering high school in her teenage years. I observed that the claimant made considerable efforts to investigate schools in both communities, to ensure that E.B. had exposure to both options, and to prepare for her high school experience. The respondent did not engage in the investigation of both schools to the same extent and the claimant's efforts add to my assessment that the claimant's preferred high school is the optimal location for E.B. to commence her secondary school education. [77] While I understand the conviction of each party in advocating for her registration in a school closer to each of their homes, I must make a finding that will serve the best E.B.'s best interests for years to come. Circumstances may change and a different regime may become necessary in the future; the parents must approach E.B.'s ongoing needs from a thoughtful, sensitive and realistic appraisal. It is paramount that any historical grievances or distrust between the parties be set aside. [78] During the trial, there was clear evidence

of the claimant acting in ways that undermined E.B.'s relationship with the respondent, albeit her actions may not have been intended to affect that relationship. Examples of the claimant's behaviours included: a) the claimant having telephone conversations with E.B. while E.B. was with the respondent during which E.B. expressed unhappiness with being separated from the claimant. In response, the claimant encouraged E.B. to return to the claimant's home notwithstanding the parenting schedule; b) on one occasion, the respondent and E.B. travelled to a city a few hours away to visit family; the claimant telephoned the police in that city and asked them to check up on the respondent and E.B.; and c) on yet another occasion, the claimant permitted or encouraged E.B. to remain home from elementary school to provide comfort to the claimant after she had suffered an injury. [79] E.B.'s habit of referring to the respondent by his first name is a practice that continues and which the respondent finds is highly inappropriate and disrespectful. I do not accept that the claimant exercised any disciplinary or demanding direction that E.B. cease her habit of referring to the respondent by his first name. As described in the December 2021 RFJ, the claimant's evidence was unreliable in multiple areas and her testimony of historical events coupled with her failure to comply with court orders

and document production responsibilities (in timely ways or not at all) in the litigation undermined the weight of her evidence. [80] The respondent has also contributed to the breakdown in his relationship with E.B.. The incident concerning the respondent's denial of the child's clarinet as a disciplinary action demonstrated a lack of maturity on his part. It is clear that rules and discipline differ between the parents' homes, but the respondent seemed to lack an appreciation of those differences and the impact of his methods on the child. [81] In the past, the respondent had become obsessive about E.B.'s mental health, frequently demanding psychological or psychiatric interventions. At one stage he insisted that she required a neuropsychological assessment to inform the parties of her academic needs. Eventually a steady was conducted and in the result, it was clear the respondent's persistence led to important recommendations that would assist in E.B's education and development.. However, his earlier preoccupation with her mental health was unfounded and unhelpful in maintaining his relationship with her. [82] In the June 2022 Consent Agreement, the parties accepted that the respondent would have authority to make final decisions concerning E.B.'s education with some restrictions. I am prepared to accept that this condition will work in E.B.'s best interests and the parties

will be able to address their child's educational needs in the context of this mutual understanding. [83] As noted, there has been tension between the permissive environment in the claimant's home versus the stricter and regimented routines maintained by the respondent in his home. This factor was highlighted in Dr. LaTorre's opinion that the parties do not co-parent, they parallel parent, which leaves E.B. in a place where she would obviously prefer life at her mother's home as opposed to the respondent's home. [84] E.B. often complained that nutrition and food she received when in the respondent's home was inadequate. Although the respondent did not view her complaints as accurate, the child clearly perceived that meals provided by him were insufficient. I am satisfied the respondent will resolve this issue. [85] Other features in the breakdown of the parties' parenting approach are evident from their inability to appoint a new parenting coordinator as directed by the Court. The respondent was intransigent in his view that Dr. Michael Elterman represented the only reasonable option for this role. The claimant had objected to Dr. Elterman on the basis that she did not accept him as a "good fit" for their family. The claimant made multiple suggestions to the respondent but, in the end, he remained adamant that Dr. Elterman was the only person he was prepared to consider. [86]

In my view, the parties' efforts to reach a compromise agreement set outlined the 2020 Consent Order reflects a mutual recognition of how their parenting roles can advance E.B.'s best interests. To some extent, the parties have put behind them some of the historical grievances, , suspicions, and shortcomings in their past relationship and turned their minds to how they can best provide an environment for E.B. to mature and prosper. [87] Based on Dr. LaTorre's observations and conclusions, I accept that E.B.'s antipathy toward the respondent is not justified but can be understood in the context of missteps made by the him and behaviours engaged in by the claimant which have fostered estrangement and/or alignment that has caused the breakdown in her relationship with he respondent and alignment toward the claimant [88] As Dr. LaTorre pointed out, E.B. is likely to separate her life from her parents' to some extent in the not-too-distant future. In less than five years, she will likely embark on some post-secondary education or training and live elsewhere. She may lack maturity in her approach to the respondent at this time, but it would be an error to ignore E.B.'s feelings or perceptions as she has moved into her teenage years. [89] E.B. needs to know that her parents are responsible for her care and development and that they are using wisdom and common sense in their approach

which comes form years of experience. [90] I conclude the parties need to embrace a new model of care, discipline, encouragement and flexibility for E.B. to flourish in her teenage years. In my view, a parenting coordinator for one and one half years will be essential to enable the parties to facilitate the management of differences and problems in these early teenage years. The parties must respect their differences in parenting styles and adopt a more cooperative parenting model so that E.B. recognizes that decisions concerning her life are jointly endorsed by both parents. [91] Overall, I accept Dr. LaTorre's conclusion that there was no evidence of actual alienation of E.B. from the respondent by the claimant; however, the claimant's pattern of parenting and discipline discussed by Dr. LaTorre has convinced me that E.B. had become more aligned with the claimant than the respondent and that the claimant had become more aligned with E.B.. In spite of those factors, E.B. appears to have a desire for independence and control over her own life without her parents' influence. The estrangement and realignment developed over several years that erupted in the September 8, 2021 Incident has contributed to E.B.'s current reaction to the respondent. [92] I find that there is considerable work that needs to be done to begin the process of reconciling and repairing E.B.'s relationship

with the respondent. It is necessary that a counselling process be utilized to work towards repairing the breakdown of E.B.'s relationship with her father. That relationship will be important to her as she grows towards adulthood and there should be no delay in beginning the work necessary to improve their relationship. [93] I am satisfied that the parties mutual agreement concerning aspects of their parenting roles with E.B. in the 2022 June Consent Agreement is informative of the parents assessment of their child's best interests and is a helpful reflection of how these parents should be able to work together in the future. I rejected the respondent's contention that the agreement reached was part of a settlement that did not come to fruition because of some extraneous circumstances with regard to income tax. The terms of this June 2022 Consent Agreement were different than the terms in the 2020 Consent Order. Nonetheless, coupled with the recommendations from Dr. LaTorre, I adopt the parties views on their care for E.B. into the future and that these terms will operate in her best interest. [94] I am confident that the relationship between E.B. and the respondent will not be advanced if E.B. is forced by order of the Court to attend the respondent's preferred high school. [95] Having decided that E.B. will attend the claimant's preferred high school , terms concerning the

parties' respective parenting roles will reflect the June 2022 Consent Agreement. B. Appointing a Parenting Coordinator [96] In the December 2021 RFJ, I ordered that the parties engage a parenting coordinator to make decisions in the future on issues where they are unable to agree on things such as where E.B. will go to school (now resolved by this decision), what activities she will be engaged in, and what time she will spend in the care of her parents. [97] The parties have attempted yet failed to choose a new parenting coordinator to this date. Dr. LaTorre recommended that a parenting coordinator be re-established for at least one year while the parents work toward developing more similar parenting styles. [98] I order that the parties appoint a new parenting coordinator, this time within seven days of these reasons being published. If they are again unsuccessful, either party can apply to the Court to appoint a parenting coordinator who will act for one and a half years. VII. CONCLUSION [99] In the result, I will repeat the terms of the order set out in my August 26, 2022 Memorandum to Counsel/Parties. These terms are as follows: a) the parties will enrol E.B. at the claimant's preferred high school (the "Secondary School")for grade eight commencing September 2022; b) the parties will support E.B. integration to the Secondary School socially and academically by providing

support to her as needed, including tutors or programs, and making best efforts to ensure that the Secondary School optimizes assistance for E.B.; c) the parties will appoint a new parenting coordinator. If the parties cannot agree on the person to be appointed within seven days of these reasons being published, then each party will deliver to the other three nominees together with background information. If within the subsequent seven days the parties have not been able to agree on a new parenting coordinator based on their nominees, then either can apply to the Court to choose a new parenting coordinator and that person will act for one and a half years; d) in addition to all usual responsibilities of a parenting coordinator, the new coordinator is instructed to assist in minimizing conflict between the parties and to develop common standards concerning acceptable behaviour for E.B. including disciplinary measures, computer access time, and homework; e) the parties will jointly participate in a reintegration or reconciliation process with an agency or group of mental health professionals including counsellors or parenting coaches for each parent and a counsellor for E.B. to assist in resolving problems in E.B.'s relationship with the respondent as well as the inevitable differences between two households and the impact of differing frameworks on E.B.. If the parties cannot

agree on the details of this requirement, leave is granted to make further submissions to the Court; f) the parties will make their best efforts to construct a parenting framework that will assist in ensuring decisions concerning E.B.'s best interests are made jointly. If the parties cannot agree on any issue, those questions will be referred to the parenting coordinator; g) the respondent will have the authority to make final decisions concerning E.B.'s education but will not change E.B.'s school without the claimant's consent nor will he make decisions that will result in committing the claimant to financial costs; h) the claimant will inform the respondent of any school activities, extracurricular activities and related special events within 24 hours of receiving notification of the same; i) if the claimant receives educational or tutoring reports regarding E.B.'s academic progress, that information will be communicated to the respondent within 24 hours of receipt; j) E.B. will not be enrolled in any ongoing activity that may be carried on during the parenting time of the other parent except as may be directed by the parenting coordinator with full consideration of the circumstances affecting E.B.'s relationship with the respondent be optimized; k) parenting times will be not less than 40% with the respondent and 60% with the claimant during summers and school times to

include the following: i. during the regular school months, in the claimant's home from 8:00 PM Sundays until 4:00 PM Fridays; ii. during regular school months in the respondent's home from 4:00 PM Fridays until 8:00 PM Sundays for two consecutive weekends and in the claimant's home for one weekend followed by two consecutive weekends in the respondent's care; iii. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the respondent will exercise parenting time with E.B. if she requires such care and the claimant is unavailable to provide such care between the hours of 8:40 AM and 12:00 PM; iv. notwithstanding the above, the respondent will have parenting time during the weekends of September 10 and September 17, 2022; v. in addition to the above, the respondent will have parenting time with E.B. on all school professional development ("Pro D") days in 2022 and all statutory long weekend holidays during 2022 and 2023; vi. if the Pro D days occur on the claimant's parenting weekend, then the respondent shall be entitled to one additional day of parenting time. If agreement cannot be made concerning that date, then the additional day will be allocated as directed by the parenting coordinator; vii. during week one of Christmas vacations starting 2022, E.B. will be with the respondent and during week two will be with the claimant, provided that those schedules will alternate each year; viii. during

spring breaks, commencing 2023, E.B. will be with the respondent for the first week and the claimant for the second week provided that those schedules will alternate each year; ix. during summer vacation, the respondent will have parenting time for seven weeks and the claimant will have parenting time for three weeks; x. in odd-numbered years the respondent will inform the claimant of the dates he will exercise parenting time during the summer vacation by April 1 of that year. In even-numbered years the claimant will inform the respondent of the time she will exercise parenting time for the upcoming summer vacation by April 1 of that year. Notwithstanding the above, the respondent will not have summer parenting time for longer than two consecutive weeks. The calculation of weeks for summer vacation parenting time will commence on Mondays and end on Sundays; and xi. transition times during summer vacations will be Mondays at 10 AM unless otherwise agreed. "Armstrong J."