C.P. v. S.P.

C.P. v. S.P.

No material change in circumstances was established to justify varying the post-trial shared parenting order; the existing parenting order remains in force except as to A.P. (now 18). The court found C.P. wrongfully denied S.P.'s parenting time with A.P. by facilitating A.P.'s absence (Bible Camp incidents) and imposed a $1,000 fine to be paid from the court-held bond. The court declined most other relief, retained the bond to motivate compliance, ordered a parenting coordinator, and imputed C.P.'s income at minimum wage (~$36,000 for 2024 and $27,500 for intervening years) for support calculation purposes.

Citation
2025 BCSC 1654
Parties
Claimant: C.P.; Respondent: S.P.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Variation Applications Under Divorce Act and Family Law Act / Cross Applications to Vary Final Orders Post Trial (applications/cross Application Hearing)
Outcome
Applications mostly dismissed; parenting order maintained (except no longer applies to A.P.); C.P. found to have wrongfully denied parenting time in respect of A.P. and fined; bond retained; income imputed for support calculations; parenting coordinator ordered; other relief denied.
Legal Topics
Variation of Final Orders, Wrongful Denial of Parenting Time, Imputation of Income, Parenting Coordinator, Children's Counselling and Decision Making, Contempt and Sanctions, Production of Communications
Source Language
English
Family Law Divorce Act Family Law Act Child Support Spousal Support Parenting Law Variation of Final Orders Wrongful Denial of Parenting Time +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.P.

Claimant

S.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Variation Applications Under Divorce Act and Family Law Act / Cross Applications to Vary Final Orders Post Trial (applications/cross Application Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances to vary the parenting order made after trial
  2. 2 Whether C.P. wrongfully denied S.P. parenting time under s.61 FLA and whether contempt or other sanctions should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether to vary Christmas Day parenting time

Ratio Decidendi

No material change in circumstances was established to justify varying the post-trial shared parenting order; the existing parenting order remains in force except as to A.P. (now 18). The court found C.P. wrongfully denied S.P.'s parenting time with A.P. by facilitating A.P.'s absence (Bible Camp incidents) and imposed a $1,000 fine to be paid from the court-held bond. The court declined most other relief, retained the bond to motivate compliance, ordered a parenting coordinator, and imputed C.P.'s income at minimum wage (~$36,000 for 2024 and $27,500 for intervening years) for support calculation purposes.

Court Disposition

Applications mostly dismissed; parenting order maintained (except no longer applies to A.P.); C.P. found to have wrongfully denied parenting time in respect of A.P. and fined; bond retained; income imputed for support calculations; parenting coordinator ordered; other relief denied.

Orders

  • Existing parenting order from 15 Jul 2020 remains in force except it no longer applies to A.P.
  • C.P. shall pay S.P. $1,000 for wrongful denial of parenting time pursuant to s.61(2)(g) of the Family Law Act, to be drawn from C.P.'s bond held in court