IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           Mr. V and Ms. D are the parents of one child, their daughter, A, who is now 3 years of age.  A has lived in Nanaimo, and resided mostly with Ms. D, since birth.  Ms. D wishes to relocate to Kitimat to pursue career opportunities.  Mr. V, who lives in Nanaimo, opposes the move.

[2]           On August 22, 2013, I ordered that A’s primary residence be with Ms. D and set out in my order a detailed schedule of parenting time for Mr. V through to the end of December, 2014.  The parties have generally adhered to that schedule, with the result that A has lived about 80% of the time with Ms. D.

[3]           Ms. D and Mr. V are both journeyman electricians.  

[4]           Job opportunities for electricians on Vancouver Island are few and poorly paid.  There are many well-paid opportunities for electricians in Kitimat and other northern communities.  That point is illustrated by Mr. V’s recent experience.  Since the summer of 2011, Mr. V has been working “in camp” in remote locations in northern British Columbia and Alberta, on a rotation of several weeks in camp and a week or so out.  Throughout that time, he has been looking for a job on Vancouver Island, where he grew up and prefers to live.  In September, 2014, after a 3-year job search, he succeeded in obtaining employment with M. Electrical, a contractor in Nanaimo.  He says that he got that job only by “calling in a favour” from Mr. M., who is a family friend.  Mr. M. pays him $28 per hour.  Mr. V concedes that Ms. D is less well-connected on Vancouver Island than he is, and faces correspondingly greater challenges in finding employment on the island.

[5]           Job opportunities for electricians in Kitimat and other northern communities are plentiful and well-paid.  For example, Ms. D’s present job in Kitimat, which she started in July, 2014, pays her $39 per hour for regular time, but also pays her a “living out allowance” because she lives in a house in town rather than in camp, and offers many opportunities for overtime and weekend work, which is paid at a much higher rate.  Ms. D’s employer has told her that she will have an opportunity for promotion to a managerial role if she remains in Kitimat, but that the employer will arrange a transfer to a job (but not a managerial job) in the Greater Vancouver area if she remains on the job in Kitimat for one year.  Mr. V concedes that he could have a similar job tomorrow in Kitimat if he wanted one.

[6]           I heard some evidence about job opportunities for electricians in the Greater Vancouver area.  Such jobs are available, although they are more difficult to get and pay less than jobs in Kitimat and other northern communities.  The cost of housing is much higher in the Greater Vancouver area than on Vancouver Island, and much higher on Vancouver Island than in Kitimat.

[7]           The governing statutory provision is section 69(4) of the Family Law Act SBC 2011, c 25:

[8]           In C.M.B. vs B.D.G. 2014 BCSC 780, [2014] BCJ #87, 45 RFL (7^th) 313, Fleming, J said @ paragraphs 64, 78.

[9]           Section 69(6) of the Family Law Act provides:

[10]        In L.J.R. vs S.W.R. 2013 BCSC 1344,  [2013] BCJ #1645,  43 RFL (7^th) 351, Betton, J said @ paragraph 71:

[11]        The reason given by Ms. D for the proposed relocation is that she has been offered a very attractive career opportunity in Kitimat, and she has few or no career opportunities on Vancouver Island.  She believes that she will be unable to provide the material things which A will need unless she is permitted to relocate to Kitimat.  I am satisfied, both that Ms. D honestly believes that to be true, and that she is probably correct.  Ms. D is unlikely to find employment as an electrician on Vancouver Island.  Her income-earning capacity on Vancouver Island is probably less than $2000 per month

[12]        Mr. V will earn about $55,000 per year in his present job.  The guideline figure for child support with that income is $507 per month.  If she stays on Vancouver Island, Ms. D will face the challenge of raising a child on a monthly income of about $2500, in a community in which a suitable house will cost more than $250,000.  By contrast, Ms. D’s present job in Kitimat pays her in excess of $70,000.  Housing prices in Kitimat are much lower than those on Vancouver Island.

[13]        Some aspects of A’s quality of life will suffer if she moves to Kitimat.  

[14]        There is no reason to think that A’s educational opportunities will be better in one city than the other.  No doubt, both have adequate schools.  Ms. D says that there is an excellent day-care facility a short distance from her home in Kitimat.  Mr. V replies that, given Ms. D’s work schedule in Kitimat, A will be in day care for about 50 hours per week, which he does not consider to be in her best interest.

[15]        In this case, proper notice was given under section 66.

[16]        On July 9, 2012, His Honour Judge Gould granted an order restraining the parties from removing A from Vancouver Island without leave of the court or consent of the other spouse.  On July 23, 2014, I varied that order to allow trips off Vancouver Island not exceeding 7 days’ duration.  However, it does not appear that such a constraint is necessary.  For example, neither parent is a flight risk.

[17]        I conclude that:

[18]        Ms. D proposes that A should visit Mr. V:

[19]        Much depends on what is meant by “reasonable and workable” arrangements.  From Mr. V’s point of view, Ms. D’s proposal is entirely unreasonable and unworkable - it means that, if he wants to see his daughter more frequently than once every two months, he must incur the cost of travel to Kitimat (about $800) and stay either in a motel or in the home of a woman with whom he has a deeply hostile relationship.  From Ms. D’s point of view, the arrangements which she has proposed are the best which can be offered in the circumstances in which she finds herself.  One must accept that, if A moves to Kitimat and Mr. V does not, A will see Mr. V much less frequently.  That is not necessarily unreasonable or unworkable.  I discuss below the possibility of a parenting time schedule which, if A moves to Kitimat and Mr. V remains in Nanaimo, might serve A as well or better than the existing schedule. 

[20]        I conclude that the arrangements proposed by Ms. D are not reasonable or workable, but that other arrangements could be made which would be reasonable and workable.

[21]        Because Ms. D has not proposed “reasonable and workable” arrangements, the presumption set out in section 69(4) of the Family Law Act does not apply, and I must consider A’s best interests without any presumption one way or the other.

[22]        In order to determine whether the proposed relocation is in A’s best interest, one must balance a number of competing factors.  As discussed below, much depends on whether Mr. V chooses to move to Kitimat if I allow the relocation.  He was not asked that question, and I am in no position to assess the probability that he will make that choice.  

[23]        Ms. D is now living in Kitimat.  She says that, if I do not allow A to join her there, she will return to Nanaimo, resume her parenting responsibilities, and look for work on Vancouver Island.  The question is what, if any, consideration, I can give to that evidence in light of section 69(7) of the Family Law Act, which provides:

[24]        If A moves to Kitimat, her visits with her grandparents will be infrequent.  That will be very distressing for her, because they are now very significant attachment figures in her life.  There is, however, a counterbalancing factor.  In 9 years’ time, A will be 12 years old, and entering that phase of her life when children face their most significant challenges and most need strong connections with their parents.  At the risk of stating the obvious, A’s grandparents will then be 9 years older than they are now.  Parenting of teenagers is no task for the faint of heart or for the advanced in years.  When she is a teenager, A will need parents with whom she is closely bonded and who are young enough to bear up under the strains of parenting an adolescent.  For that reason, Mr. V and Ms. D need to start building now the relationship with A which they will need 9 years from now.  It is in A’s best interest that the parents now take primary responsibility for A’s parenting, and that the grandparents resume the role of grandparents rather than surrogate parents.

[25]        If A moves to Kitimat and Mr. V remains in Nanaimo, A will spend up to 50 hours per week in day care.  That is considerably more than one would hope for, and is a significant factor to consider.  If both A and Mr. V move to Kitimat, it is likely that Mr. V and Ms. D could arrange their work schedules in such a way as to allow Mr. V parenting time during a significant part of the time when A would otherwise be in day care.  That would serve the twin objectives of reducing the day care time and fostering the relationship between Mr. V and A.

[26]        If A moves to Kitimat, Ms. D will continue with her present employment in that city.  She says, and I accept, that it is an excellent career opportunity for her, and is likely to lead to promotion to a managerial position (to which she aspires).  

[27]        If A does not move to Kitimat, Ms. D will return to Nanaimo.  In that event:

[28]        The Greater Vancouver option offers Ms. D better employment prospects than does Vancouver Island, but lesser prospects than Kitimat.  There are jobs for electricians in Greater Vancouver, but there is more competition for those jobs than in northern communities and they pay less well.  Housing costs are significantly higher in Greater Vancouver than in Kitimat.  If A lives in Vancouver, it is to be expected that she would see her grandparents frequently, either in Greater Vancouver or in Nanaimo (which are about 2 hours apart by car and ferry).  Mr. V could continue to live in Nanaimo and still have parenting time with A on his present schedule.  

[29]        The problem with the Greater Vancouver option is that its success would be critically dependent upon the ability of Ms. D and Mr. V to cooperate.  To put that in perspective, a typical weekend visit between A and her father would proceed as follows.  Ms. D would pick up A from school or day care at 4:00 p.m. Friday and drive to one of the Vancouver ferry terminals, arriving at 5:00 or 5:30.  They would board a ferry and travel to one of the Nanaimo terminals, arriving at 6:30 or 7:00, where they would meet one of the grandparents.  Ms. D would return to Vancouver by ferry, arriving home about 9:00 p.m.  The grandparent would deliver A to Mr. V about 7:30 or 8:00 p.m.  Mr. V would return A to a grandparent at 3:00 p.m. on Sunday.  The grandparent and A would board a ferry at 3:30 or 4:00 p.m. and deliver A to Ms. D at a Vancouver ferry terminal at 5:00 or 5:30 p.m.  The grandparent would then return by ferry to Nanaimo, arriving home about 8:00 p.m.  The intercession of the grandparents would be necessary because Ms. D and Mr. V are not on speaking terms.  The grandparents have always acted as intermediaries at the inception and end of each visit between A and Mr. V because A ought not to be exposed to the manifest hostility between her parents.  

[30]        I have heard a number of court applications in other cases arising from arrangements like those described above.  They are fraught with many difficulties.  If any participant is late, or ill, or otherwise absent, the other participants have to flex to find a workable solution for that visit.  The travel is very tiring for everyone, particularly for the children.  As the children get older, they want to spend their weekends with their friends, not riding a ferry to visit a parent.  As A’s grandparents age, their ability and willingness to carry the load will diminish.  Such difficulties can be managed with good will and a spirit of cooperation.  Those qualities are markedly absent from the relationship between Mr. V and Ms. D. When I made the existing order in August, 2013, I hoped that the hostility between Mr. V and Ms. D would diminish with the passage of time and the assistance of a clearly-defined schedule for Mr. V’s parenting time.  That hope has been disappointed.  They are as little able to cooperate now as they were a year ago.

[31]        It will be apparent that I am asked to choose among imperfect options.  In my judgment:

[32]        Ms. D will be permitted to relocate A to Kitimat.  The parties may schedule a hearing on the issue of Mr. V’s parenting time if they are unable to agree on that issue.  If such a hearing is scheduled, Ms. D may, if she chooses, participate via video link from the Terrace courthouse.  If she wishes to do that, she should make arrangements with the Judicial Case Manager at least a week before the hearing date.