J. QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2009 SKQB 36 Date: 2009 01 20 Docket: F.L.D. 282 OF 2008 Judicial Centre: Regina BETWEEN: MICHAEL LUND and LESLY BARABONOFF Counsel: Kara-Dawn Jordan for the petitioner Jeffrey Brick for the respondent FIAT OTTENBREIT J. January 20, 2009 [1] This is an application to determine interim parenting for the child, Kaira, who is 2 ½ years old. There is conflicting affidavit evidence respecting the nature and extent of the father’s parenting duties while the parties lived together. The mother, Lesly, says that the father, Mike, had limited involvement with the child. Mike says he was involved in feeding, teaching and dressing Kaira and shared other parental duties. [2] Lesly left with Kaira to go to Victoria after the separation and by consent court order returned Kaira to Saskatchewan. There has been further order allowing parenting time to both parents. The parties have been unable to resolve the issues of parenting and relocation to Victoria at pre-trial conference. [3] Lesly has chosen to move to Victoria to attend school. She applies as the primary parent to have the child with her. The issues of parenting and mobility are clearly unresolved and may go to trial. [4] Mike would like Kaira to remain in Saskatchewan and have regular contact with each parent alternating each week. He argues that relocating Kaira is inappropriate given the issues and would not give proper emphasis to the status quo. Counsel for Mike cites Gilbert v. Wildman 2006 SKQB 291 (CanLII) and Thomas v. Lavoie 2008 SKQB 93 (CanLII) as cases where mobility was not allowed. She distinguishes the mother’s cases Stomp v. Cadman 2008 SKQB 293 (CanLII) and Shiplack v. Shiplack 2008 SKQB 254 (CanLII). She argues that the child has strong bond with Mike and his family. Additionally she points out that Lesly’s support network is in Regina and not in Victoria. [5] Counsel for Lesly candidly admits that there will be trial respecting Kaira’s residence. He argues that the status quo is the attachment the child has with the primary parent and that is Lesly. He points out that Mike initially only provided generalities respecting his parenting and only provided detail in response to Lesly’s affidavit. He argues that Mike does not have the time to parent given his schedule. Lesly’s school course will be months long. He argues that for those months or at least until trial, Kaira should reside with Lesley although he acknowledges Mike should see Kaira every third month. He proposes sharing the transportation costs. [6] Mobility issues are to be determined by reference to principles in Gordon v. Goertz (1996), 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), 141 Sask. R. 241; (1996), 134 D.L.R. (4th) 321, which are well known and which are germane to the case. Both Shiplack, supra and Stomp, supra are in my view exceptions to the general approach that the status quo is to be maintained unless there are compelling reasons not to do so as were found in both cases. The dicta of Wilson J. in paragraph 19 of Shiplack, supra is instructive re these kind of cases. There is no compelling reason to allow mobility in this case merely because the mother has made some unilateral decisions about her education. [7] The residence status quo in this case is Regina and Kaira shall, pending trial, reside in Regina. I cannot determine on conflicting affidavits what the primary parent status quo is. [8] Lesly has chosen to take school in Victoria but that does not mean even if Lesly is the primary parent that the child should, pending trial, live with her. Nevertheless, Kaira will need maximum contact with both parents. It is in the best interest of Kaira that she see both parents. However, because of the distance, frequent changes in parenting may not be possible. There was similar course in Saskatoon that Lesly could have taken which would have made more frequent changes possible but her affidavit indicates that she thinks the course was inferior to the one she is taking in Victoria. [9] There will be an order that pending trial and until further order, Kaira shall be parented by Mike from January 20, 2009 for a period of 28 days and thereafter by Lesly for a period of 28 days and such parenting will continue to alternate for each 28 day period thereafter until further order. [10] Kaira shall, for the purposes of this parenting, be returned to Regina for Mike to parent by 9:00 p.m. of the 28th day of Lesly’s parenting period. Mike shall provide Kaira to Lesly by 9:30 a.m. of the 28th day of his parenting if Lesly wants to parent in Regina or to her parents for the purposes of transporting Kaira to Victoria if Lesly wants to parent in Victoria. [11] The costs of transporting Kaira should, in my view, be borne primarily by Lesly. She has made choices which have resulted in greater expense to insure that Kaira sees both parents. Accordingly, the cost of transporting Kaira to and from Victoria shall be borne by Lesly. However it is fair that Mike contribute something to this cost. Mike shall pay to Lesly, for each occasion that Kaira travels to Victoria for parenting time with Lesly, the sum of $150.00 but only for the trip from Regina to Victoria. Lesly shall advise Mike if Kaira will on each occasion be transported to Victoria for parenting time with her. For the purpose of Lesly’s parenting time, one or both of Lesly’s parents may transport Kaira. [12] During the time that Kaira is being parented by each parent, the other parent shall have telephone access to Kaira every second day at 7:00 p.m. Regina time during Mike’s parenting time and 7:00 p.m. Victoria time during Lesly’s parenting time as the case may be and each parent shall provide to the other telephone numbers where Kaira may be reached and shall make Kaira available for such telephone access. [13] Costs shall be costs in the cause. J. R.K. OTTENBREIT
FIAT: This is an application to determine interim parenting for the child, Kaira, who is 2.5 years old. There is conflicting information about the nature and extent of the petitioner father's parenting duties. The respondent has chosen to move to Victoria to attend school. She applies as the primary parent to have the child go with her. The petitioner would like Kaira to remain in Saskatchewan and have regular contact with each parent on alternating weeks. HELD: 1) The residence status quo in this case is Regina and Kaira shall, pending trial, reside in Regina. The Court cannot determine on conflicting affidavits what the primary parent status quo is. 2) It is in the best interest that the child see both parents. There was a similar course in Saskatoon that the respondent could have taken which would have made more frequent changes possible, but her affidavit indicates she thinks the Saskatoon course is inferior to the one she is taking in Victoria. 3) Pending trial the child shall be parented by the petitioner for 28 days, and thereafter by the respondent for 28 days and such parenting shall continue to alternate for each 28 day period thereafter until further order. The costs of transportation shall be born primarily by the respondent.