A CASE STUDY: M.P.v.P.P. 2024 BCSC 2138

 Judge: Justice Bantourakis

Judgement Rendered: November 27, 2024

Issues/ orders Sought: The mother, Ms. P. wants to relocate with the children to the United States. She was unsuccessful.

Counsel for the Claimant: R.S. Roxborough; R. Goddard Articled student

Counsel for the Respondent: J.F. Brown & N. Propp

Facts:

This case is highly acrimonious. The parties disagree on most of the major issues.

Ms. P has an undergraduate degree in Spanish; she met Mr. P when she was 28 years old. Mr. P is 14 years older and is an entrepreneur and owns a motorcycle business. He owns two properties.

The parties met online in 2017 while Ms. P was living in the United States and Mr. P was living in British Columbia. Ms. P moved in with Mr. P in 2017, they married in 2019, their first son was born in March 2020 from which time Ms. P became a fulltime homemaker. Their second child was born in 2021.  The parties separated March 21, 2022 after an altercation the police attended, Mr. P was arrested, there was a no-contact order and Ms. P and the children moved into a shelter for domestic violence.

Ms. P obtained an without notice order which allowed her to relocate with the children to Navada, this order was set aside and they returned to BC in November of 2022.

At the time of trial Ms. P was working a part-time job and had received income assistance from the government from time to time.

Unfortunately for the Justice credibility was an issue for both parties:

[29] Because of this, I have generally not accepted a party’s evidence on a contested issue unless, for example, it harmonizes with other independent evidence I have accepted, is reasonable and likely in light of uncontroversial facts, and/or remained consistent despite meaningful and probing cross-examination: see e.g. Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398 at paras. 186-188.

Commentary: there was not much in the way of commentary with respect to the court finding against Ms. P’s relocation request. The court commented on the negative impact of the relocation on the relationship between the children and Mr. P. Further, Ms. P indicated to the court that her request to move with the children was financial, she would not be asking to move if she was financially stable in BC. The court indicated that the outcome of the trial would attenuate Ms. P’s concerns

83] Ms. P. says she wants to relocate because she is able to offer the children a higher standard of living in Nevada and would face significantly less in the way of financial burden there. Here, she finds herself financially compromised, even having had to rely on social assistance. In Nevada, conversely, she is able to live in her grandfather’s home rent-free and is not expected to contribute much if anything to routine expenses such as groceries and utilities.

[84] While proximity to family is also important to Ms. P., as she has many close family members both in Nevada and neighbouring California, she says her dire financial situation is the main reason for her relocation application because it is affecting the children’s stability. In fact, she effectively says she would not be asking to relocate if she had some assurance of financial stability in the Lower Mainland. While she has raised family violence concerns in this litigation, Ms. P. does not rely on fears for her safety as a reason for relocating.