Glase v. Glase, (2011) 303 B.C.A.C. 167 (CA)

• Judge: Rowles, Levine and Garson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: March 30, 2011
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2011), 303 B.C.A.C. 167 (CA);2011 BCCA 167

Glase v. Glase (2011), 303 B.C.A.C. 167 (CA);

    512 W.A.C. 167

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.061

Eileen Ann Larkin, also known as Eileen Ann Glase (respondent/plaintiff) v. Howard Mervyn Glase (appellant/defendant)

(CA038117; 2011 BCCA 167)

Indexed As: Glase v. Glase

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, Levine and Garson, JJ.A.

April 1, 2011.

Summary:

The parties separated in 2006. There were four children of the marriage. The mother commenced a matrimonial action.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 549, granted the mother sole custody, but dismissed her application to relocate to P.E.I. (where she had family and friends) with the children (the mobility order). The court made orders regarding child and spousal support and the division of matrimonial property. The father failed to pay the spousal and child support ordered and also failed to pay a special costs order. The mother sought, inter alia, to vary the mobility order to allow her to relocate to P.E.I. with the children.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 509, allowed the application. The father appealed, seeking to set aside the mobility order.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: Related decisions involving these parties are reported at [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. 274 and (2009), 274 B.C.A.C. 1; 463 W.A.C. 1.

Family Law - Topic 1865

Custody and access - Duties and rights of custodian - To remove child from jurisdiction - The parties separated in 2006 - There were four children of the marriage - In March 2008, Warren, J., granted the mother sole custody, but dismissed her application to relocate to P.E.I. (where she had family and friends) with the children (the mobility order), anticipating that the orders that he made regarding child and spousal support and the division of matrimonial property would allow the mother and children to remain where they were - The father failed to pay the spousal and child support ordered and also failed to pay a special costs order - The mother sought, inter alia, to vary the mobility order to allow her to relocate to P.E.I. with the children - Grauer, J., found a material change in the circumstances in the fact that the entire support and costs regime designed by Warren, J., had not succeeded - Grauer, J., granted the mobility order, finding that the move was in the children's best interests in that enhancement of the mother's financial security and independence would benefit the children - The many positive effects of the relocation outweighed the guiding principle of maximum contact with each parent - In May 2010, the mother relocated with the children - The father appealed, seeking to set aside the mobility order - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Grauer, J., gave comprehensive reasons for the mobility order - The father did not assert that Grauer, J., made palpable and overriding errors in his determination of the facts, but invited the court to make other findings - However, appellate review was not a retrial - There was no basis on which to interfere with Grauer, J.'s exercise of discretion.

Family Law - Topic 1900

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Maximum contact with each parent - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Family Law - Topic 1916

Custody and access - Appeals - Standard of review - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Family Law - Topic 1947

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Changed circumstances - General - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Family Law - Topic 1948

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Change of residence of child - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518; 240 N.R. 312; 138 Man.R.(2d) 40; 202 W.A.C. 40, refd to. [para. 21].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 21].

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 24].

One v. One, [2000] B.C.T.C. 822; 2000 BCSC 1584, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

B.E. Bulmer, for the appellant;

K.S. Thompson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 30, 2011, by Rowles, Levine and Garson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On April 1, 2011, Rowles, J.A., delivered the following oral reasons for judgment for the court.