Williamson v. Williamson, (2016) 383 B.C.A.C. 135 (CA)

• Judge: Bennett, Stromberg-Stein and Savage, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: February 19, 2016
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2016), 383 B.C.A.C. 135 (CA);2016 BCCA 87

Williamson v. Williamson (2016), 383 B.C.A.C. 135 (CA);

    661 W.A.C. 135

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.052

Darin Mark Williamson (appellant/respondent) v. Doreen Lynn Williamson (respondent/claimant)

(CA42895; 2016 BCCA 87)

Indexed As: Williamson v. Williamson

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Bennett, Stromberg-Stein and Savage, JJ.A.

February 19, 2016.

Summary:

The parties had four children ranging from 12 to 18 years old. Until May 2015, two children resided with each parent, and all four had gone significant periods of time without seeing the other parent. On May 6, 2015, the mother applied for orders that all four children attend inpatient counselling at the Family Reflections Reunification Program (FRRP) in Kelowna, and that she be granted sole interim guardianship of the children during the course of that treatment. She also sought an order that the father cease all communication with the children during that treatment, and that he complete a counselling program before he could visit the children again without supervision. The basis for the application was that the father was allegedly in continued breach of court orders and had systematically tried to alienate the children from their mother. The father opposed all orders sought. He noted a similar (or identical) application had been brought in December 2014, and dismissed on January 12, 2015, by Justice Armstrong. The father also objected to the filing of a counsellor's report prepared by Finlay. The chambers judge granted all orders sought by the mother. The father appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the chambers judge. The application before the chambers judge amounted to an application to vary Armstrong, J.'s order. Therefore the chambers judge should not have proceeded with the mother's application without finding a material change in circumstances. There was not a material change in circumstance since Armstrong, J.'s decision. The court further stated that "the Chambers judge made what amounts to draconian orders, changing custody, guardianship and parental rights to access to the children, and cutting off contact with one parent, the father, without finding him 'guilty' of alienation. In fact, the judge said he could not say which parent was 'guilty' of alienation. In my view, such a drastic order should never have been considered absent a finding of alienation on the part of the father, and absent careful consideration of alternative remedies besides the FRRP, which has been described as a 'last resort'".

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Family Law - Topic 1891

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Conduct of parents (incl. parental alienation) - See paragraphs 39 to 46.

Family Law - Topic 1947

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Changed circumstances - General - See paragraphs 29 to 38.

Family Law - Topic 2034

Custody and access - Supplementary orders - Compulsory counselling - See paragraphs 1 to 53.

Cases Noticed:

J.C.W. v. J.K.R.W., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 488; 2014 BCSC 488, refd to. [para. 19].

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. 30].

Boychuck v. Singleton (2008), 259 B.C.A.C. 188; 436 W.A.C. 188; 2008 BCCA 355, refd to. [para. 30].

J.W.M. v. J.L.M. (2012), 326 B.C.A.C. 18; 554 W.A.C. 18; 2012 BCCA 324, refd to. [para. 30].

Gilmour v. Herrick, [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1591; 2013 BCSC 1591, refd to. [para. 31].

Bradley v. Bradley, [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1587; 2015 BCSC 1587, refd to. [para. 31].

J.D.C. v. K.L.M.F.C., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2182; 2014 BCSC 2182, refd to. [para. 31].

L.G. v. R.G., [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1365; 2012 BCSC 1365, refd to. [para. 39].

D.S.W. v. D.A.W., [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1522; 2012 BCSC 1522, refd to. [para. 40].

N.R.G. v. G.R.G., [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1062; 2015 BCSC 1062, refd to. [para. 41].

A.A. v. S.N.A. (2007), 243 B.C.A.C. 301; 401 W.A.C. 301; 2007 BCCA 363, refd to. [para. 45].

M. v. M., [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1297; 2015 BCSC 1297, refd to. [para. 46].

L.D.K. v. M.A.K., [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 226; 2015 BCSC 226, refd to. [para. 46].

Abbott and Haliburton Co. Ltd. et al. v. WBLI Chartered Accountants, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 182; 470 N.R. 324; 360 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 1135 A.P.R. 1; 2015 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 47].

Luo v. Le, 2016 ONSC 202 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

D.S.W. v. D.A.W., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 514; 2014 BCSC 514, refd to. [para. 49].

Counsel:

Appellant appearing in person;

R. Swartzberg, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 19, 2016, at Vancouver, B.C., before Bennett, Stromberg-Stein and Savage, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Stromberg-Stein, J.A., on the same date.