How to Fill Out a Notice of Family Claim or Notice of Counterclaim: What Orders Can You Ask For?

I was recently talking to a friend who's going through an unpleasant separation and now finds herself having to start a claim in the British Columbia Supreme Court. She had some questions about the orders she should be asking for in her Form F3 Notice of Family Claim, and I realized that the forms aren't always easy to figure out, particularly when it comes to deciding on the orders you want the court to make.

In this post, I'll review the Form F3 Notice of Family Claim, used to start a claim in the Supreme Court, and the Form F5 Counterclaim, used by someone one the other side of a claim to describe the orders they think the court should make. These forms are pretty much the same; what I say about one will apply to the other, except for the first part of the Notice of Family Claim which is very different from the first part of the Counterclaim. I won't talk much about the fill-in-the-blanks parts except where they might be confusing.

The Form

The style of cause

The style of cause is the top part on the first page of the Notice of Family Claim, where it says the court file number, the name of the court registry, your name and the other party's name, and "In the Supreme Court of British Columbia." This information will be given, in the same order, on all of the court forms you or the other side will use.

You are supposed to type out your full name and your ex's full name, including middle names. But here's a tip. If your names are spelled wrong in your marriage certificate, type out your names exactly as it says on the marriage certificate. Add "also known as" behind the misspelt name, and then type out the property spelling. For example, "John Quentinn Smith also known as John Quentin Smith." Not using the names given on the marriage certificate can cause problems when you're asking for a divorce order.

Paragraph 2: "Spousal Relationship History"

You only need to fill out the parts that apply. If you were never married or never got divorced, for example, leave those check boxes blank and don't add any dates. If you and the other party never married and never lived together, leave the whole paragraph blank.

Paragraph 3: "Prior Court Proceedings and Agreements"

This paragraph is asking you to describe any old order or agreements you and your ex might have, but only the ones that are relevant to your case. Criminal orders or orders about the adoption of a child, for example, are not relevant. However, if you have a marriage agreement or a separation agreement, or an order made between you in the Provincial Court or in another province, those are the things you should be talking about. The orders that you should list are final orders, or if there is no final order, then the last interim orders that were made.

Paragraph 5: "Place of Trial"

If you're starting the claim, the place of trial is the name of the town or city where you'll be filing your claim.

Schedule 1: Divorce

You only need to fill out this schedule if you're asking for a divorce. If you and the other party were never legally married, or if you're married but don't want a divorce for some reason, skip the entire schedule.

Paragraph 1: "Personal Information"

The information required for "ordinarily resident in British Columbia since" is the date when you started to live full-time in the province.

Paragraph 2: "Grounds for the Claimant's Claim for Divorce"

If you're asking for a divorce for a reason other than separation, the information needed for "other grounds" is either "adultery" or "cruelty making continued cohabitation impossible."

Paragraph 5: "Children"

In this paragraph, you are supposed to write out the full names and birth dates your children, which includes adopted children and any children you or your ex brought into your marriage. You don't have to include adult children unless they are still dependent on you or your ex and cannot support themselves.

Orders Available in this Schedule 

· Divorce

Schedule 2: Children

If you don't have children or aren't asking for any orders about the children, including orders for child support, skip the entire schedule.

Paragraph 1: "Identification of Children"

Under "child's relationship to the claimant" and "child's relationship to the respondent," what you're supposed to say is "natural child," "adopted child" or "stepchild."

Paragraph 3: "Current Arrangements for Parenting"

Here you should be describing, as simply as possible, how you and the other side are looking after the children now that you've separated. It can be really tempting to get down into the muck and dish some dirt, but avoid the temptation. If you say something mean and spiteful — even if it's true! — you risk annoying the other side and making your conflict worse than it already is.

Be accurate, be factual and avoid talking about things that aren't really relevant. Don't embellish the truth.

Paragraph 6: "Income of Person Asked to Pay Child Support"

If you're asking for an order that you pay child support to your ex, this paragraph applies to you. If you asking for an order that your ex pay child support to you, fill out the information about your ex's situation.

Where it asks you for the facts which explain why you believe your ex's income is a certain amount, you might say something like "because I prepared his income tax return for last year," "because he told me this was his income," "because her boss told me that this is what she makes" or "because this is the average wage of junior carpenters according to Statistics Canada."

Paragraph 7: "Proposed Child Support Arrangements"

"Special expenses" are the children's expenses for big-ticket items like daycare, music lessons, summer camp, school trips, tutoring, sports teams and so forth. Although not every expense will qualify as a special expenses, you should probably write them down anyway.

Orders Available in this Schedule

· Custody and access under the Divorce Act

· Parental responsibilities, parenting time and contact under the Family Law Act 

· Child support and the payment of special expenses

Schedule 3: Spousal Support

If you're not asking for spousal support, or if you're not married or don't qualify as a "spouse" under the Family Law Act, skip this schedule.

Paragraph 2: "Proposed Spousal Support Arrangements"

Describe how much support you'd like to get, or to pay, how often it should be paid and the length of time it should be paid for. The length of time for a spousal support order can be tricky. You might be specific, and say something like "for five years," or you might link the end of support to "when the claimant obtains full-time employment" or "two years after the claimant finishes job training," or you might just say "indefinitely."

Orders Available in this Schedule

· Spousal support

Schedule 4: Property

If you're not asking for orders about property (including family property, family debt or excluded property), skip this schedule.

Paragraph 1A: "Property and Debt Claims under the Family Law Act"

This part is only for claims to split family property and family debt; read the definition of these terms at ss. 84 and 86 of the Family Law Act.

If you are asking for anything other than an equal split, you have to explain why and it'll help if you read the reasons why the court can make such orders at s. 95(2) of the Family Law Act. You don't get to ask for more of the property because your ex cheated on you, or was unpleasant or lazy. You should limit your explanation to the one or more of the reasons set out in s. 95(2).

The "legal description" of property is the long description you'll find in your Notice of Assessment, property tax levy or the contract for the purchase of the property, that talks about lot numbers, blocks and parcel identifier numbers and looks like this:

PID: 123-456-789
Lot 12, District Lot 34, Block 56, Plan 789, New Westminster Land District

You need to include all of this information in the form.

Paragraph 1B: "Other Property Claims"

This part is where you can ask for:

1. a share of excluded property; 
2. an interest in property under the principles of unjust enrichment and trusts; 
3. an interest in property resulting from a contract; or,
4. an interest in property under any law other than the Family Law Act or common law principles.

An "order for compensation instead of an interest in the property" means that you want to get cash for your interest in the property rather than to become a legal co-owner of the property in which you have the interest.

Orders Available in this Schedule

· Equal or unequal division of family property and family debt under the Family Law Act 

· Division of excluded property under the Family Law Act 

· An interest, or compensation for an interest, in other property based on other legal principles 

· The registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (a kind of lien) against the title of real property under the Land Title Act

Schedule 5: Other Orders

This is where the form gets interesting, because this is where you can ask for the orders that weren't listed in the other schedules. Orders you could ask for under the Family Law Act include:

Married Relationships

· An declaration that a marriage is annulled or is void. 

Children

· A declaration about who are the parents of a child, or an order that a parentage test be performed 

· A declaration about who are the guardians of a child 

· An order that somebody be appointed or removed as the guardian of a child 

· An order that someone's parenting time or contact be on conditions, like not smoking or not drinking when with the child, or be supervised 

· An order that a guardian must not relocate with the child without the court's permission or your agreement 

· An order enforcing an agreement on parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact 

· An order changing an agreement on parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact 

· An order recognizing or superseding an order on parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact made outside British Columbia 

· An order for the appointment of a mental health professional to prepare a needs of the child assessment 

· An order for the appointment of a mental health professional or anther person to prepare a views of the child report 

· An order for the appointment of a parenting coordinator when the final order or a final agreement is made

Child Support and Spousal Support

· An order that income be imputed to someone, usually for the calculation of that person's child support obligation or share of the children's special expenses 

· An order for the payment of the mother's prenatal and birth expenses 

· An order that support be paid wholly or partially as a lump sum 

· An order that an obligation to pay child support or spousal support be retroactive, that is, that it start at an earlier point in time 

· An order that an obligation to pay child support or spousal support must be paid by the payor's estate after his or her death 

· An order changing an agreement for child support or spousal support 

· An order for the payment of arrears of child support or spousal support 

· An order for the cancellation or reduction of arrears of child support or spousal support

Property

· An order for the interim division or sale of family property, including to pay for out-of-court dispute resolution 

· An order that only you have the right to live in the house, called an order for "exclusive occupancy" 

· An order that someone pay the rent, taxes, utilities and other costs of the family home, or that someone be prevented from cancelling the utilities for the family home 

· An order that someone be prevented from selling property or using it as collateral for a loan 

· An order for the appointment of a joint expert to value property or a business

Safety

· An order restricting communication and contact between you and the other party 

· An order that someone not go to a certain place or places 

· An order that someone be prevented from carrying weapons 

· An order that the police must remove someone from the family home

Court and Other Processes

· An order cancelling or discontinuing someone's claim 

· A declaration that the British Columbia court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear a claim 

· An order that someone must give you certain documents in his or her possession 

· An order that you and the other party must try dispute resolution like mediation, collaborative settlement processes or arbitration 

· An order that you, the other party and/or the child must attend counselling

Orders available under other laws and legal principles include injunctions, declarations about the status of contracts, orders about real property under the Land Title Act, orders about property under the law of trusts and unjust enrichment, changes of name and so on.

I've provided a long, but incomplete, list of the potential other orders the court could make. However, you must always think of the long- as well as sort-term effects of what you're asking for. Sometimes the anger and hurt feelings caused by just asking for a particular order are way worse that the problem you're trying to address. Sometimes, even though you're right, the effort and cost of getting an order is totally out of proportion to the actual problem.

As a general rule, you don't want to inflame things; you want the claim you're starting or answering to be handled as cooperatively as possible.

Update: 26 April 2014

Blank copies of the Notice of Family Claim and Counterclaim forms are available from my wikibook in PDF and Word formats, along with examples of what the forms look like when they're filled out correctly.

The very excellent people at Courthouse Libraries BC have added various bits and pieces of this post as annotations to the Notice of Family Claim form. Download the annotated form from the wikibook (PDF); you must save the form to your computer to see the annotations. Since the schedules to the Notice of Family Claim form are the same for the Counterclaim form, you can use Notice of Family Claim to fill out the schedules to the Counterclaim.

Bill Amending Family Law Act Tabled

On 3 March 2014, Minister of Justice Suzanne Anton tabled Bill 14, which, if passed, will become the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014. The bill contains a number of amendments to the legislation on family law matters in British Columbia: the Adult Guardianship Act, the new Family Law Act, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and the new Wills, Estates and Succession Act when it comes into force. In this post, I will briefly outline the amendments to the Family Law Act.

Trust Property

Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the bill are designed to clear up certain problems relating to the status of trust property. The amendments make it clear that a spouse's beneficial interest in property, as well as property bought using the spouse's beneficial interest, is presumed to be family property to be divided between the spouses. However, if the beneficial interest concerns property held in a discretionary trust (a trust in which the distribution of property and to whom it will distributed is decided by the trustee, not the beneficiaries or the person who created the trust) and the spouse did not contribute to or create the trust, the beneficial interest is excluded from the pool of family assets to be divided.

Gifts

Section 13 of the bill would amend the act to make it clear that the only gifts that are excluded from the pool of family property to be divided are gifts from third parties. This is really important, because the way the Family Law Act currently reads, gifts between spouses are excluded from the pool of family property, and spouses often make decisions about how property is owned for tax reasons, to protect the property from creditors and to plan the distribution of their estates

Foreign Property

Sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the bill go some way toward cleaning up the extraordinarily incomprehensible provisions of the Family Law Act on property located outside of British Columbia that is, or might be, family property. These provisions are found in Division 6 of Part 5 and are horrifically complicated, and as a result I won't say more about it. I have written a paper on the foreign property provisions of the act which may be available from the Continuing Legal Education Society of BC.

Protection Orders

Sections 18 and 29 of the bill, would add the Criminal Code definitions of "firearm" and "weapon" to the definitions for Part 8 of the Family Law Act, the part that deals with protections orders, and clarify that a protection order can not only prohibit someone from possessing firearms and weapons, but also the licences, certificates, authorizations and whatnot relating to the firearms and weapons. A protection order can also prohibit someone from possessing "a specified object."

Consolidation of Multiple Proceedings

Section 20 of the bill makes it clear that the court can join two or more proceedings together. This will be most useful when there is a proceeding between two parents about parenting time, for example, and a relative starts a separate proceeding seeking contact with the same child. Since any order made in the second proceeding would impact on the order made in the first proceeding, a party could apply for an order that both proceedings be joined and dealt with together.

Needs of the Child Assessments

Sections 21 and 23 of the bill, would amend the Family Law Act provisions on needs of the child assessments, formerly called custody and access reports, so that only particular people with particular training and experience — to be established by regulation — are able to conduct needs of the child assessments.

The Essential Case Law on the Family Law Act to Date

The Family Law Act has been law in British Columbia for seven months now, and, as regular readers of my blog will know, the courts have released a number of critical decisions interpreting and applying the new legislation. Here is a list of the cases that I think are among the most important, and the main subjects addressed by each case.

The numbers and letters after the name of each case is the legal citation for that case. ("2013" is the year in which the decision was published, "BCPC" or "BCSC" means the British Columbia Provincial Court or the British Columbia Supreme Court, and the last number is the number of the decision among all of the decisions released by the court that year.) You can use the citation to find the case on CanLII if the hyperlinks stop working for some reason.

Child Support 

S.M.L. v R.X.R., 2013 BCPC 123: basic principles regarding child support under the old Family Relations Act continue to apply under the new act except that there are new grounds to vary a child support order 

M.A. v. F.A., 2013 BCSC 1077: when a minor child will be considered to have "voluntarily withdrawn" from the care of his or her guardians for the purposes of child support

Children: Best Interests 

Hadjioannou v Hadjioannou, 2013 BCSC 1682: the best interests of children are determined by a review of the facts and each of the factors listed in s. 37(2) of the new act 

G.B. v L.A.P., 2013 BCSC 1490: the best interests of children are determined by a review of the facts and each of the factors listed in s. 37(2) of the new act 

Children: Guardianship 

D.Q.L. v W.D.H., 2013 BCSC 1291: the rights and responsibilities of guardians under the act are enough for guardians to care for the child and an interim order under the Divorce Act may not be necessary 

Rashtian v Baragoush, 2013 BCSC 994: orders for custody under the Divorce Act may supplemented for orders for the distribution of parental responsibilities under the new act 

Van Kooten v More, 2013 BCSC 1076: the Joyce model of guardianship adapted for the new act 

G.P. v M.J.R.P., 2013 BCSC 746: the Joyce model of guardianship adapted for the new act 

C.K.B.M. v G.M., 2013 BCSC 836: the Joyce model of guardianship adapted for custody orders under the Divorce Act 

Hansen v Mantei-Hansen, 2013 BCCS 876: the Joyce model of guardianship adapted for custody orders under the Divorce Act 

Children: Guardianship Applications 

J.L.M. v. G.A.T., 2013 BCPC 96: Provincial Court may make orders declaring a person to be a guardian of a child 

T.C. v S.C., 2013 BCPC 217: parent may be made a guardian on an interim basis but must file required affidavit within 60 days 

Director and L.M.P., L.M.P. v K.P. and others, 2013 BCPC 206: the sort of criminal records check required of persons applying to be appointed as the guardian of a child 

S.T.H. v R.M.G., 2013 BCPC 114: new act does not allow applications for "sole guardianship," such applications are applications to remove a person as the guardian of a child 

D. v D., 2013 BCPC 135: a person should not be removed as the guardian of a child except in extreme circumstances 

Children: Relocation Applications 

Berry v Berry, 2013 BCSC 1095: the degree of impact necessary for a move to qualify as a "relocation" under s. 65 of the new act 

T.C. v S.C., 2013 BCPC 217: parent may be made a guardian on an interim basis to provide parent with standing to object to relocation 

T.C. v S.C., 2013 BCPC 217: one of two critical cases on relocation, the analysis of "good faith" under s. 69, and the analysis the court must undertake in deciding whether to allow or refuse an application to relocate 

L.J.R. v S.W.R., 2013 BCSC 1344: second of two critical cases on relocation and the analysis the court must undertake in deciding whether to allow or refuse an application to relocate 

M.K.A. v A.F.W., 2013 BCSC 1415: the amount of time a guardian must have with a child to be "substantially equal" time under s. 69 for the purposes of relocation applications 

S.B. v N.L., 2013 BCPC 233: what happens when someone opposing a relocation fails to object within the thirty days allowed; the degree of proof required to establish delivery of a notice of relocation 

Court Procedure 

J.L.M. v. G.A.T., 2013 BCPC 96: Provincial Court may make orders declaring a person to be a guardian of a child 

J.D.G. v J.J.V., 2013 BCSC 1274: the availability of fines under s. 213 of the new act when someone fails to produce a financial statement with the deadlines set out in the Rules of Court 

M.J.S. v A.D., 2013 BCPC 230: the availability of orders under s. 221 for fines and prohibiting a party from making further applications without leave; applications for intervenor status in family law proceedings 

Division of Property and Debt 

Reynolds v Huard, 2013 BCSC 1251: unmarried spouses cannot add property claims under the new act if they are not within the two year time limit set out in s. 198 of the new act 

Asselin v Roy, 2013 BCSC 1681: the first case on the division of family property and family debt under the new act 

Divorce Act 

D.Q.L. v W.D.H., 2013 BCSC 1291: the rights and responsibilities of guardians under the act are enough for guardians to care for the child and an interim order under the Divorce Act may not be necessary 

Hansen v Mantei-Hansen, 2013 BCCS 876: relationship between orders for the care of children under the new act and the Divorce Act; when orders must be made under the Divorce Act 

Rashtian v Baragoush, 2013 BCSC 994: orders for custody under the Divorce Act may supplemented for orders for the distribution of parental responsibilities under the new act 

Family Violence 

M.W.B. v A.R.B., 2013 BCSC 885: a party's conduct of a court proceeding may amount to family violence 

D.J.K. v J.J.K., 2013 BCPC 223: "family member" for the purposes of protection orders includes a parent's adult child 

N.P. v I.V., 2013 BCSC 1323: factors in making protection order 

L.M. v L.S., 2013 BCSC 796: factors in making protection order

I have written more extensively about many of these decisions elsewhere in this blog; click the "Family Law Act" label below to find them.

Litigation Conduct may Constitute "Family Violence" under the Family Law Act

In the recently-released decision in M.W.B. v. A.R.B., the Supreme Court has characterized a party's approach to the litigation with her husband as "family violence" within the meaning of s. 1 of the Family Law Act, and taken the violence into account, as the court must when family violence is present, in assessing the best interests of the parties' child under s. 37 of the act. To properly understand the court's reasoning you must read the decision itself. I will try, however, to provide the highlights.

The issues before the court involved applications by each party brought about a year and a half after the trial decision. It is clear from the decision that the parties had been engaged in an extraordinary degree of conflict long before trial. (Although costs are unreliably awarded in family law cases, they will be awarded where the court wishes to signal its disapproval of a party's conduct. In this case, the trial resulted in the husband being awarded costs, special costs and a penalty under s. 92 of the old Family Relations Act for the wife's failure to make property disclosure of her finances!) This continued after trial, largely, it would seem, manifested in the wife's obstructionist attitude toward carrying out her obligations from the trial judgment. The court summarized the wife's conduct as follows:

[7] Pointing to the Respondent’s obstructive and grossly negligent conduct leading up to the January 2013 sale of the parties’ jointly owned commercial property, the Claimant seeks financial compensation or a further reapportionment under s. 66(2)(c) of the FRA. Her conduct has caused the parties to suffer a large loss of equity in the jointly owned family asset... 

[10] The high-conflict divorce trial took place about two and a half years ago ... in August 2011. The parties represented themselves. The orders made following the trial were aimed at stabilizing the parties’ finances, reducing conflict, regularizing parental access and, overall, to help the parties move forward. Those objectives were not realized as the Respondent’s conduct worsened the parties’ financial circumstances and conflict continued. 

[11] Following trial, the parties engaged the Court in four additional proceedings, all driven by the Respondent’s refusal to settle orders and costs in a reasonable way, her interference with the Claimant’s access and her obstruction of the sale of the commercial property. 

[12] The resulting litigation-related stress generated by the Respondent has caused the Claimant time, trouble and expense that in turn have contributed to a significant medical issue.

The rest of the rather lengthy decision expands on each of these concerns in much more detail. In any event, the primary issue before the court, was the husband's application to have the primary residence of one the parties' two children transferred to him, which would result in the child's relocation from the eastern side of the province to live with him on the western side of the province.

In analyzing this aspect of the application, the court first commented that the trial had been held when the Family Relations Act was in force, that by the time of the hearing, the old act had been repealed and replaced by the Family Law Act and that it was the new act which therefore applied to the application.

The court then observed that under s. 37 of the new act, the best interests of the children are the only factor to be taken into account and that "this principle applies to all existing child custody questions." The judge further observed that s. 37 requires a consideration of family violence, and that where family violence is present, the court must consider the additional factors set out at s. 38. This is where things get interesting.

First, the court reviewed the definition of family violence at s. 1 of the act. These are the parts of the definition which the court considered to be the most relevant to the case, as emphasized by the judge:

(d) psychological or emotional abuse of a family member, including

(i) intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats, including threats respecting other persons, pets or property, 

(ii) unreasonable restrictions on, or prevention of, a family member's financial or personal autonomy, ... 

(iv) intentional damage to property, and

(e) in the case of a child, direct or indirect exposure to family violence;

Second, applying these factors to the facts of the case, the court reached the following conclusions:

[199] I find the [wife's] litigation conduct, related both to the selling of the commercial property and to parenting arrangements, considered in their totality, is a form of emotional abuse and harassment that constitute a form of family violence. 

[200] The [wife's] conduct and needless litigation has forced the [husband] to incur litigation expenses, damaging his financial well-being and health. This hindered his capacity to preserve parenting time with the children. Litigation has used up much of his emotional and financial resources. ...

[204] The best interests of children suffer when abusive oppositional behaviour and litigation fomented by one parent’s conduct harms the health and financial well-being of the other parent. This in turn harms the children’s economic safety and security. 

[205] Further, the [wife's] reckless and oppositional behaviour connected with the commercial property has damaged the children’s safety, and economic security. It effectively deprived them of receiving any benefit from sale of the property, endangered the [husband's] capacity to support the children and consumed money the [husband] could have used for a greater number of parent time visits. The [wife] knew her delaying and oppositional conduct harmed the [husband's] capacity to pay the cost of access visits. 

[206] If a parent’s abusive conduct harms the well-being of the other parent to the extent they may have to go on stress leave, this negatively impacts the child’s economic security. ... 

[208] The Respondent knew or ought to have known the impact her conduct was having on the Claimant’s financial situation; the Claimant made it clear to her. From this, I infer the Respondent is prepared to let her anger at the Claimant influence her to act in a way that indirectly harms the best interests of the children. I find the Claimant will not conduct himself in that way; the litigation history proves otherwise. 

[209] In summary, I find that the Respondent has directed violence at the Claimant that has indirectly harmed the children’s psychological and emotional well-being and economic security. ...

Finally, the court analyzed each of the s. 37 factors in detail to reach the ultimate decision that the child should move and live with the husband:

[260] As matters stand, having considered and now applying s. 37 of the [Family Law Act], ss. 8 - 11 of the [Divorce Act], the authorities, and all the evidence, I find that an order varying the custody order to designate the [husband] a principal residence caregiver is strongly in [the child's] best interests. I order accordingly...

In my view, there are two important points to be drawn from this remarkable decision.

Most importantly, in assessing the best interests of the child, each of the best interests factors set out in s. 37(2) must be considered individually. This step-by-step approach is critical because the factors are prefaced by this statement: "to determine what is in the best interests of a child, all of the child's needs and circumstances must be considered, including the following." Since each of the factors "must" be considered, the take-away message for lawyers and litigants is that you must provide the court with evidence on each of the s. 37(2) factors when making an application concerning children. For ease of reference they are:

(a) the child's health and emotional well-being; 

(b) the child's views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them; 

(c) the nature and strength of the relationships between the child and significant persons in the child's life; 

(d) the history of the child's care;  

(e) the child's need for stability, given the child's age and stage of development; 

(f) the ability of each person who is a guardian or seeks guardianship of the child, or who has or seeks parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact with the child, to exercise his or her responsibilities; 

(g) the impact of any family violence on the child's safety, security or well-being, whether the family violence is directed toward the child or another family member; 

(h) whether the actions of a person responsible for family violence indicate that the person may be impaired in his or her ability to care for the child and meet the child's needs; 

(i) the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child's guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child, including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or well-being of the child or other family members; 

(j) any civil or criminal proceeding relevant to the child's safety, security or well-being.

The other point is that the Family Law Act appears to have introduced at least three mechanisms to address misconduct in the litigation process, in addition to the existing provisions for frivolous and vexatious litigants set out at s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act.

1. either court may make an order prohibiting someone from taking further steps in a case where the party has made an application that is trivial, is conducting the case in a manner that is a misuse of the court process or is otherwise "acting in a manner that frustrates or misuses the court process," under s. 221 of the act;
2. either court may strike all or part of a claim or application or adjourn a proceeding until an order is complied with, under s. 223; and,
3. following the reasoning in this case, either court may also determine that a party's conduct is "a form of emotional abuse and harassment that constitute a form of family violence" under s. 1, which may be taken into account in determined a child's best interests and, of course, in making a protection order under s. 183. See the interesting discussion of "court harassment" provided by the Legal Services Society.

My thanks, as always, to Agnes Huang, who has never gone by Wong, for bringing this interesting case to my attention.