Is this a variation application pursuant to the reasons for judgment of Mr Justice Hood?

With regard to the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Hood, specifically with respect to a variation of the access regime, this application has, in fact, been brought pursuant to those reasons for judgment and is a variation application that requires material change in the circumstances affecting the child. As McLachlin C.J.C. said in Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27: … Change alone is not enough; the change must have altered the child's needs or the ability of the parents to meet those needs in a fundamental way … [at 43]

At trial in January 2006, Mr. Justice Hood, dealt with issues of custody and guardianship and, at paragraph 88, concluded that “neither joint custody, nor joint guardianship is workable …”. In Murphy v. Murphy, 2006 BCSC 146, he said that the evidence was: … overwhelming that the relationship between the parties continues to be hostile. They are unable to communicate or co-operate with each other, and most importantly, they are incapable of agreeing on any matter pertaining to the child. Joint decision making is out of the question. Joint custody and/or joint guardianship would simply exacerbate the difficulties between the parties and would not be in the best interests of the child. This situation has come about, in my view, because of the aggressive, controlling and unyielding mind-set of the father when dealing with the mother with regard to matters pertaining to the child. His conduct, or misconduct, referred to earlier demonstrates that he will go to any length to achieve what he wants, even to the extent that he will put his interests ahead of the best interests of the child. [at paras. 88-89]