The last time E.S. spoke with G.W., she was told never to contact him again.
E.S. was pregnant with a child she claimed was G.W.’s, the fruit of a fling between the British Columbian woman and the man from the U.K. According to court documents, which only refer to the pair by their initials, he was initially supportive — but that soon changed.
“I understand that this is difficult for you but please don’t do this. It will ruin my life. Ruin my relationship with the woman I love,” G.W. wrote via Facebook messenger.
“I don’t doubt you will love this child and I’m glad you will have support with your choice. However this is not my child, with due respect I barely know you, it was a complete mistake and this is frankly my worst nightmare.”
That was April 2018.
Six years later, G.W.’s “worst nightmare” appears poised to come true after E.S. convinced a B.C. judge to give her an order she can present to a U.K. court demanding G.W. pay her more than $100,000 worth of retroactive child support.
‘She is certain he is the father of the child’
The decision was issued at the beginning of March, but only recently posted to the provincial court’s website.
Judge Nicholas Preovolos gave E.S. a provisional order under the terms of legislation known as the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act — which gives B.C. residents the right to apply for support from residents of other jurisdictions.
The U.K. is one of a number of countries that have reciprocal agreements with British Columbia, meaning that E.S. will be able to go before a British judge in a bid to get Preovolos’s order confirmed in that jurisdiction.
According to the heavily redacted ruling, E.S. and G.W. had a “brief intimate” relationship in an undisclosed country in 2018 while she was travelling.
E.S. learned she was pregnant on her return to Canada.
She testified that “she did not have sexual relations with anyone else in the 30 days prior to her brief relationship with G.W.,” the judgment says.
“She is certain he is the father of the child.”
‘Please do not contact me again’
According to the decision, E.S. and G.W. haven’t communicated since April 2018.
He concluded their last Facebook exchange by saying: “I’ll respect your decision if you will please respect mine and understand I don’t want anything to do with this, please do not contact me again.”
They may not have spoken, but E.S. provided Preovolos with documents suggesting she kept tabs on G.W. all the same.
“E.S. has provided information that includes printouts from G.W.’s profile on LinkedIn, excerpts from the website glassdoor.co.uk on salaries for positions similar to G.W.’s, and a posting for the position of Managing Director – Sales of [omitted for publication], G.W.’s employer, in the United States,” the decision says.
Meanwhile, E.S. gave birth to a son who has been diagnosed with autism.
Prior to her pregnancy, E.S. worked as an executive assistant. She graduated high school and has taken various vocational courses, but the decision says she hasn’t worked since 2017, which “she attributed to the challenges of raising a neurodivergent child on her own.”
$1,957 a month — back to December 2018
E.S. now lives rent-free in a suite in her parents’ home and claims to have assets of about $15,000.
“For the most part, those funds came from a retroactive disability tax credit that she received due to her son’s autism diagnosis,” Preovolos wrote.
By comparison, E.S. wanted G.W.’s income valued at the equivalent of about $470,000 a year — an amount she gleaned through matching a range of salaries to the experience G.W. professed to have on his LinkedIn profile.
Preovolos said he found it more appropriate to rely on a Google search summary that put the average managing director’s annual salary in the U.K. at the equivalent of about $227,253 Cdn.
Based on that salary, he set G.W.’s child support at $1,957 a month — dating back to December 2018.
E.S. represented herself alongside a lawyer from B.C.’s Attorney General Interjurisdictional Support Services department appointed to act as a so-called “friend of the court.”
The judge noted that G.W. was not entitled to notice of E.S.’s application for support and had no opportunity to submit evidence of his own.
He’ll have a chance to do that if E.S. resumes their communication — through a U.K. court.