COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: JEAN M. HILDINGER (Respondent) – and – DANIEL I. CARROLL (Appellant)
BEFORE: LASKIN, CRONK and ARMSTRONG JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Philip W. Augustine for the appellant Ian C. Vallance and Alan M. Riddell for the respondent
HEARD: April 4, 2003
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Douglas H. Lissaman of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 13, 2002.
S U P P L E M E N T A R Y E N D O R S E M E N T
1We have considered Mr. Carroll’s request to substitute terms of access. We decline to do so. The court’s reasons allow for substitute terms if the terms we ordered are “unworkable”. In our view, they are not unworkable.
2What Mr. Carroll now requests is a substantially extended timesharing arrangement. That request was rejected by the trial judge and amounts to a marked deviation from the terms of access we ordered. To obtain that kind of arrangement Mr. Carroll must bring a motion in the trial court to vary access. His request is therefore dismissed.
“John Laskin J.A.”
“E.A. Cronk J.A.”
“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”