Court of Appeal for Ontario
Re:
Janette Laurin (Applicant (Respondent)) – and – John Martin (Respondent (Appellant))
Before:
Catzman, MacFarland and Rouleau JJ.A.
Counsel:
Katherine A. Cooligan
for the appellant
Peter F. Burnet
for the respondent
Heard & Released Orally:
October 18, 2005
On appeal from the order of Justice V. Jennifer Mackinnon of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 30, 2005.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1In our view this appeal must be dismissed.
2The appellant submits that the motions judge’s decision was based on the blameworthiness of the father’s conduct with school authorities. We disagree. The motions judge quite properly focused on the best interests of the child. She found that the father’s adverse relationship with the school had impacted adversely on the child. She considered this in the context of three years of an unusually high number of absences from school and lateness for school while the child was in the father’s custody. She concluded on the basis of these two factors and the school reports that the child’s academic performance/achievement was impaired.
3She next identified a number of breaches by the father of the provisions of the consent custody order of Gauthier J. and concluded that there had been a material change in circumstance that necessitated a change in the custodial arrangement. This is a discretionary order and we find no error in the analysis and foundation of her order.
4We have considered the fresh evidence which both sides have filed on this appeal and in our view it does not change the conclusion that we have reached. The appeal is dismissed.
5Costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed in the total amount of $7,500.00 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T. for both the appeal and the motion for stay.
“M. A. Catzman J.A.”
“J. MacFarland J.A.”
“Paul S. Rouleau J.A.”
