COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Laskin, Hourigan and Brown JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Scott Plugers
Applicant (Respondent)
and
Mary Krasnay
Respondent (Appellant)
Peter Callahan, for the appellant
David Hurren and Ashley Gibson, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: April 12, 2016
On appeal from the judgment of Justice James W. Sloan of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 9, 2014.
ENDORSEMENT
1Ms. Krasnay’s principal submission on appeal is that the trial judge erred in awarding the parents joint custody of their now three-year-old son Brayden. She contends that in the face of the parties’ inability to communicate with each other, an order for joint custody was inappropriate.
2The trial judge put in place an order for parallel parenting, where each parent has the last say on the various important decisions that must be made in raising a child. The trial judge ordered that Brayden primarily reside with his mother and ordered that Brayden’s father have reasonable access. The trial judge put in place a specific access schedule.
3The trial judge’s decision to award joint custody is entitled to deference in this court. We are satisfied that the trial judge’s decision was reasonable. Although he did not expressly say why he ordered joint custody, it is a fair inference from his reasons as a whole, that he ordered it to preserve Mr. Plugers’ relationship with his son. In his reasons the trial judge found that Ms. Krasnay overstated her fear of Mr. Plugers and at times refused to communicate or cooperate with him on any matter affecting Brayden. These findings of the trial judge support his order for joint custody. That order was reasonably necessary to ensure Mr. Plugers has a real relationship with his son, and therefore it is in the child’s best interest.
4The trial judge’s order was made on January 2, 2015. We are now over 15 months from the date of that order. We have not been provided with any fresh evidence to suggest the arrangement the trial judge put in place is not working. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs in the amount of $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
5We conclude these brief reasons by repeating and endorsing what the trial judge said at para. 412 of his reasons:
Given the fact, that the parties have created a child, it is very unsettling how they currently treat each other. They are the only ones who can change that. While it is not unusual for people in close relationships to sometimes be very short with each other, the parties are no longer in that type of relationship. It is simply time to move on for Brayden’s sake.
“John Laskin J.A.”
“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”
“David Brown J.A.”
