ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: September 4, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: 17-0457

BETWEEN:

JANELLE BURLEY

Applicant

— AND —

CHRISTOPHER BRADLEY

Respondent

Before: Justice M.G. March

Heard on: March 21 & 22, April 12 and June 27, 2019

Reasons for Judgment released on: September 4, 2019

Counsel:

• Duncan Crosby, for the Applicant
• Michael Conroy, for the Respondent

INTRODUCTION

[1] On March 21, 2019, the Applicant, Janelle Burley ("Burley") and the Respondent, Christopher Bradley ("Bradley") began a trial before me. The sole issue for determination was the access, which Bradley would have, to their two-year-old daughter, Aleene Bradley ("Aleene"), born in December 2016.

[2] Custody was not an issue. Bradley conceded some time ago that Burley should be the custodial parent.

[3] Sadly, Burley and Bradley are diametrically opposed in their respective views as to the amount of access Bradley should enjoy with Aleene while she is a child of such tender years.

[4] Burley proposes that the access should be increased slowly and gradually over time. Not until July 2021, according to Burley, should Bradley have access to Aleene on an overnight visit.

[5] By contrast, Bradley suggests that his access to Aleene ought to have increased as of April 1, 2019. Bradley envisages a two month period essentially within which the child would be in his care for eight hours every Saturday, and from after daycare until 7 PM every Wednesday. Thereafter for another two month period, Aleene would spend every other weekend with him starting on Saturday at 9 AM until Sunday at 6 PM with an every Wednesday visit as well starting from the time Aleene finishes daycare until 7 PM. Ultimately, after a total period of four months with his access gradually increasing, Bradley would have Aleene every other weekend from the conclusion of daycare on Fridays to 6 PM on Sundays.

[6] Burley does not envisage any change in her proposed access schedule for holidays, except that Aleene shall spend Mother's Day each year with her, and Father's Day each year with Bradley.

[7] Bradley, on the other hand, contemplates a more expanded period of access for himself during the holidays, such as:

a) an extra day with Aleene should his access weekend include a statutory holiday (Family Day, Easter, Canada Day, etc.),

b) sharing the March Break on an alternating year basis,

c) sharing Christmas Eve to Boxing Day on an alternating year basis,

d) allowing for Aleene to spend one week each Christmas break with each of her parents consecutively,

e) having Aleene spend Father's Day with him and Mother's Day with Burley,

f) allowing for expanded access during the summer,

g) permitting Aleene to spend time with each parent on his or her birthday, and

h) sharing Aleene's birthdays.

[8] To say that both Burley and Bradley are entrenched in their respective positions regarding access is perhaps an understatement. The length of this trial, which spanned some four days, speaks loudly to the degree of their respective intransigence.

THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE

Burley

[9] When she testified on March 21, 2019, Burley was 41 years of age. In terms of education, she has completed two years of college and is presently employed by the Renfrew County District School Board. She is a full-time administrative assistant.

[10] Burley met Bradley in the spring of 2014 through an online dating site. At that time, Burley was still living in Brockville, Ontario.

[11] Initially, Burley believed that Bradley and she shared similar interests. She thought they would make a good match. She believed that her attempts to get to know Bradley could progress to a meaningful relationship. By January 2015, Burley was living with Bradley.

[12] Burley knew that Bradley was a member of the Canadian military. Together, they resided in private married quarters ("PMQ") on the south side of Garrison Petawawa.

[13] Burley soon became acquainted with Isabelle, Bradley's daughter, from a previous relationship. In January 2015, Isabelle was five years of age.

[14] Burley's relationship with Isabelle progressed quickly. Bradley promoted this. In a relatively short while, Isabelle was telling Burley that she loved her.

[15] Burley observed that Isabelle had issues in terms of her conduct and socialization. She was expelled from many daycare centres in which she had been enrolled. Similarly, she was having problems at school due to her behaviour.

[16] Burley knew as well that Bradley had some mental health issues. He told her that he had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. Burley witnessed as well instances where Bradley had difficulty controlling his anger.

[17] As examples, Burley was able to speak of occasions where Bradley would punch walls, swear at her and corner her in the bathroom. On one occasion, Burley attributed to Bradley the following:

"If I didn't punch walls, I would punch you in the face".

[18] Another time, while Burley was pregnant with Aleene and sitting in a reclining chair, he put both hands on the sides of her face and launched her backwards.

[19] Burley recalled as well that while driving in her car one day and pregnant, Bradley did not like what she said, so he drove dangerously for approximately one minute. He took an abrupt turn into her place of employment and slammed on the brakes.

[20] Burley recalled that he once dented their fridge. The walls in their private PMQ took a beating. Further, he broke the back door.

[21] It was not uncommon for Bradley to throw things.

[22] Burley recalled vividly an instance where, while staying with her parents in Belleville, she had a bad cold. She read the ingredients to the medication she considered taking. It contained alcohol. Bradley aggressively grabbed the bottle from her hand, when she decided she would opt not to ingest the medication. Burley's mother, B.B., witnessed this incident.

[23] Burley testified that it was getting to the point that she was considering calling the police on Bradley. She feared for the safety of her unborn baby. She decided against calling the authorities, and instead spoke to the Base Padre. The situation then more or less resolved itself.

[24] Burley recounted as well that there were many occasions where Bradley would call her very demeaning names.

[25] Burley evaluated quite carefully the overall picture. There was no talk of separation at the time that Aleene was born in December 2016. However, her relationship with Bradley declined rapidly thereafter.

[26] Burley felt that there was a lack of support from Bradley in caring for an infant. He had promised to take parental leave. She thought he would offer assistance with the daily tasks of raising a baby. Instead, he told Burley that he would prefer to use his time away from work to go to the gym and get "ripped".

[27] Under the circumstances, Burley decided to extend her own parental leave. Bradley reacted by telling her that she was very selfish for doing so.

[28] The week prior to separating, Burley travelled to Belleville to visit her parents. When she returned, she found their home to be in a complete mess, but Bradley seemed to have time to spend on social media when supposedly he was working. When confronted, he told her that what he does at his job does not matter.

[29] By July 6, 2017, Burley found the situation no longer tolerable. Bradley and she separated. The plan was that she would remain in the PMQ, while he would find someplace else to live.

[30] On August 3, 2017 Burley received a Notice of Licence Termination and Order to Vacate the PMQ. She reluctantly acknowledged it. She knew that Bradley was behind the action taken by the Military Housing Authority.

[31] Burley was forced to approach a local women's shelter. Bradley had paid the rent for the PMQ to October 2, 2017. He insisted that it was his right to have her evicted. Further, according to Burley, he broke into the residence in September 2017 and changed the locks.

[32] Burley testified that Bradley, soon after the separation, entered into multiple short-term relationships with other women. On July 31, 2017, she found a social media posting of him with a 21-year-old female, A.K. Burley was not sure whether or not Bradley had introduced Aleene to A.K. based on the content of the posting she read. Burley was not happy to learn that A.K. was broadcasting her intention to accept Bradley's children soon. Burley doubted A.K. had very much life experience.

[33] Burley noted that Bradley's relationship with A.K. did not last very long. It was over by September 2017.

[34] Burley then became aware that Bradley had engaged in a relationship with J.A.

[35] J.A. posted a photo of a bouquet of flowers, which she attributed to Bradley as a gift from him. Burley later learned that J.A. had recently separated from her long-term partner, and had two teenage daughters of her own. Burley was concerned that Bradley introduced Aleene to J.A. early into their relationship.

[36] Burley was upset by a photo posted on social media of J.A. holding Aleene in her lap. When Burley attempted to speak to Bradley about her concern over Aleene's introduction to J.A., he told Burley that he was in a stable relationship with J.A. They had been together for six months.

[37] Prior to vacating the PMQ, Burley related that the military police were called frequently. Burley herself changed the locks on one occasion. It was prompted when Bradley came to her residence unannounced with his older daughter, Isabelle. Eventually, Family and Children's Services for Renfrew County ("FCS") made contact with Burley. FCS wanted to conduct a home visit with her.

[38] By letter dated September 11, 2017, FCS communicated its finding to Burley that Aleene's continued exposure to parental conflict could negatively impact her emotional well-being. The risk of harm due to partner violence was verified. FCS documented the finding within its provincial database.

[39] At the time of her move out of the PMQ, Burley recalled that Bradley had parked his vehicle in an adjacent lot in order to watch the move. She told him that she felt he was stalking her. She asked him to leave. He refused. He went so far as to call the moving company to ask where she was going.

[40] Burley attempted to go back to work prior to completion of her scheduled, one year term of maternity leave. She arranged for a day care placement for Aleene. However, one week prior to Aleene's expected attendance there, the daycare provider called Burley to say she was refusing to accept her daughter. It would be too stressful. Apparently, Bradley had contacted the daycare provider, and scuttled Aleene's placement. The day care provider did not provide any further details to Burley as to what had transpired.

[41] Thereafter, Burley refused to release details to Bradley about any other daycare provider she arranged for Aleene. She explained that she could not risk Bradley compromising any further daycare placements for their daughter.

[42] Burley did, however, agree by Order of Selkirk J. dated March 8, 2018 to forward to Bradley monthly reports authored by the new daycare provider regarding how Aleene was doing.

[43] In the days and months following separation, Burley agreed with her counsel's suggestion that there was little love shown between Bradley and her. She testified that Bradley would come to her house whenever he wanted. He told her that he would take Aleene when he wanted. He never actually did, but he threatened to do so.

[44] By Order of Selkirk J. on February 8, 2018, Bradley was prohibited from posting any more photos of Aleene on social media. Further, he was told to take down any previous ones he had uploaded. It had come to Burley's attention that Bradley had started a 'Go Fund Me' page in an effort to assist with payment of his legal fees in seeking to play a greater role in Aleene's life. Burley's concern was that much of Aleene's personal information was being published for child predators to see.

[45] In one of his postings, Bradley suggested that he wanted "bad things to happen to my ex". Burley speculated that his social media rants were intended to attract the sympathy of his family members, as well as strangers. Indeed, some of Bradley's relatives offered to set the record straight when Aleene was old enough to understand.

[46] Burley was also able to find social media postings from Bradley's new partner, J.A. too. Burley learned that she had two teenage daughters with whom she lived in Petawawa. One of J.A.'s postings was of particular interest to Burley. Dated April 6, 2018, J.A. expressed in it some happiness over the fact that she had "… found some [other dance] moms in the hotel bar". Another dated August 28 had her pictured holding an alcoholic beverage.

[47] At her counsel's suggestion that Bradley enjoys his beer, Burley offered that alcohol was a strong contributor to his anger. She hastened to add that he was also capable of outbursts when not drinking. She harkened back to one such eruption in court following a finding against him that he was in contempt of the Order of Selkirk J. for not securing a life insurance policy in a stipulated amount with Aleene named as the beneficiary in the event of his death.

[48] Due to Bradley's anger, Burley has refused to reveal her new address. The incident involving the moving company reinforced her decision to keep the location of her residence from him. As a consequence, he must use a local Access Centre in Pembroke to pick up Aleene for visits with him.

[49] Burley was able to pinpoint the start of the relationship between Bradley and J.A. as October 5, 2017. Burley added that six months into it, J.A. conceived a child. Together, Bradley and J.A. moved into the former PMQ that Burley and he shared in the past.

[50] Burley created a document entitled, "Access Cancellation – Specific Dates and Reasons (Update)" to chronicle Bradley's missed arranged visits with Aleene. Some of the reasons included Aleene being sick, but the majority were instances where Burley assigned blame to Bradley.

[51] On January 11, 2018, Bradley emailed Burley to tell her he has experience caring for a sick child. Burley responded by suggesting he can contact her lawyer. She explained that she simply does not like to engage with Bradley.

[52] Burley recalled an occasion where Bradley attempted to sell baby formula online. He did so at a point in time when he was in arrears of child support. However, once the Family Responsibility Office became involved, the arrears were quickly addressed. Burley testified that she had no money at the time to purchase the formula from Bradley. The implication was that she would have appreciated the formula being given to her. Further, on another occasion, he used the wrong type of formula in feeding Aleene.

[53] Burley was critical of past occasions where Bradley did not obtain the correct size of diaper for Aleene. She remembered another incident as well where she dropped Aleene off to Bradley on a sunny morning. The weather then turned rainy and cold. However, he had failed to pack a jacket and warmer clothing for their child.

[54] In a general sense, Burley explained that communication with Bradley is extremely difficult. She recounted an incident where Bradley failed to note the development of a rash on Aleene's back in a Communication Book they were sharing for a while. The sickness developed into a fever, and Burley had to take their child to the hospital.

[55] The Communication Book was ultimately abandoned. Burley explained that Bradley would write in it comments about his casual girlfriend or their pets. Email communication was opted for thereafter.

[56] Burley then devised a Needs and Care Chart. In it, she would come up with recommendations for Bradley. In her view, that idea did not work either. She would still be left wondering what happened with Aleene during her access visits with him.

[57] In reflecting back upon her experience with Isabelle, Bradley's older daughter, Burley recollected that both Bradley and she took care of the child to the point where Isabelle was spending up to 40% of her time with them. Bradley would do the cooking for her. Burley made clear to him that he was to do her laundry as well. For the most part, Burley felt that Isabelle was quite independent.

[58] Burley further recounted an instance where Bradley chose to leave Isabelle alone in a vehicle. They were together having a meal at East Side Mario's. Isabelle was just five at the time. She had just come from a vacation out of province. She was behaving defiantly. As punishment, Bradley brought her to the car and left her there.

[59] In stark contrast, Burley testified that she has never left Aleene alone.

[60] Burley emphasized the importance of having subsidized daycare for Aleene. With her present annual sitting at $41,000, the subsidy helps her tremendously. Under normal circumstances, a person would be expected to pay $50 per day for a child in daycare. Burley pays only $7.04 per day.

[61] There are strict rules which govern subsidized enrolment in daycare. The child will be permitted to have up to 20 vacation and 24 sick days per year. If those 44 days in total are exceeded, the subsidy is lost.

[62] In a document entitled 'Child Focussed Parenting Plan', Burley set out her design for fulfilling the best interests of Aleene. It chronicles some of her experiences with Bradley and her daughter to date. It addresses her concerns about what she considers to be Bradley's possible mental illnesses (e.g. adjustment disorder, anxiety, depression, conduct disorder, anger issues, etc.).

[63] In preparing the Plan, Burley consulted an FCS therapist. She researched 'attachment theory'. She discussed the importance of the very first close relationship a child develops with his or her caregiver. She theorized that the quality of early infant attachment in many ways shapes the child's future in respect of his or her sense of comfort and security. She stressed the sensitivity to and need for a consistent response to the signals infants and young children offer to their primary caregiver. In essence, she considered herself uniquely suited to respond to and to meet the task of raising Aleene properly.

[64] She acknowledged that it is just as important for Bradley to play a role in Aleene's upbringing. She conceded that is crucial for Aleene to have secure attachment to Bradley as well, but her role as the primary caregiver must take precedence for the time being.

[65] Burley exhorted the Court to pay close attention to the Plan she prepared.

Access

[66] In terms of access, Burley proposed that the current regime of allowing Aleene to have visits with her father, Bradley, from 10:30 AM to 5:30 PM every Sunday, should remain in place. By either July 2019 or January 2020, Burley was prepared to see access increase to every second Friday from 5:30 to 7:30 PM. She would also allow for seven vacation days of the 24 the subsidy allows to be assigned to Bradley, provided they were not spent with him consecutively, rather cumulatively. The goal, in Burley's mind, is to stay on a path of careful progression to keep Aleene's secure attachment intact.

[67] Not until January 2021 would weekday access for Bradley be increased to every Tuesday and Friday from 5:30 to 7:30 PM.

[68] Further, it was not until July 2021 that Burley envisaged the possibility of overnight access occurring for Aleene. There she proposed that the child would stay with her father, Bradley, from Saturday at noon to Sunday at noon every other weekend. Burley explained that her consistent response is critical to Aleene's secure attachment to her. That routine will shape the child's future.

[69] To countenance overnight access at this point in time, Burley feared, would be taking Aleene out of the routine of what she was accustomed to. The child would have no idea what was happening, where she was going or when she would be returning. As a two-year-old, of course, she is unable to understand and communicate her wishes.

[70] In commenting on how Aleene felt about her time with her father, Bradley, Burley testified that she would like to believe Aleene enjoys it. However, when Aleene returned from being with him, Burley has observed that she is defiant and takes time to settle down.

[71] In short, Burley believed that the earliest time overnight access could occur between Aleene and Bradley would be when the child attained the age of 4.5 years.

Parental Conflict

[72] Burley was well aware that parental conflict makes children feel unsafe and insecure. To witness it certainly is not in their best interests. It could deeply affect who Aleene is and is to become as a person. Role modelling is important. What children observe and experience can greatly influence their future behaviour.

[73] Burley described Bradley and herself as completely incompatible on a moral and human level. She acknowledged that communication between separated parents must occur. However, the means must be developed to minimize conflict between them. As Aleene's parents, Bradley and she must do what they can to allow their child to develop and grow. It is in Aleene's best interests.

[74] Burley readily conceded it would be unrealistic to expect no overnight access for Bradley. However, the timing has to be right. At the moment, she saw no difficulty with limiting his access to every Sunday.

Rules regarding Access

[75] Burley made clear that the access exchanges must occur in a safe, neutral location. She lamented the fact that Bradley neglected to properly fill out the Communication Book, as well as the Needs and Care Chart. It was essential in order for family physicians, emergency room doctors and the like to know what was occurring with their child in the event an urgent medical issue arose.

[76] Notwithstanding, Burley was vehemently opposed to having Aleene's Ontario Health Card travel with her on access visits with her father, Bradley. Burley proposed that he must contact her in the case of an emergency.

[77] She questioned the wisdom of Bradley's decision to allow Aleene to have M&M candies. Burley believed this to be a choking hazard. Furthermore, it is not the type of diet she wants for her daughter.

[78] Similarly, Burley does not approve of Bradley taking Aleene to fast food restaurants such as Wendy's and McDonald's.

[79] In instances when Aleene is sick, Burley was not opposed to offering Bradley make up time assuming a realistic arrangement could be made. Given his military duties, he may be away. If so, Aleene should remain in Burley's care.

[80] Under no circumstances did Burley feel that the child should be taken out of Renfrew County. At this juncture, Burley did not agree that the child was developmentally and emotionally ready for this step. Eventually, Burley acknowledged that there would come a time when the child could travel with her father, but she would want to know in advance where he intended to take Aleene.

[81] In terms of personal care, Burley noted that Aleene has sensitive skin much like her mother. She did not believe that her child should be wearing any makeup. She noted that there are two teenage girls who live in Bradley's home. Similarly, Burley was opposed to the notion of Aleene receiving a haircut while in Bradley's care.

[82] Burley expressed a latent desire to get to know more about J.A., Bradley's new partner. She added that she had never really given the notion of talking to J.A. much thought to this point. Burley never felt that Bradley's relationship with J.A. would last.

Alcohol

[83] By Order of Selkirk J. made July 8, 2013, Bradley and his former spouse were each limited to three alcoholic beverages within a 24 hour period while in a caregiving role for Isabelle. Burley expressed her interest in seeing that restriction transposed, and perhaps tightened, insofar as Aleene was concerned.

[84] Under cross-examination, Burley confirmed that it was out of safety concerns that she did not wish to have the location and identity of her daycare provider revealed.

[85] Burley then had her attention drawn to an affidavit she swore in support of her claim for custody on August 10, 2017. At paragraph 8 of the affidavit, the preprinted form inquires as to past instances of violence or abuse committed by a person, for whom the Court is asked to assess his or her ability to act as a parent. Bradley, of course, would be one such person. Burley did not list any past violence or abuse she suffered at Bradley's hands, nor any occasions, of which she was aware, where he perpetrated violence or abuse against any child in his care (e.g. Isabelle).

[86] Burley denied that she had ever seen the affidavit before. She insisted that she did know what it pertained to. She agreed nevertheless that it contained her signature. She initialed paragraph 11 of the affidavit indicating her awareness of a duty to update the information contained in the affidavit, should it be incomplete or inaccurate.

[87] When questioned about her reaction to learning that Aleene had eaten an M&M while in Bradley's care, she denied that it was severe. She maintained that she wished to assess whether age-appropriate foods were being given to her daughter. Even if it were a glass of water which Bradley gave to Aleene, she expected it to be reported.

[88] When challenged about whether she fostered a positive relationship between Bradley and Aleene, she maintained that she did try. She added that she kept a military photo of Bradley in her home. It is one which she draws to Aleene's attention from time to time, and which the child recognizes. If the child is thinking of her father, Burley will discuss this with her.

[89] Burley agreed with Bradley's counsel's suggestion that a father plays an important role in a daughter's upbringing.

[90] When the issue of the communication breakdown between Bradley and her was broached, Burley gave an example of the inadequacy of the information supplied to her by Bradley. He would tell her that Aleene napped for one hour and a bit. This left Burley to wonder what "a bit" meant.

[91] Counsel for Bradley drew to Burley's attention an email she authored on January 13, 2019. In it, she wrote:

"I want full details of her head injury; explain it in full detail. Why was she on a chair? How high? And why am I being informed of this now? Did she hit her head, explain this immediately."

[92] Burley disagreed that the tenor of the email suggested she was exercising full authority over Bradley. Further, Burley denied that she expected less of Aleene's daycare provider, should such an incident occur when the child was in her care.

[93] When asked about Bradley's lack of access to Aleene over the Christmas period of 2018, Burley denied that he had made her aware of the birth of his son, Grayson, on or about December 20, 2018. In fact, Burley testified that Bradley told her it was none of her business.

[94] Burley was emphatic that any pick up and drop off of Aleene must occur at an Access Centre. There would be no compromise on that issue. However, she did agree that the Centre is not open on holidays. She denied that this limited Bradley's access, or antagonized him in any manner.

[95] On July 29, 2018 at 8:35 PM, Burley emailed the following to Bradley:

** Update July 29th **

Aleene returned to mother with a serious knee scrape; and a minor scrape on the other knee during the hard fall; ** documented **

Mother immediately attended to and thoroughly cleansed injury; began a full treatment regimen to prevent further discomfort and infection. Aleene displayed obvious signs of discomfort during gentle cleansing process and was easily soothed during treatment.

**Mother advised Father on July 22nd update to dress Aleene in light cotton leggings during comfortable weather days like today, to prevent this sort of injury and to encourage play on the grass areas. Mother dressed Aleene in cotton leggings for her day and they were removed during Father's access. Injury occurred without that covered protection. Mother also advised of Aleene's continued progress with stability and consciousness was well advised to Father.

**Mother also diligently advised Father to keep Aleene's activity light and easy due to accident that occurred at daycare on Thursday the 26th, when Aleene fell indoors and hit her head. Light activity was well advised to Aleene's best interests for her total comfort and care.

**Mother will diligently watch for further discomfort, treat accordingly and maintain light and appropriate activity, to avoid further discomfort and preventable injury.

Before and after images provided

[96] Again, Burley denied that the intent of the email was to antagonize Bradley in any way.

[97] When challenged about the wisdom of deferring an overnight access visit for Bradley until Aleene is 4 ½ years old, Burley explained that their child is unique. She believed that any faster progression would not be in the child's best interests. Burley denied that it was any bother for her to envisage Aleene spending a night at her father's residence. The child simply would not have any cognitive or verbal ability to understand and process what was occurring.

[98] Bradley's counsel drew Burley's attention to a document entitled "Welcome Aleene". It was authored by the daycare provider. Its opening line read:

"Aleene has quickly made herself comfortable in her new environment from her very first visit to her first week here."

[99] Burley denied that the daycare provider's report suggested adaptability on Aleene's part. Burley agreed that her child was spending at points nine hours a day in day care. However, Burley contended that one cannot compare daycare to a home setting. She agreed that at present Bradley's access is for a maximum seven hour period only.

[100] Burley was shown an email she sent to Bradley on February 10, 2019 at 9:55 AM. His access was to commence at 10:30 AM. In the email, Burley wrote:

"Chris,

Be advised; Aleene's temperature is elevated and access will be cancelled. I will contact the access centre.

Janelle B Burley"

[101] When it was put to her that the cancellation at virtually the last minute meant that Bradley would not see his daughter for 14 days, she claimed she was unable to confirm that fact.

[102] Under oath, Burley steadfastly refused to give any information on where she resided. She would not answer Bradley's counsel suggestion that attending at the Access Centre to do drop off and pick up entailed a 20 minute drive on her part. She would not comment on whether additional, unnecessary time spent by the child in a vehicle due to Burley's insistence on the use of the Centre was not in Aleene's best interests.

[103] On the occasion of Easter Monday, 2018, an access visit which Bradley missed, Burley disagreed that flexibility in the schedule for access would sometimes be in Aleene's best interests. Burley agreed she knew that Bradley had hired an Easter bunny, and had planned an egg hunt for Isabelle and Aleene on Easter Sunday proper, but because Burley would not agree to pick up at a location other than the Centre, Aleene could not participate.

[104] On the issue of overnight access, Burley conceded that a child who has a bedtime story read to her by her father would be beneficial to her growth and development. Nevertheless, Burley maintained that waiting until 2021, when Aleene would be 4 ½ years old, would be better.

[105] Burley explained that when she takes her daughter to the Access Centre, she is happy. Sadly, when Burley returns to pick Aleene up, she is defiant, wound up and exhausted.

[106] Burley expressed exasperation at wondering what happens during access. She was at a loss to understand what occurs to cause Aleene such upset. When it was suggested to Burley that Bradley obviously loves their daughter, Burley stated, "I hope he does." She thought that any parent would love his or her child.

[107] In an email dated February 24, 2019 at 8:30 AM, Burley wrote:

"Aleene's Needs and Care Chart will continually be provided as continued and effective communication during your access periods and it is mandatory."

[108] Burley denied Bradley's counsel suggestion that her demands were an attempt to set Bradley up for failure. Burley maintained that all she was trying to accomplish with the Chart was to promote effective communication. She considered a willingness to use it on Bradley's part to be evidence of commitment to her efforts, and by extension, to Aleene's best interests. She could not answer the question of whether Bradley was committed to their daughter's best interests.

[109] When asked whether she could say anything nice about Bradley as a father, Burley was rendered speechless for a considerable period of time. She then commented that she only knew six months' worth of what Bradley's fathering was like.

[110] Burley agreed that she is an individual who is not afraid to assert herself. However, she hastened to add that she is personally afraid of Bradley.

[111] Burley denied any responsibility for difficulties Bradley was experiencing with access to their daughter.

[112] In an email dated September 10, 2018, Burley wrote:

"As previously requested, I had asked for specific details regarding Aleene's food servings. As stated, this prevents duplicate and abundant servings in one day (while I explore food sensitives). This is the only point of the communication book; to provide factual and important information that I have endlessly communicated to you and ongoing. The daycare provider has also referenced in her monthly report that she requires this information (I trust you have thoroughly read the reports provided to you). You specified Aleene ate fruit (what assortment of fruit was provided?) These details are far too vague and directly renders the communication nearly useless and it is a continuous requirement and its guidelines are basic. You additionally specified she ate mixed vegetables, what vegetables? I expect full and detailed information moving forward.

Your cooperation is expected, not asked for; or this will be brought to the attention of third party for review and action. The details of food servings are very important and this should not have to be explained further!"

[113] Again, Bradley's counsel suggested that the email demonstrated self-assertiveness on the part of Burley. She responded that she was attempting only to avoid duplication, and to explore food allergies.

[114] On October 21, 2018, Burley wrote in an email:

"**as you have not professionally inspected your rental unit for the presence of bedbugs; all of Aleene's clothing items will remain in Ziploc plastic bags when not used during your access. This prevents any bedbugs from entering my home from a possible infected source."

[115] When it was suggested to Burley that she was looking to stymie access and assert her interests over Bradley's, she denied this. Burley maintained that she has throughout given priority to Aleene's best interests.

[116] Under re-examination, Burley explained that when Isabelle was having overnight access with Bradley, the child was already five years of age. Those overnight sessions were not easy for Isabelle to Burley's recollection. The child would cry for her mother. Burley did not consider it her duty to return Isabelle to her other parent.

[117] On the issue of the emails, Burley commented that likely it was as frustrating for Bradley as it was for her – that is to say – she wanted details, and he seemed either unwilling or unable to provide them.

G.J.

[118] G.J. is a well-educated, 39-year-old mother of two young children, a son, age 8, and a daughter, age 7. She has a Master's degree in social work. She has worked in her field for 17 years.

[119] G.J., for the past 2 and a half years, has been running a home daycare. In January 2018, Aleene became one of the children in her charge. In February 2019, she stopped caring for Aleene, when the child moved to a public daycare placement.

[120] G.J. described Aleene as a sweet, social little girl, bubbly, active and easy-going until she does not get her way. Her periods of upset were seldom. They typically only happened when she was tired or hungry.

[121] Aleene did not like disturbances to her routine. Her bouts of disquiet would last only 10 or 15 minutes.

[122] Initially, drop offs with her mother present did not go well. Aleene would be "clinging" to Burley. Pick ups were generally the same thing. Aleene would cry, scream and try to get out of her mother's arms. G.J. attributed this to Aleene not wanting to be interrupted from what she was doing. Generally speaking however, Aleene was quite happy to see her mother at the end of the day.

[123] G.J. observed that Aleene was capable of having the attention of an adult shared between other children and her.

[124] G.J. described Burley's parenting as attentive, and anticipatory of the needs of Aleene. Burley was always inquisitive about how Aleene's day went with G.J. A friendship developed between the two women over time.

[125] In the course of her duties, G.J. prepared monthly summaries of Aleene's progress in daycare. G.J. would report on numerous categories in a very detailed fashion including:

a) nutrition health and development,

b) hygiene and appearance,

c) sleeping,

d) personality and behaviours,

e) interactions,

f) activities and play, and

g) special notes.

[126] On one occasion, G.J. met Bradley at a dance class. He came up and introduced himself to her. He thanked her for the good care she was giving to Aleene.

[127] Under cross-examination, G.J. readily conceded that she could not speak to Bradley's parenting abilities.

[128] G.J. confirmed that she had no responsibility for filling out a Communication Book or a Needs and Care Chart. Notably, this was not expected of G.J. in spite of the fact that Aleene was in her care nine hours per day at times.

[129] As an example, with respect to diaper changes for Aleene, G.J. would verbally give the information to Burley. Occasionally, if there was a bowel movement of concern, she would take a picture and provide it to Burley. G.J. found Burley to be flexible and easy to deal with on those issues.

B.B.

[130] B.B. is the 68-year-old mother of Burley, grandmother of Aleene and former mother-in-law, so to speak, of Bradley.

[131] B.B. came to know Bradley in 2015. They did not spend a great deal of time in each other's company. B.B. visited Petawawa on a couple of occasions. On a few others, Burley and Bradley visited her in Belleville. Around that time, B.B. would winter in Florida.

[132] B.B. regretted being away when Aleene was born. B.B. would have liked to come to Petawawa to help her daughter. B.B. recalled that following Aleene's birth, it was perhaps twice that Burley and Bradley came to visit her.

[133] Most of B.B.'s corresponding with Bradley was through Facebook Messenger or posts on Facebook. There may have been a couple of telephone calls.

[134] Early into his relationship with Burley, B.B. observed the anger in Bradley. B.B. witnessed the occasion where he tried to force Burley to take cough medicine with alcohol in it. At the time, Burley was 6 ½ months pregnant.

[135] B.B. was concerned that Bradley was so enraged, he may have launched Burley across the room.

[136] B.B. explained to Bradley that it was Burley's choice whether to take the medication or not. After some time, he finally calmed down.

[137] B.B. observed other manifestations of Bradley's anger when she visited their PMQ. She saw a dent in the refrigerator. She could see that repairs he had been done to the walls. The back door of the residence had required fixing as well.

[138] B.B. heard Bradley to say that if he had not left the relationship, he would have ended up in jail.

[139] B.B. was very aware of how afraid Burley was of Bradley. B.B. had heard of past occasions where Bradley had stalked Burley when she was moving out, and slammed the door on her back. B.B. saw the pictures of the injury caused as a result of this latter occurrence.

[140] In B.B.'s view, Burley had good reason to fear for Aleene's and her safety.

[141] B.B. attempted to talk to Bradley about his outbursts and the derogatory things he said over social media prior to his actual separation from Burley. B.B. contacted him over Facebook Messenger asking him to please stop. He would write back and say he deleted the messages, but to B.B.'s mind, the damage was already done.

[142] Overall, B.B. was thoroughly impressed with the wonderful job Burley had done in raising Aleene thus far.

[143] Under cross-examination, B.B. indicated that the last time she had face-to-face contact with Bradley was during an exchange at Tim Horton's around Christmas time of 2017. He had Isabelle with him too. B.B. described the occasion as "… awkward, to say the least".

[144] When asked whether she considered Bradley to be a loving father, B.B. responded that she could not answer that.

Christopher Bradley

[145] Bradley is a 39-year-old soldier. He has been employed by the Canadian Forces since December 1996. He did one tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2013. While there, he was disciplined for negligently allowing his firearm to discharge. Otherwise, he is a member in good standing. He has no criminal record.

[146] Bradley is dealing with some mental health issues. He has been diagnosed with a mixed anxiety and minor depression disorder. He has sought medical help. He has followed through with all counselling recommendations.

[147] He finds relief for his condition in going to the gym and running. He also attends a group called "Music Heals Veterans."

[148] He sees a social worker, Ms. Jennifer Grenier, on a regular basis.

[149] Bradley met Burley through an internet dating site in the spring of 2014. Their relationship progressed rapidly. By January 2015, Burley moved from Brockville to Petawawa to live with him. Shortly thereafter, she became pregnant with Aleene.

[150] Bradley was pleased with the news of Burley's pregnancy. However, the relationship became quite strained with Aleene's arrival in December 2016.

[151] By July 2017, the couple separated. Burley began to deny Bradley access to Aleene. He described their relationship thereafter as one of "high conflict". In his opinion, he could do nothing right in the eyes of Burley. She considered him to be the only one who had a problem post separation.

[152] Bradley described the last two years of his life as "difficult". Communication with Burley is a huge challenge for him. He bemoans the fact that he is permitted only seven hours per week with his daughter, Aleene.

[153] Bradley described Burley's ability to parent as "great". She is incredibly focussed on the well-being and development of Aleene.

[154] After the family litigation commenced, Bradley considered obtaining a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act. He was motivated to seek one in order to prove he is a good father. However, he found the cost of obtaining one to be prohibitive. Bradley has had financial difficulties in the past. He assigned himself into personal bankruptcy. Notwithstanding, he is currently up to date in child support payments.

[155] Bradley recalled that he paid off Burley's credit cards in June 2015. Their outstanding balances, he approximated, stood at around $11,000.00 at the time. Burley has never repaid him; however, he considered this to be a gift to her. He described himself as not the type to ask for things back.

[156] In terms of alcohol consumption, Bradley likes to have a beer while watching the hockey game. He will go out with friends, and sometimes regrets it, if he drinks too much. He maintains nevertheless that he can control his alcohol intake.

[157] Upon his return from Afghanistan in December 2010, Bradley reflected that he was drinking too much. He reasoned that the Order of Selkirk J. dated July 8, 2013, which included a provision dealing with alcohol consumption and limited it for his and his former partner to three such beverages, was a consequence of his past tendency to drink to excess. He characterized the alcohol limit as a negotiated term.

[158] In terms of his ability to parent, Bradley pointed out that he now has three children, Isabelle 10, Aleene 2 and Grayson, an infant. He co-parents Isabelle with his former partner, J.T. He admitted that initially their separation did not go well. Over time however, their relations improved considerably. On occasion, he can now go to her house and "chill" with her.

[159] His access schedule to Isabelle consists in alternating weeks of having her firstly Tuesday through Wednesday, and secondly Wednesday through Sunday. He added that every morning, Isabelle comes to his house before boarding the school bus.

[160] He explained that J.T. and he rotate holiday time with Isabelle.

[161] Bradley takes Isabelle on occasion to her dance classes, Starz in Motion. He described himself as a "prop" dad for the group when they attend competitions out of town.

[162] Bradley reflected back on how, when Isabelle was Aleene's age, he looked after her, bathed her, cared for her and took her swimming.

[163] Bradley testified that he likes to cook. He generally gets good feedback on his culinary skills. He has recently started to teach Isabelle how to help out in the kitchen. Aleene, he remarked, likes to watch what they are doing.

[164] He has begun teaching Aleene her numbers and the alphabet. He described her as being infatuated with his son, and her brother, Grayson.

[165] Bradley characterized his current household as "busy". When Aleene is in his care, there are five children, Rianna 17, Jaden 14, Isabelle 10, Aleene 2, and Grayson, an infant. The older girls are the biological daughters of his new partner, J.A.

[166] In addition to his regular military duties, Bradley works a part-time job at Starbucks. Generally, he puts in 10 to 15 hours over Fridays and Saturdays. On Sundays, he has Aleene.

[167] He described Aleene as a happy, well-adjusted child in his home. She is a busy little girl. She likes to find hiding places in his house. His time with her, he testified, goes by too quickly.

[168] Bradley was able to list some of the foods Aleene particularly likes. She is fond of tuna, plain pasta, and apple sauce.

[169] For activities, he likes to read to her and watch Paw Patrol with her.

[170] Whenever he misses his access with Aleene, he finds it heartbreaking. He understands that if she is sick, his visit with her cannot take place. However, he really misses her when he does not see her. He added that he would be prepared to give up his shiftwork at Starbucks in order to have a makeup visit with Aleene.

[171] At the time of testifying on March 22, 2019, Bradley had taken parental leave from the military. He did so in order to assist with the care of his son, Grayson.

[172] With respect to missed access visits with Aleene, Bradley explained that he was "in the field" from the first week of September to December 2018. Any extended period when he did not make contact with or see Aleene had more to do with poor cell reception in the Petawawa military training area than a lack of interest on his part. He may have to deploy outside Canada in 2020. He expects to be preparing for this in Wainwright, Alberta in the near future.

[173] On April 2, 2018 he explained that he did decline the Easter Monday visit with Aleene. He had hoped to have her come to his home on the day before (Easter Sunday). He had arranged for an Easter bunny to visit and to put on an egg hunt with his children.

[174] Bradley has offered on many occasions to meet with Burley at a neutral place, for example, Starbucks, Tim Horton's or the military police station in order to conduct the exchanges of Aleene. The Access Centre, of course, is closed on holidays.

[175] On November 11, 2018 (Remembrance Day), Bradley stated that it was an occasion on which his military unit had to travel into Pembroke on parade. The timing for him to enjoy his access with Aleene did not work. He notified Burley of the reason for this.

[176] On December 16, 2018, he recalled that he wished to make Aleene's car seat forward facing. It had been eight years since he had last installed a car seat for a child. He was intending to install one for his infant son, Grayson, too. Eventually, he went to a professional and had the work done.

[177] Bradley explained as well that over the Christmas period of 2018, his finances were tight. He had no special plans for Aleene. He felt frustrated and hamstrung. It was also around this time that his son, Grayson, was born (i.e., December 2018).

[178] On February 10, 2019, Bradley expected to have an access session with Aleene. He did not receive notice from Burley of her decision to cancel his access until five or 10 minutes before it was expected to start. He was extremely disappointed. He believed that he could have cared for their daughter in spite of her having been sick with a cold and fever.

[179] Overall, Bradley felt that being forced to do his pick up and drop off of Aleene at the Access Centre was degrading. It is only at Burley's insistence that the exchanges continue to be carried out in this way. He added that his relationship with Burley is not "wonderful". Bradley does not enjoy the current state of affairs between Burley and him. He would like to make it better.

[180] Earlier, on January 11, 2018, another occasion when Aleene was not feeling well, Bradley emailed Burley to ask how their daughter was doing. He explained that he is her dad. He is fully capable of looking after her when she is sick. He has experience with caring for a young child, who is feeling under the weather. He cautioned her that unless the doctor has given strict orders that Aleene cannot come to his house, he expected his access to proceed. Burley's response was to tell him to contact her lawyer.

[181] At the commencement of the litigation, Bradley explained that he was attempting to be his own lawyer. He admitted that he was a mess at the time. All he wanted was more access to Aleene. Preferably, he would have liked to have her for the same amount of time as he does his other daughter, Isabelle. As he put it, "it might take a while to get there, but eventually, bedtime at daddy's will be the same as at mommy's."

[182] Speaking about dealing with the transition of Aleene spending more time in his home, Bradley reflected that it would not be easy. Baby steps would be required initially. He would allow for contact between Aleene and Burley whenever the child is in his care. For example, if Burley wished to take her out to lunch, he would encourage it. He wants to be more cooperative with Burley.

[183] When the daycare provider G.J.'s monthly reports were referred to Bradley, he commented that he obtained more information about Aleene from those than he did from Burley. He would get pictures in the reports of what Aleene was doing. It made him happy to see her happy.

[184] In describing how he met G.J., he recounted that while Aleene was in his care, she said hello to G.J.'s own children. He then introduced himself to G.J. He thanked her for doing a great job with his daughter, Aleene.

[185] Bradley acknowledged the importance of maintaining the subsidy to allow Aleene to continue to attend a publicly funded daycare facility. He would be willing to pick her up or drop her off there. He did so in a similar fashion with Isabelle.

[186] Bradley expressed his general consternation over not knowing where his daughter is or what she is doing most days. It affected his mental health. He reached out to friends and his social worker, Ms. Grenier. He testified that he is learning to cope with it. For that reason, he was willing to share whatever documentation had been generated regarding his mental health. He added that he still does see Ms. Grenier once per month.

[187] Bradley had his attention drawn by his counsel to the Go Fund Me webpage he set up for himself. He explained that he did so in an effort to pay for his legal fees. He is attempting to play a greater role in the life of Aleene. He denied any malicious intent. He complied with the Court Order immediately to take it down.

[188] Bradley offered that his family is in Alberta and Prince Edward Island. He would like to be able to share pictures of Aleene with them given the distance. He regretted he was not there to see Aleene take her first steps. He made a post on his Go Fund Me page to that effect. He would have greatly appreciated being informed by Burley about the event, and perhaps even received a video from her of that milestone for Aleene.

[189] Bradley commented that he believes Burley considers him to be a poor father and incapable of properly caring for Aleene. He does not understand why she would think that way, especially in light of how successful he has been in raising Isabelle.

[190] Overnight access to Aleene is Bradley's ultimate goal. He wants those bedtime cuddles, the opportunity to settle her down, ready her for sleep time, and to kiss her good night.

[191] He would love to be able to take her on vacation. His new partner, J.A., has access to a cottage on Turkey Point. That, he felt, would be good for Aleene, as would trips to Prince Edward Island.

[192] He would like for his parents and grandmother to be able to meet Aleene. He has two sisters as well who have never seen Aleene as yet.

[193] In contrast to Burley, Bradley described her parenting qualities as follows:

a) a wonderful mom,

b) caring,

c) a great caregiver to Isabelle when the relationship between Burley and him was going well, and

d) very attentive to a child's needs.

[194] Bradley wished that Burley and he could put the past behind them and move forward for Aleene's sake. He described the last while as being very rough and restrictive.

[195] He acknowledged that he was to blame for much of the frostiness of the relationship between them. He explained that his anger, his explosive reactions to situations and his general upset were the product of his frustration at not being able to play a greater role in the life of Aleene. He added, "There's nothing I wouldn't do for Aleene . . .she needs both of us [Burley and Bradley]."

[196] Bradley resolved to move forward with Burley and to co-parent with her somehow in Aleene's best interests.

[197] Under cross-examination, Bradley confirmed that although he did join the military in December 1996, he left the army for a period of 3 to 4 years before re-enlisting in 2004.

[198] Primarily, he has been trained to be an armoured crewman. His role is to go and search for the enemy.

[199] Regarding his tour of duty in Afghanistan, Bradley specified that he left Canada on July 1, 2010 and returned on January 1, 2011. He has not been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"); however, he did agree that there would be occasions when he would still drop to the floor for some four days after getting home.

[200] Regarding his relationship with his former spouse, J.T., he recounted that they met in the spring of 2006 and separated in 2012. They spent almost 7 years together. Isabelle, of course was the product of their union born in 2009. She was a planned baby.

[201] His next relationship was a short-lived one with C.Y. It lasted only eight months. Nevertheless, he did propose marriage to her. They talked about pregnancy. That never materialized.

[202] He then commenced his relationship with Burley in early 2014. They separated in July 2017. Bradley described his association with her as relatively short term. It lasted less than three years.

[203] Following the end of their relationship, Bradley started into another dating type one with A.K. It was extremely short.

[204] By September 2017, he was partnered with J.A. Grayson is his third child, who J.A. gave birth to in December 2018.

[205] Bradley was referred to a document generated November 27, 2018. It was prepared by his social worker, Ms. Grenier. Under the heading, Clinical Impression Classification, Ms. Grenier set out:

a) other mental health symptoms (bipolar affective disorder, personality disorder), and

b) anxiety/stress symptoms.

[206] Bradley denied having ever been diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder or personality disorder. He added that if he had ever been considered bipolar, he would not be able to handle weapons in the Canadian Forces. Nor has he ever been hospitalized for any sort of medical condition.

[207] In describing how his mind works, Bradley explained that his brain turns on, and it will not turn off again. He enjoys counselling. He now sees Ms. Grenier once per month. At an earlier point in time, he was seeing her weekly.

[208] Bradley was next referred to a document generated February 13, 2014. The document indicates that it was six pages in length; however, only the last page appears to have been produced. Under the heading, Diagnostic Impressions, Dr. Len Gignac, a psychologist, found under Axis I of the DSM-V that Bradley has symptoms associated with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder. Under Axis IV, Dr. Gignac identified "relationship crisis" and "occupational/social problems" as areas of concern for Bradley.

[209] When questioned about whether he ever had thoughts of suicide, Bradley candidly admitted that he did. Perhaps it was a way out, but he thought of Isabelle, his only child at the time. In any event, he added, he sought out help immediately upon feeling so despondent. At present, there is no suicidal risk.

[210] Bradley was lastly referred to a document generated July 27, 2017. This document indicated a treatment start date for Bradley of December 8, 2016. In speaking with social workers on this occasion, Ms. Harriet and Ms. Labonte, Bradley recalled an incident where he punched the wall and swore at his partner in response to being cornered by her in a bathroom. Bradley did not deny this conduct. He explained that anger management has been a long-standing issue for him. He took a course called "Calm, Cool, Collected". He took responsibility for his actions and realizes that anger control will likely always be an issue for him. He now says that he has the tools in his toolbox to avoid anger. Bradley attributes many of his difficulties with anger to be a consequence of having been bullied a lot in school.

[211] Bradley was lastly referred to a document dated November 28, 2017. At that point in time, he explained, he was in a relationship with J.A. The clinical assessment of him, namely that he had adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, was confirmed. In relating how the condition affects a person, Bradley testified that he has a hard time adjusting to change.

[212] He understood that the withdrawal symptoms caused by no longer taking his prescription medication, Effexor, namely headaches and tremors, were continuing to cause him some difficulty. He understood Effexor to be an antidepressant, anti-anxiety medication. His other prescription medication, Wellbutrin, he continued to take. He was not sure whether a 300 mg dose was a high one. He had been taking dosages as high as 450 mg in the past.

[213] As of December 20, 2017, the diagnosis for Bradley appears to be generalized anxiety disorder, not PTSD.

[214] Burley's counsel took Bradley through a long list of medications prescribed to him between January 1, 2014 and February 5, 2018.

[215] When asked about the drug, Lorazepam, Bradley understood that this was prescribed to bring his mind down if he was upset. On November 24, 2015, he filled that prescription. He did not believe that he was on Lorazepam for long. He thought he had used up that prescription within the two months after it was dispensed early into his relationship with Burley.

[216] It was pointed out to him that on September 28, 2016, he obtained another prescription for Lorazepam. He then testified that he was on and off Lorazepam for approximately two years.

[217] Again, it was shown to Bradley that he filled another prescription for Lorazepam on August 15, 2017. He commented that he must have still been on it by that date. He understands it to be an addictive drug. For that reason, it is dispensed sparingly.

[218] Burley's counsel put to Bradley that he had listened to the testimony of Burley about his angry outbursts in the past. Bradley agreed that he has mental health issues, which are stress-related. He did not deny that he:

a) broke the back door in anger of the PMQ he shared with Burley,

b) punched the fridge, and

c) punched the bathroom wall.

[219] In recalling the cough medicine incident, Bradley related that the pharmacist gave him the medication. He was told that a pregnant woman could safely take it. He did not recall grabbing Burley, but he did concede that he was upset for having gone through all the trouble of obtaining the medication for nothing.

[220] Bradley did not deny that there was an occasion when he drove erratically with Burley in his vehicle while she was pregnant. He told his social worker about it.

[221] Bradley also confessed that he pushed Burley on to a chair almost causing it to fall over. He described this incident as a "mistake". He characterized himself as no angel. He was capable of making bad choices. However, he has learned to take responsibility for his conduct.

[222] On the issue of suicide, Bradley did not recall telling Burley's mother about thoughts of self-harm. He did tell Burley; she told him to go ahead and do it. He stated that Aleene and Isabelle were present for the exchange. It was one of the reasons why he left the relationship with Burley. It had become that toxic.

[223] The FCS letter of September 11, 2017 was drawn to Bradley's attention. In discussing disciplining children, Bradley admitted that he did spank Isabelle on the bum once. However, he vehemently denied that Aleene, Isabelle, or Grayson would ever be at a risk of harm from him. He did concede nevertheless that anger witnessed by children in a household affects them negatively. Indeed, he agreed with the suggestion that the emotional scars left by a high conflict relationships between parents can be worse in their effect upon children than physically harming them.

[224] In harkening back to his contempt for failure to follow the Order of Justice Selkirk dated March 8, 2018, Bradley conceded that he angrily departed the courtroom when the finding was made, and he was ordered to pay costs. He went further and confessed that he exploded in the hallway outside the courtroom. He explained that he was under a lot of financial stress at the time. He spoke to his counsellor since that incident. He understood how very wrong his behaviour was. He appreciated that stress causes this type of reaction in him. He again apologized to the Court for his outburst.

[225] At the same time, Bradley testified that he did not know why Burley is afraid of him. He knows where she lives. He is not a violent person. He does not ever want his children to be afraid of him. He offered that Burley should not be afraid of him.

[226] Burley's counsel drew Bradley's attention to his December 19, 2018 social media posting. In it, he stated, amongst other things, "I don't think I can take any more of this. I want bad things to happen to my ex."

[227] Bradley explained that he was expressing his frustration at being denied Christmas access again to Aleene. He was angry. However, he denied he ever intended any intention to physically harm Burley or Aleene.

[228] Burley's counsel referred Bradley to a document prepared by his former spouse, J.T., on February 27, 2013. The document was prepared in response to Bradley's Case Conference Brief, which he filed with the Court on February 27, 2013 as well. At paragraph 12 of her Answer, J.T. wrote:

On January 19, 2013, I went to Chris's house to collect some things, mainly Isabelle's bassinet that my father had handmade for her. Before leaving the house, I had mentioned to Chris that one of my friends would be by the next day to serve him his court documents. This resulted in him physically assaulting me, with our daughter less than 2 feet away. There is an MP report for this incident. In addition, Family and Children's Services were contacted concerning this.

Furthermore, this reinforces my concerns regarding Chris's anger issues. I am concerned that one day something will set him off to such an extent that our daughter, Isabelle, will be physically harmed.

I would like for both of us to have fair and reasonable access to her, with adequate notice before any scheduled changes, and advance requests for vacation time. I would also like to request that no alcohol be consumed by anyone in the caregiving role for Isabelle.

[229] When questioned about the details of the alleged assault, Bradley stated he did not remember what he did to J.T. He rationalized that he was still going through a lot of difficulty with his mental health. He has since completed the "Calm, Cool and Collected" program.

[230] Burley's counsel then drew Bradley's attention to the Order of Selkirk J. dated July 8, 2013 wherein his Honour restricted each parent to a limit of three alcoholic beverages whenever they were engaged in a caregiving role. Bradley agreed that he had been using alcohol to sooth his mental disquiet when he came back from Afghanistan. He maintained however that he is not an alcoholic. He recalled that he had 47 days off following his return from Afghanistan. During those 47 days, he drank a considerable amount. He added that J.T. has no alcohol problem either.

[231] Counsel for Burley took Bradley back to a time when he owned a pet dog. The suggestion was put to Bradley that he tried to run the dog over. Bradley conceded that he was so angry at the dog in the moment that he floored the van. He did not hurt the animal. He called the SPCA the next day and asked to have the dog taken back. That same day as well, he testified, he went to see the doctor for help with his anger issues.

[232] Bradley denied that his daughter Isabelle was ever "kicked out of daycare", as suggested by Burley's counsel. He explained that he lives in a military town. The child, with whom Isabelle could not get along at the time, was the biological child of the caregiver. For that reason, Isabelle had to leave.

[233] Bradley as well conceded that there were occasions when Isabelle would be in his care, and she would get confused. He explained that for long periods, he would be gone on military training. As a young child, Isabelle would cry for her mother. However, now she is 10 years of age and loves being at his home.

[234] Bradley denied that he ever encouraged, during his brief relationship with C.Y., that Isabelle and C.Y.'s son should ever refer to each other as brother and sister.

[235] Bradley admitted as well that his relationship with C.Y. ended due to his infidelity.

[236] With respect to Bradley's brief relationship with A.K., Bradley denied that he ever suggested she should "accept" his children, as she indicated in a social media posting. Aleene never met A.K. Bradley introduced A.K. to Isabelle simply as his friend.

[237] Bradley recalled that he met J.A. on the Plenty of Fish dating site in October 2017. In August 2018, they began living together. J.A. was already pregnant with their son, Grayson, at the time. He was born in December 2018. Aleene was introduced to J.A. Both of his daughters, Isabelle and Aleene, call J.A. by her first name.

[238] Bradley was referred to a social media posting where J.A. commented that she " . . . found some moms in the hotel bar LOL". Bradley explained that J.A. does not really drink alcohol. He pointed out as well that in August 2017 when the posting was made, he still had not met J.A.

[239] In another posting, J. A. wrote, "dance mom time! LOL. Where are my fellow moms?" The photo underneath the text depicts what appears to be a beer or cooler can being put to J.A.'s lips. Bradley was unfazed by the photo. He felt that whatever gathering J.A. was attending was a rather benign affair.

[240] In yet another photo drawn to Bradley's attention where J.A. was drinking what appears to be a Palm Bay cooler, he understood that picture to have been taken while she was attending a Maroon 5 concert with friends. Again, he saw no great impropriety in what J.A. was doing.

[241] Bradley was clear that Burley chose to move from Brockville to Petawawa after they met on the Plenty of Fish website. He helped her to find a job. She assisted him with the care of Isabelle. He agreed that Isabelle was in counselling at the time. She was having issues at school. There were no problems at home.

[242] Bradley was aware as well that Burley suffered from postpartum depression following Aleene's birth in December 2016. She took Cipralex or Citalopram for anxiety and depression. Burley, he reckoned, has had her struggles with her mental health at times too.

[243] Bradley vehemently denied that he acted harshly in attempting to have Burley evicted. He was told by his chain of command that if they were no longer a couple, she would have 30 days to vacate. He expected Burley and Aleene to find an apartment. He was in barracks at the time. He figured two months was plenty of opportunity to do so. He recalled that on an earlier occasion, she had changed the locks at the PMQ on him. His reason for observing her move was to ensure that he was not going to be "… cleaned out".

[244] Bradley equally denied being the cause for any inconvenience with the daycare provider that Burley had arranged for Aleene just before Burley was due to return to work. He was adamant that he did not become angry in speaking to the caregiver. He did express to her that he had not seen his daughter in two months.

[245] Regarding posting photos of children on the Internet, such as those he was shown of a Garrison Petawawa Christmas party, Bradley commented that "… everybody in the world does that". He opined that statistically 9.9 out of 10 people do so. He denied that he was aware of any great danger to Aleene from predators trolling the Internet. His Go Fund Me webpage was simply an attempt to raise funds to pay for his legal costs. He disagreed that posting Aleene's picture was exploitive in any way. He agreed that he only raised $150 of his $3500 goal before he took the website down.

[246] Bradley disagreed that the Go Fund Me website he created was an attempt at trying to "guilt" Burley into giving into his demands. He explained that he was simply talking to family and friends – trying to tell them the truth about his frustrated attempts at getting greater access to Aleene.

[247] Bradley's attention was drawn to the Order of Justice Selkirk dated July 10, 2018. He agreed that it took almost a year for him to comply with the Court's requirement to arrange for Burley to be the beneficiary in trust for Aleene for any payout of his life insurance benefits to secure child support payments in the event of his death. However, Bradley attempted to justify his position. He explained that Aleene would be designated to be the recipient of a 50% share, while his other children, Isabelle and Grayson, would be the recipients of only a 25% share each.

[248] Bradley conceded that he has had his share of financial woes. He declared bankruptcy once before. Twice he has been forced to make consumer proposals. The second one was done in October 2018. Under that arrangement, he must pay $150 per month to his creditors.

[249] Recently, Bradley stated that he signed a further four year contract with the Canadian Forces. Ultimately, he would like to qualify for a 25 year service pension. In order to do so, he has 14 more years to go.

[250] He is still employed part-time at Starbucks working 5 to 10 hours a weekend. He explained that this is a little bit of extra money to support his family.

[251] He conceded the obvious - he has three different children by three different women.

[252] J.A., he clarified, is employed. She is a kitchen worker at a store in Petawawa. At the time he was testifying on April 12, 2019, he understood that J.A. would be on maternity leave until July or August 2019.

[253] In recent months, he agreed that he had been thinking about leaving the military. He related that his 40-year-old body is tired. He thought about obtaining benefits from Veterans Affairs under a program to assist military members to retrain for civilian jobs.

[254] Bradley contemplated relocating to Brantford, Ontario where J.A.'s family is from. He looked into attending school in Toronto or Hamilton. He was thinking about becoming a chef. He denied that he would be unable to have access with Aleene or Isabelle if he had followed through on the move. Upon reflection however, he agreed that living that far from Petawawa would have impacted his access to Aleene.

[255] Burley's counsel took Bradley through a list of access cancellations kept by her. He denied that the reason he missed Easter access was a result of any wrongdoing on his part. The Access Centre where drop up and pick up of Aleene is supposed to occur is closed on holidays. He explained that Burley knew he wished to have access on Easter Sunday, when he had arranged for an Easter bunny to visit his children and to do an egg hunt with them. He explained that Burley would not consider handing over Aleene to him without using the Access Centre. As a result, Aleene missed the occasion of the Easter Bunny's visit to his home. Bradley was too upset to consider exercising access on Easter Monday instead.

[256] Bradley agreed that there was no access on August 5, 19, 26 and September 2, 2018. He was on vacation. He added that he had given Burley two weeks' notice that this access would not occur.

[257] Between November 4 and 23, 2018, Bradley explained that he was on military exercise, hence access could not take place.

[258] On December 16, 2018, Bradley maintained that access was denied by Burley simply because he had asked questions about the car seat for Aleene. Burley then unilaterally decided to cancel his access.

[259] On December 23, 2018, Bradley testified that access was cancelled again. He was not given any reason why. Burley just told him so.

[260] Bradley raised the possibility of Burley offering to him makeup access, should he miss the regular session. He commented that " . . . everyone requires flexibility." He reckoned that, as a member of the Canadian Forces, he has to work, but that does not mean he does not love his daughter. He does so very much. That is the reason why he wants increased access.

[261] He added that Aleene needs to have her father in her life, as well as her brother and her sister. Bradley felt that Aleene would benefit from getting to know her extended family and his new partner, J.A.

[262] He pointed out that it is a sad situation when a military member is deployed. The soldier must go a long time without seeing his or her family. As a result, there may well be times in future where Aleene will be solely with Burley.

[263] Bradley maintained that, in the limited number of times that Aleene has seen J.A., it is apparent that Aleene loves her.

[264] He opined that it may take Aleene time to adjust to overnight access. She is not yet completely verbal. He accepted that she will not be able to state her desire to go back to her mother, should that be her wish. However, he insisted that Aleene will never get used to overnight visits at his home, unless they start. He maintained that it will be good for Aleene to be with both parents in any event.

[265] Bradley acknowledged that access should be gradually increased, and include overnights, but that the process must start as soon as possible. Access only on Sundays is not enough in his view. As he put it, "I don't understand the why of Burley's proposed access schedule".

[266] Bradley appreciated that Burley deserves huge credit for the job she is doing in raising Aleene to date. He accepted that Burley's insistence on routine for Aleene is good, but there still has to be adjustments made by both parents, so that both can be included in Aleene's life.

[267] When the rules for continued qualification for subsidized daycare were drawn to Bradley's attention, he agreed that it is critical for this aspect of Aleene's care to be maintained. Any court ordered access must respect those rules in his view.

[268] Bradley pointed out that his proposed access schedule of every alternating weekend would permit Burley to have a full weekend with Aleene as well, which Burley deserves.

[269] Bradley agreed that Aleene's bond with Burley was stronger than with him, but he was firmly of the view that he has not had a chance to develop one more fully with Aleene as yet.

[270] Bradley opined that waiting until Aleene was 4 ½ years old would not be in her best interests. As he put it, "it would delay everything, and prevent the bond from developing now".

[271] Under re-examination, Bradley affirmed that he has never been accused of being violent with a child, nor has he ever been violent with a child. At the time of testifying, he pointed out that he has a teething four month old. He maintained that he has patience with children. He has babysat them since he was 10 years old. His kids, he stated, were the most important thing to him. Becoming a dad, he explained, was the happiest day of his life.

[272] Bradley explained that his fear is Aleene will someday ask, "Why weren't you there?" He added that he has been waiting two years to begin to build memories with Aleene. Overnight access has been postponed long enough in his view. He has been in court for a year and ½ seeking greater access.

[273] He did not deny that he has anger issues. He attributed this to the bullying he suffered in childhood. He recalled that he was often the new kid in school. His father was a member of the military before him. His family was posted to several military bases as a result.

[274] Bradley also acknowledged that he suffered difficulties after his military tour in Afghanistan.

[275] Bradley agreed that he had communication problems with Burley. At times they are not able to have a conversation together. However, he maintained that a greater connection to him and to his extended family would be good for Aleene.

[276] Bradley claimed that while working at Domino's Pizza in a part-time position, he became aware of Burley's new address. He declined to make the delivery to her home when he did. He has never attended unwanted at her address since she left the PMQ.

[277] Bradley suggested that neutral locations such as Tim Horton's, Starbucks, or the military police detachment, as opposed to the Access Centre, should be the sites where exchanges of Aleene occur.

[278] Bradley reaffirmed that maintaining subsidized daycare for Aleene is "super important". However, the subsidy should not jeopardize his parenting time with Aleene.

[279] Bradley was clear that should Aleene have trouble adjusting to increased access, including overnights, at his home, or should she become upset and simply need contact with her mother, he would without hesitation return the child to Burley.

J.T.

[280] At the time of testifying, Bradley's former spouse was 43 years of age.

[281] She works at a drugstore in Petawawa. She is, of course, the mother of Isabelle, now 10 years of age.

[282] She recalled that Bradley and she shared a 3 to 4 year relationship prior to their marriage. The marriage itself lasted only a couple of years. Since then, Bradley and she have been co-parenting on a 40-60 split. Isabelle spends roughly 40% of her time with Bradley. The remaining 60% is spent with J.T.

[283] J.T. explained that Bradley and she have flexibility in their co-parenting of Isabelle. They will help each other out, whenever the need arises.

[284] She conceded that their level of cooperation was not always as co-operative as it is at present. Over time, they have learned to work with one another.

[285] When Isabelle is in Bradley's care, she has no concerns about his ability to parent their child and knows that Isabelle is fine with him. If something were to happen, Bradley would send her a text, but that has never happened.

[286] J.T. reflected upon a time nevertheless when Bradley liked to drink alcohol. It was for that reason that she wished to see Justice Selkirk's Order of July 8, 2013 contain a provision limiting consumption to three alcoholic beverages for either Bradley or her while Isabelle was in the care of one or the other of them.

[287] J.T. explained that the condition was necessary to ensure Isabelle's safety and to provide peace of mind.

[288] When asked about her feelings when Isabelle goes into Bradley's care, she posed the question, "What mother wants to see her child go away?"

[289] J.T. hastened to add that she is happy that Isabelle gets to see Bradley. Bradley, she confirmed, does his best with Isabelle.

[290] J.T. described Bradley as a caring father. Over the years, Bradley and she had their differences. However, they both now realize that Isabelle is what is important.

[291] J.T. was adamant that she does not now fear for Isabelle's safety when their child is with him. Isabelle is fine when she comes back from his care.

[292] J.T. testified that Isabelle speaks constantly of Grayson and Aleene. It warms her heart to know that Isabelle's stepmom, J.A., cares for Isabelle to the degree she does. J.T. trusts J.A. in her capacity to mother Isabelle.

[293] By contrast, J.T. explained that she did not really have a relationship with Burley. She recalled that there was one occasion when they met at Tim Horton's. J.T. described herself as a person who is not hard to get along with. However, she found it really hard with Burley.

[294] J.T. remembered upon an incident where Burley and Bradley had purchased a sweater for Isabelle. The item of clothing shrunk when J.T. laundered it. Burley was upset. She indicated to J.T. that she would be fully responsible for replacing any clothing which Isabelle was no longer capable of wearing. To J.T.'s mind, Burley was unwilling to accept what had occurred was a simple accident.

[295] Under cross-examination, counsel for Burley asked about Isabelle's presence at court on the day J.T. was there to testify. Apparently, Isabelle was waiting outside the courtroom in the hallway. J.T. explained that Isabelle is a smart kid. She understood what was happening in court. However, the reason Isabelle was present was because right after J.T. finished her testimony, she was heading out on vacation to New Brunswick with Isabelle.

[296] Burley's counsel as well drew to J.T.'s attention her pleading from January 18, 2013. In it, Burley stated "as a father and husband, he [Bradley] was not physically there for us". She agreed that she was of that view; however, Bradley did change over time.

[297] Burley's counsel referred J.T. to a later point in her pleadings where she contended that Bradley physically assaulted her with Isabelle less than 2 feet away. She reflected that Bradley had anger issues, which were concerning to her, but again, she maintained that Bradley was not the same person now as he was then. She added that she knew that J.A. would not be with him if he was still that kind of person.

[298] By age 4, J.T. explained that Isabelle was doing overnight stays with Bradley. J.T. pointed out as well that Bradley and she were already doing a "60-40" split before there was ever a Court Order in place.

[299] Regarding Isabelle's behaviour problems in her early years, J.T. reckoned that this was due to a lack of structure. Isabelle was adjusting to when she would be in her father's care as opposed to J.T.'s care. Isabelle, she felt, was having a hard time coping with the separation.

[300] J.T. did not recall that Isabelle ever had a particularly good relationship with Burley. J.T. testified that Burley would send Isabelle to her room, as would Bradley.

[301] J.T. agreed that Aleene is now exposed to three different family constellations:

a) Bradley, J.T. and Isabelle,

b) Bradley, Burley and Aleene, and

c) Bradley, J.A., Jaden, Rianna and Grayson.

[302] J.T. was not of the view that this would be bad for the child, Aleene. She maintained that she believed it would be wonderful for Aleene to have overnight visits with Bradley. As J.T. put it, "A child needs both parents".

[303] J.T. offered that J.A.'s daughters are wonderful to Isabelle. Bradley and J.A. have a loving home.

J.A.

[304] At the time of testifying, J.A. was 43 years of age. She was on maternity leave. She worked at a convenience store in Petawawa prior to commencing her leave.

[305] J.A. planned to start offering child care in September 2019 as a source of income. She explained that the maximum number of children for whom she can provide care is five. Additionally, she cannot have more than two children under the age of two in her charge at one time.

[306] J.A. recollected that she has been in a relationship with Bradley since September 2017. Bradley took parental leave from his employment as well, when Grayson was born. She described Bradley as a caring father. Together they live in a home with Grayson, and J.A.'s two older daughters, Jaden 17, and Rianna 15.

[307] In describing Bradley's parenting abilities, J.A. spoke of how he cuddles Grayson, changes him and generally takes care of him appropriately. If Grayson is left in Bradley's sole care, J.A. has no concerns.

[308] J.A. spoke of how she does from time to time have anxiety issues. She does drink alcohol, but very rarely, because she has children in the house. Every few days, when her children are in bed, she may have one or two beer to drink.

[309] When Aleene is in J.A.'s home, J.A. commented that she then has four kids (i.e. Jaden, Rianna, Grayson and Aleene). The number can go up to five with Isabelle there as well. Bradley, she explained, gets Isabelle up from bed and primarily cares for her. It can be a busy household, J.A. reflected, but at the same time, it is fun. As J.A. put it, "We are one family".

[310] J.A. testified that her daughters preferred to stay at home. This permitted J.A. to monitor their conduct and their use of social media.

[311] To J.A., family dynamics are important. She explained that she loves Aleene as if she were her own daughter. She reads books to her. They go on walks together. J.A. noticed that Aleene likes to help. Aleene has also made a connection with J.A.'s older daughter, Jaden, who also reads to Aleene.

[312] J.A. maintained that she does not treat Aleene any differently than her own children. Although J.A. has a stronger bond with Isabelle, she explained that she spends more time with that child.

[313] In describing her relationship with J.T., J.A. offered that one cannot have animosity, hate or dislike for your partner's ex-partner. Where kids are involved, the adults must rise above those types of feelings.

[314] J.A. clarified that J.T. and she would not be best friends, but that they do get along fine.

[315] J.A. recounted her disappointment at not being able to have all of the children together after Grayson was born, and was brought home from the hospital.

[316] J.A. lamented that she wished Burley could get to know her. J.A. pointed out that she gets along with her ex-husband and J.T. J.A. testified that she hates Sunday evenings. Those are the times when Burley sends negative emails, because Bradley and she, it seems, can never do anything right when Aleene is with them.

[317] J.A. recalled that the most recent email received from Burley dealt with the fall Aleene had while in Bradley's care. Aleene scraped her knee. She fell running in the park. Burley now sends Aleene in elbow and knee pads to her access visits with Bradley.

[318] J.A. testified that she has never met, nor spoken to Burley.

[319] J.A. concluded that, in a word, Burley is "overprotective".

[320] Under cross-examination, J.A. indicated that she is not medicated for her anxiety. Four years ago, when she was going through the separation and divorce with her ex-husband, she was.

[321] Regarding her alcohol habits, J.A. reaffirmed that she has only one or two beer to drink every few days.

[322] On one occasion, J.A. reflected that she saw Bradley drink too much, but that occurred before she was pregnant with Grayson.

[323] When confronted with her Facebook posting with the caption "I found some moms in the hotel bar LOL", J.A. explained that this was her "dance mom" time. The posting was made on August 28, 2017.

[324] J.A. recounted that Bradley and she began a relationship in September 2017. She became pregnant in February 2018. The pregnancy was not planned. They started living together in August 2018, when she moved into his house. She met Aleene in November or December 2018. Aleene refers to her as "J."

[325] J.A. agreed that Grayson is Bradley's third child with three different women. Bradley had an eight month relationship with one C.Y. He had another of several years with J.T. Equally, he had one of a few years' duration with Burley. Now he is into a relationship with J.A., which is in its second year.

[326] Regarding access, on December 16, 2018, J.A. recalled that it was cancelled over the car seat. December 22-23, 2018, Bradley and she were told that Aleene was ill.

[327] According to J.A., Bradley works full-time in the Canadian Forces and part-time at Starbucks. He can put in to upwards of 15 hours per week in his part-time employment.

[328] J.A. agreed that Grayson is by far the most demanding of her children given his age.

[329] J.A. confirmed that Bradley and she discussed the possibility of moving to Brantford. J.A. hails from there. At the time, Bradley was contemplating leaving the military. However, they concluded that it would not be feasible for them to leave Petawawa. Bradley instead renewed his contract and committed himself to four more years of service in the Canadian military.

[330] J.A. denied that she has ever made Facebook or Internet posts about Aleene. She was aware that Bradley had. She discouraged this and told him it was inappropriate to do so She believed that he came to appreciate why he should not.

[331] J.A. agreed that she did make a post where she stated "Your daughter will learn as she grows how you fought for her". She denied that this comment ever reflected poorly on Aleene's mother, Burley. J.A. did concede that Aleene, when she was older, could have it explained to her what had happened in this case. J.A. maintained that she would never badmouth Aleene's mother.

[332] When confronted with Bradley's social media post that he wished for bad things to happen to his ex, J.A. testified that it was her first time reading it in the witness box. She did not see it so much as an expression of anger, as one of frustration.

[333] Under re-examination, J.A. expressed how she was offended that social media posts of hers were collected by Burley and used in litigation. Some, J.A. contended, were taken out of context.

[334] As J.A. summed it up, "It is not my personality to suggest . . . let's go get loaded."

ISSUES

[335] The evidence heard a trial raises the following issues:

a) What effect, if any, should Bradley's past conduct have on his access to Aleene?

b) In Aleene's best interests, how much access should Bradley have with her?

c) Where should the access exchanges occur?

d) In what manner should Bradley and Burley communicate going forward?

LAW

[336] Section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act ("C.L.R.A.") provides a statutory formula for determining the scope of access to be granted by a non-custodial parent to his or her child. The relevant provisions are as follows:

(1) The merits of an application . . . in respect of . . . access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child, in accordance with subsections (2) (3) and (4).

(2) The court shall consider all the child's needs and circumstances, including,

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and

(i) each person including a parent . . . entitled to or claiming . . . access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child's family who reside with the child, and

(iii) persons involved in the child's care and upbringing;

(b) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(c) the plan proposed by each person applying for . . . access to the child for the child's care and upbringing;

(e) the permanence and stability of the family unit in which it is proposed that the child will live;

(d) the ability of each person applying for . . . access to the child to act as a parent; and

(f) any familial relationship between the child and each person who was a party to the application.

(3) A person's past conduct shall be considered only,

(a) in accordance with subsection (4); or

(b) if the court is satisfied that the conduct is otherwise relevant to the person's ability to act as a parent.

(4) In assessing a person's ability to act as a parent, the court shall consider whether the person has at any time committed violence or abuse against,

(a) his or her spouse;

(b) a parent of the child to whom the application relates;

(c) a member of the person's household; or

(d) any child.

[337] In D.G. v. A.-G.D., 2019 ONCJ 43, Sherr J. offered guidance on the application of s. 24 of the C.L.R.A. as follows:

"[118] Subsection 24 (2) of the Act sets out eight considerations for the court to consider in making the best interests determination. No one factor has greater weight than the other, nor is one factor particularly determinative of the issue before the court. See: Libbus v. Libbus , [2008] O.J. No. 4148, (Ont. SCJ) . The court must also consider subsection 24(3) of the Act that deals with past conduct relevant to parenting and subsection 24(4) of the Act that deals with violence and abuse. The court has considered all of these relevant factors.

[119] If one parent does not facilitate, or undermines the child's relationship with the other parent, it will be a relevant factor in determining their ability to act as a parent. See: Leggatt v Leggatt , 2015 ONSC 4502 ."

[338] In Benko v. Torok, 2012 ONCJ 152, Zisman J. made the following commentary on ordering overnight access for infants aged 6 to 18 months:

"[51] Counsel for the father provided the court with several cases which quoted and approved of the article by Joan Kelly and Michael Lamb, in " Using Child Development Research to Make Appropriate Custody and Access Decisions for Young Children ", Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Vo. 38, No. 3 July 2000. In that article the authors conclude that prior opinions suggesting that overnight access for infants six to eighteen months is less than desirable and may not be appropriate until three years of age were unnecessarily restrictive and not based on child development research and reflected an outdated view of parent-child relationships.

[52] Firstly, just because several cases have adopted this view of overnight access based on the Kelly and Lamb philosophy does not elevate that theory to an accepted principle. I note that in none of the cases was any expert evidence called but the court simply accepted the theory of overnight access as being appropriate for young children. Therefore there was no opportunity for any cross-examination of the authors on their theory or the opportunity to explore the application of the theory to the particular facts of the case.

[53] Secondly, as I pointed out to counsel, in the July 2011 publication of the Family and Conciliation Court Review there are several articles by well respected researchers and psychologists that do not agree with the theories espoused by Kelly and Lamb that overnight access for young children is consistent with child development.

[54] By attempting to rely on the Kelly and Lamb theory that overnight access is appropriate for young child, counsel for the father is in effect, requesting the court take judicial notice of this theory.

[55] The concept of judicial notice facilitates the acceptance by a court of the truth of a particular fact or state of affairs, without the requirement of proof, where the fact is so well known that it is not the subject of dispute among reasonable people, or, is capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy. (See Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, 2d., the Law of Evidence in Canada (Toronto: Butterworth, 1999) at 1055.

[56] What is clear is that there are different theories with respect to the issue of when it is appropriate for young children to commence overnight access. The theory of overnight access being appropriate for young children does not fit into the category of facts that a court can or should take judicial notice of."

[339] In Perchaluk v. Perchaluk, 2012 ONCJ 525, Zisman J. revisited the same controversial theme of when overnight access should occur in light of the differing schools of thought on early child development. She stated:

"[37] Further, I note that the cases rely on the theories of Joan B. Kelly and Michael Lamb regarding the benefit of overnight access for a young child in ensuring that there is a meaningful relationship with the other parent. The cases simply quote from an article published by Kelly and Lamb titled, Using Child Development Research to Make Appropriate Custody and Access Decisions for Young Children, Family and Conciliation Courts Review , Vol. 38, No. 3, July 2002, 297-311. With respect to judges in those cases that have simply accepted this theory without any expert evidence and seem to have taken judicial notice of those theories, I am not prepared to do so.

[38] Firstly, just because several cases have adopted this view of overnight access based on the Kelly and Lamb philosophy does not elevate that theory to an accepted principle. I note that in none of the cases was any expert evidence called but the court simply accepted the theory of overnight access as being appropriate for young children. Therefore there was no opportunity for any cross-examination of the authors on their theory or the opportunity to explore the application of the theory to the particular facts of the case.

[39] Secondly, in the July 2011 publication of the Family and Conciliation Court Review there are several articles by well respected researchers and psychologists that do not agree with the theories espoused by Kelly and Lamb that overnight access for young children is consistent with child development.

[40] By attempting to rely on the Kelly and Lamb theory that overnight access is appropriate for young child, counsel for the mother is in effect, requesting the court take judicial notice of this theory.

[41] The concept of judicial notice facilitates the acceptance by a court of the truth of a particular fact or state of affairs, without the requirement of proof, where the fact is so well known that it is not the subject of dispute among reasonable people, or, is capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy. (See Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, 2d., the Law of Evidence in Canada (Toronto: Butterworth, 1999) at 1055. [3]

[42] The writings of Kelly and Lamb are not without controversy and are not so widely accepted that they can or should be accepted. What is clear is that there are different theories with respect to the issue of when it is appropriate for young children to commence overnight access. The theory of overnight access being appropriate for young children does not fit into the category of facts that a court can or should take judicial notice of."

[340] In D.G. v. A.-G. D. supra, Sherr J. reviewed some of the salient principle to be observed by courts in determining access as follows:

"[127] A child should have maximum contact with both parents if it is consistent with the child's best interests. See: Gordon v. Goertz , [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27 .

[128] There is a presumption that regular access by a non-custodial parent is in the best interests of children. The right of a child to visit with a non-custodial parent and to know and maintain or form an attachment to the non-custodial parent is a fundamental right and should only be forfeited in the most extreme and unusual circumstances. See: Jafari v. Dadar , [1996] N.B.J. No. 38 (NBQB) .

[129] The party who seeks to reduce normal access will usually be required to provide a justification for taking such a position. The greater the restriction sought, the more important it becomes to justify that restriction. See: M.A. v. J.D. , [2003] O.J. No. 2946 (OCJ) .

[130] A starting point to assess a child's best interests when making a custody or access order is to ensure that the child will be physically and emotionally safe. It is also in a child's best interests when making an access order that his or her caregiver be physically and emotionally safe. See: I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615 ."

[341] In Heuss v. Surkos, 2004 Carswell Ont. 3517 (Ont. C.J.), Spence J. expansively reviewed the case law dealing with orders of access made for very young children i.e. (three years old and younger) as follows:

"22 The case of Terris v Terris , [2002] O.J. No. 3018 (Ont. S.C.J.) dealt with the mobility of two children, ages one and three years. Linhares De Sousa, J., considered the "maximum contact" principle cited in Gordon v. Goertz (1996) , 134 D.L.R. (4 th ) 321 (S.C.C.) , Gordon held, that in deciding whether a parent should be permitted to move away to a different location with a child, a court must look at the desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents. Notwithstanding the very young ages of the two children in Terris , the court held that the mother, who was the access parent, was to have "generous and frequent" access to the children.

23 In Szczecina v. Szczecina , [2003] O.J. No. 1249 (Ont. S.C.J.) , the issue centered on the custody of a nine-month-old child. The court rejected the "tender years" doctrine, awarded temporary custody to the father and access to the mother on alternate weekends from Fridays at noon to Mondays at noon.

24 In Huffman v. Kuffner , [2003] S.J. No. 292 (Sask. Q.B.) , the father was seeking access to a 19-month-old child for a consecutive period of 72 hours. The court held that, having regard to the child's age, the requested access was too much. However, Smith, J. stated, at paragraph 6:

Having said that, there is no question the petitioner father has demonstrated a real commitment to Aza [the child] and that it is important to nourish that relationship. [my emphasis]

25 As a result, the court awarded access for a 48-hour period on alternate weekends, as well as midweek access.

26 In Waugh v Waugh (1998), 42 R.F.L. (4 th ) 415 (Ont. Gen. Div.) , there were competing applications over the custody of a 17-month-old child. The court held that it was important for the child to have a good relationship with the non-custodial father. In the result, the court ordered alternate weekend access from Fridays to Sundays, as well as midweek access.

27 In Stewart-Croll v. Croll (1996) , 24 R.F.L. (4 th ) 219 (Man. C.A.) , the subject child was 2- ½ years old. The court held that "the child's maximum contact with each parent is in his best interests" and permitted the access father to care for the child three days in succession during the weeks that the father was not required to work on the weekends.

28 Finally, in Peterson v. Scalisi , [2001] O.J. No. 2774 (Ont. S.C.J.) , the contest was in respect of a three-year-old child. A report from the child's lawyer indicated the importance of the child maintaining a close and meaningful contact with each parent. The father was awarded custody, while the mother – notwithstanding her deficiencies, including her inflexibility and her unwillingness to include the father in the life of the child – was given substantial and extensive access, including weekends and the sharing of holidays.

29 In support of the mother's position that her Plan ought to be implemented and that overnight access ought to be restricted until Evelyn turns five years of age, I was referred to the case of Holtzhauer v. Murphy , [1996] O.J. No. 1756 (Ont. Prov. Div.) , a decision of Katarynych, J., presiding in the Ontario Court of Justice. In that case, the child in question had just turned two years of age. The father and child had never resided together as a family. The father had previously assaulted the mother. The father's ongoing access to his daughter had been supervised by others. The child did not know him as her father and had been taught to call him by his first name. As well, the father lived in Hamilton whereas the child lived in Kitchener. The court deferred overnight access to give the child and the father a better opportunity to get to know each other. However, even in those circumstances which were very unfavourable to the father's position, Katarynych J. ordered limited overnight access to begin when the child was just 28 months old – Evelyn's current age. The facts in Holtzhauer are specific to that family and in my view have little or no applicability to the facts of this case."

[342] Ultimately, Spence J concluded that four principles of general application ought to be observed in cases involving very young children. He wrote:

"30 I have referred to these cases in order to provide a sense of what direction the courts have taken in recent years in dealing with young, preschool children. What I glean from these cases are the following principles: First it is important to maximize the contact between access parents and young children. Second, it is important that this contact be meaningful such that the relationship between them is allowed to flourish. Third, unless specific circumstances exist which point in a different direction, that contact should include regular overnight visits. And fourth, the overnights should be of sufficient duration and frequency to permit the relationship to flourish."

[343] Although Heuss v, Surkos , supra was released some 15 years ago, except for the decisions of Zisman J. in Benko v. Torok , supra and Perchaluk v. Perchaluk , supra in 2012, where Her Honour questioned somewhat the validity of the findings made by the authors, Kelly and Lamb, in the absence of properly led and challenged expert evidence, as well as the inability to take judicial notice of controversial theories on the propriety of overnight access involving young children, I see no reason why I should not be guided by the reasoning of Spence J. in Heuss v. Surkos , supra . The principles Spence J. gleaned from his review of the case law, to my mind, remain sound. They should be applied in this case.

[344] Furthermore, in B.V. v. P.V., 2012 ONCA 262, the Court of Appeal for Ontario re-emphasized the importance of the 'maximum contact principle' where it is in the best interest of the child. I am mindful, in that case, the Court of Appeal was making specific reference to the embodiment of that principle within s. 16(10) of the Divorce Act . The C.L.R.A. , of course, contains no statutory provision which speaks to "maximum contact." However, the principle has long been recognized as one of universal application arising from the development of the common law. It must be taken into account whenever courts are called upon to decide issues of custody and access. It is mandatory, but not absolute, nor a governing factor ( see Bjornson v. Creighton (2002) , 62 O.R. (3d) 236 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 34 ).

ANALYSIS

Bradley's Past Conduct and Its Effect on His Present Ability to Parent

[345] Bradley's past conduct is a factor which must be considered in determining what form and what quantity of access he should enjoy with his daughter, Aleene.

[346] To be blunt, Bradley can behave like a petulant child, or flighty teenager. If things do not go his way, he can:

a) throw objects,

b) punch walls,

d) drive aggressively,

e) become loud and boorish,

f) be 'hands on' with his partner and with children nearby,

g) spew demeaning insults at his partner,

h) engage in stalking type behaviour (at least on one occasion), and

i) indulge in self-pity with social media postings.

[347] At the same time, there is no evidence to suggest Bradley has ever been violent or abusive toward a child.

[348] What Bradley must come to appreciate is that exposing a child to the type of conduct, which I find he has demonstrated in the past toward his intimate partner, is harmful. No child should have to witness a parent being struck, threatened or demeaned by the other.

[349] I have witnessed with my own eyes Bradley's explosive reactions when he does not get his way. While I am sympathetic to the bullying he endured as a child, that was decades ago. His childish outbursts have to stop.

[350] J.T. has seen a latent maturity developing in Bradley. Perhaps she sees him through 'rose coloured glasses' out of her own need for his support in raising Isabelle. I do know he is not nearly yet at the standard I would expect of a near 40 year old man. He still needs work. Thankfully, he enjoys counselling, and he should continue with it for as long as some therapeutic benefit can be derived from it.

[351] J.A. has clearly had some good influence over Bradley. She persuaded him to stop his rants and appeals for sympathy over the Internet, as he pursued greater access to Aleene. Most importantly, she considers him to be a good parent.

[352] I am comforted as well by the manner in which he conducted himself over the course of the four day trial before me. When he was challenged, at times needled by Burley's experienced and able counsel, he maintained his composure. Maybe Bradley is finally understanding that angry, self-centred behaviour does not serve his cause one iota. Nor is it any type of example to lead for his children.

[353] Guarded as I am in my confidence that Bradley has turned a corner and is beginning to gain sufficient control over his emotions, I do not find that he is so unstable as to pose any threat of emotional or physical harm to Aleene. In my view, he may lack sophistication, but he is a loving father. His desire to spend more time with her derives out of his natural affection for her.

[354] Burley's counsel tried valiantly to raise the spectre of Bradley's mental health and stability as a concern for Aleene's future wellbeing. However, the evidence falls far short of supporting a finding that he is bipolar, or even prone to violence as a consequence of any psychiatric condition. Bradley's diagnosis was one of mixed anxiety/depression disorder and adjustment disorder. The possibility of a bipolar disorder was contemplated by the social worker, Ms. Grenier, but never confirmed by someone qualified to make such a finding. Indeed, I accept Bradley's evidence that if he was so diagnosed, he would not be permitted to carry a weapon as a member of the Canadian military.

[355] To be clear, there can be no doubt Bradley can get angry. He can have emotional outbursts. Nevertheless, he appears to have no significant propensity for hurting others when in a state of frustration. There is no cogent evidence to suggest that Bradley has ever injured any of his former partners, his children or any other member of his household. He loses his cool. He acts out. Yet he physically harms no one.

[356] I do not point this out to excuse Bradley's behaviour when he is agitated. Yet, as a question of degree, what he does is preferable to inflicting actual injury upon someone. Such angry displays are never in the best interest of a child, of course. Bradley needs to work more on his problems with controlling his emotions, but from what I can glean from the evidence at trial, progress is being made.

[357] In sum, no specific circumstances exist to preclude Bradley from maximizing his contact with Aleene. He genuinely desires the contact to be expanded and meaningful. His access to Aleene must be of sufficient duration that it will permit his relationship with his daughter to grow and flourish. It must soon include overnight stays for Aleene in his home.

[358] No expert evidence was led to persuade or dissuade me from ordering overnight access for the near 3 year old child at issue. Both counsel for Burley and Bradley were content to simply leave me with the differing schools of thought on the subject as referred to in the aforementioned case law.

[359] If I must choose, I prefer the theory which promotes early contact between the access parent and child. Delaying overnights, to my mind, allows the child to become more settled into a mould which does not include the development of a bedtime routine at the residence of the access parent.

[360] In applying logic and common sense, it appears to me that the adjustment for very young children in feeling comfortable settling in and falling asleep in the home of the access parent may well become more difficult with each passing day, as their level of consciousness of their surroundings grows. Surely, delaying the inevitable, in this sense, is contrary to most children's best interests. Exceptions may arise, but no case for one has been made out on the evidence adduced before me.

In Aleene's Best Interests, How Much and What Type of Access Should Bradley Have?

[361] Aleene is 32 months old at present. Her needs and circumstances require a parent who is capable of caring for her, supervising her, changing her, feeding her, putting her to bed in accordance with her schedule, offering her stability and comfort when she feels hungry, unwell, upset or tired.

[362] Frankly, I have no doubt Bradley is capable of fulfilling this role. He babysat children since he was ten years old. He performs this role already, perhaps in a more demanding fashion already, in parenting his infant son, Grayson. I fully accept J.A.'s evidence that she has no concerns when Grayson is left solely in Bradley's care.

[363] I am singularly unimpressed with the standards expected of Bradley by Burley. The Communication Book and Needs and Care Chart was her means to assess Bradley's shortcomings. It mattered little what he would have written in them. Burley would have found a reason for criticizing whatever he tried to document and pass along to her. Nothing would have been good enough. The lack of detail with respect to the fruits and vegetables Aleene ate, the type of bowel movements she had, the glass of water she may have had to drink are all examples of an overbearing attempt on her part to exercise control over Bradley, and ultimately, to berate him.

[364] Bradley may not be as good a parent as Burley. I doubt he ever will be. But the law does not require him to be. He need only be adequate in his ability to care for Aleene. On my overall assessment of the evidence adduced at trial, he is a capable and competent parent.

[365] I accept Bradley's testimony that he loves his daughter, Aleene. His emotional ties to her will only grow stronger with increased contact. His relationship to Aleene will not undo or harm any of the good work Burley has done with their child to this point. His parenting style may be less vigilant and attentive than Burley's, but it is certainly not inappropriate or unfit.

[366] Aleene has, of course, spent most of her time with her mother, Burley, or her daycare provider. No one is more attuned to the child's needs than Burley. However, it is Aleene's right to have her father to be given a fair opportunity to learn them as well. Surely, the more people in this child's life that love her, want to care for her, and want to genuinely be there for her as she grows to adulthood is in her best interests. I have no doubt that Bradley, her father, is one such person.

[367] Bradley's plan for Aleene is simple. He wants to integrate her into his new family unit. He wants to be able to enjoy extended holiday time with her. He would like to bring her to P.E.I., to Brantford and to Turkey Point. He wants his family members – his mother and his siblings – to get to know Aleene. All of this is laudable and ultimately in Aleene's best interest.

[368] Bradley is cognizant as well that this child, Aleene, is very young. She has not spent nearly as much time in his care as she has in her mother, Burley's. Aleene's comfort level in spending increased periods with her father will take time. He is prepared to be patient inasmuch as the situations calls for. If he senses Aleene needs to return to her mother, he will bring Aleene to Burley. He will allow Aleene to contact Burley. He will encourage Burley to take Aleene for lunch, should she wish to see her daughter during his access time.

[369] In a word, I accept Bradley's testimony that he will be sensitive to Aleene's needs and circumstances as she transitions to spending more time with him.

[370] By contrast, Burley's plan for Aleene is embodied in an extraordinary document she authored, the Child Focussed Parenting Plan. It is rooted in attachment theory. It is scrupulous in its detail. It emphasizes Burley's complete dedication to Aleene prenatally and over the course of the child's life thus far. It reasons why overnight visitation is not advisable, especially for children under the age of three. It comments on the nature of the mental illness, with which Bradley has been diagnosed (generalized anxiety/depression disorder) and projects the negative impact the condition can spell for Aleene in future. It speaks to the consequences of high conflict and partner abuse on a child's emotional and psychological development. It stresses the absolute necessity for routine, structure and consistency for children.

[371] I accept fully that Burley is a dedicated and loving mother to Aleene. She has created a permanent and stable environment within which Aleene, as first an infant and now a toddler, has been permitted to grow and flourish.

[372] Her Plan, on closer examination however, paints her as near obsessed with her motherhood role. It is astonishing how "focussed" on Aleene she is. I question whether Burley's level of intensity in this regard is healthy for her or her child. Her decision to send Aleene to access visits wearing elbow and knee pads as a result of the typical bumps and scrapes toddlers suffer as they master walking is one example which springs to mind. It speaks loudly to what I fear may be oppressive, over-protection of the child.

[373] I do not say any of this to be cruel to Burley in the slightest. She is more to be commended than criticized.

[374] Yet my assessment of the totality of the evidence adduced at trial drives me to the conclusion that Burley has taken on the role of mothering Aleene to an exponential degree. It has become an 'all consuming' task for Burley.

[375] Burley is more than able to parent Aleene, far better in fact than Bradley, but her passion for doing so does not diminish Bradley's capacity to adequately parent. His desire to be an access parent has nothing to do with her grossly superior qualities, attributes and aptitudes. Courts are not asked to conduct a comparative analysis as to a mother's skill set versus a father's. Rather, the critical issue is whether Bradley is able to suitably parent Aleene in his capacity as an access parent, and of course, in her best interests. In my view, he certainly is.

The Location for the Access Exchanges

[376] I am not at all satisfied that a case has been made out that pick ups and drop offs of Aleene must occur at the Access Centre in Pembroke. The tenor of Burley's emails to Bradley betray a complete lack of fear on her part for the man who fathered her child.

[377] Out of an abundance of caution nevertheless, I will require exchanges to be conducted at the Ontario Provincial Police detachment in Petawawa situated at 1913 Petawawa Blvd., Petawawa, ON., the child's daycare provider, Wise Owl, Tim Horton's in Petawawa or Pembroke, Starbucks in Petawawa, the child's school, when she eventually attends, or any other location upon which Burley or Bradley can agree in writing. It will mean far less inconvenience for Aleene and her parents, if exchanges are less reliant upon the Access Centre in Pembroke.

[378] I accept Bradley's evidence that he inadvertently became aware of Burley's current address, that he has never attended there in spite of that knowledge, and that she does in fact reside in Petawawa.

[379] Exchanges should take Aleene's best interests into account. In my view, the less time she spends in a vehicle simply to be transported to her father's care, the better.

Future Communication

[380] The post-separation relationship between Burley and Bradley is indeed characterized by high conflict. Sadly, Aleene is left to suffer in the middle.

[381] The communications between Burley and Bradley must occur via email. A written record is necessary to ensure some level of civility is maintained between them. Bradley has to be less strident in what he insists are his rights. What he must come to appreciate is that it is his daughter Aleene's right to have access to him and to have a relationship with her father.

[382] What Burley must come to realize is that as a custodial parent, Aleene is not subject to her sole control and dominion. The child deserves an opportunity to know her father, his siblings, his parents, his extended family and his natural love and affection for her.

[383] The sooner Bradley and Burley learn to be decent to one another and to co-exist, the better life will be for Aleene.

CONCLUSION

[384] Bradley and Burley are not bad people. They both have their own issues to grapple with. They both love Aleene unconditionally. They both have to come to a truce, and set aside their differences for Aleene's sake.

[385] A life was born of the love Burley and Bradley once shared for one another. Surely, a minimal, civil level of co-operation can be found between them in future to allow for access to be meaningful and beneficial for Aleene.

[386] I fear that Burley will continue to minimize the role Bradley should play as Aleene's father if Burley is left to decide, largely in her own discretion, what access Bradley should have to Aleene. For this reason primarily, I will delineate with exactitude as best I can, the form and substance of the access Bradley will have with Aleene.

[387] I shall order the following:

a) all provisions of the Order of Selkirk J. dated March 8, 2018 regarding custody and child support shall remain in effect,

b) if either party moves from Renfrew County, it shall be deemed to be a material change in circumstances with respect to access scheduling and exchange arrangements,

c) Burley shall encourage Aleene to participate in telephone calls to or from Bradley as the parties may agree from time to time,

d) Bradley shall not make any body modification/alterations to the child such as, but not limited to, pierced ears (piercings in general), hair trims/cuts/colour, all makeup applications, etc. without Burley's consent,

e) Bradley shall use only a proper, approved car seat for Aleene, and shall have the child's car seat inspected every six months by a licensed technician and provide all paperwork to Burley as sufficient evidence this has been done commencing March 1, 2020,

f) Bradley shall take down from all social media any and all of his postings relating to this proceeding, Aleene or Burley (including his Go Fund Me website) if he has not already done so, and shall not make any further postings to the Internet in this regard,

g) Aleene shall reside primarily with Burley and have access to Bradley in accordance with the following graduated access schedule (the "regular schedule"):

September 1, 2019 - November 30, 2019

h) Aleene shall have access with Bradley every Saturday from 10 AM until 6 PM and

i) every Wednesday from the completion of daycare until 7 PM,

December 1, 2019 - May 31, 2020

j) Aleene shall have access with Bradley every other weekend, starting on Saturday at 9 AM and ending on Sunday at 6 PM, and

k) every Wednesday from after daycare until 7 PM,

June 1, 2020 – onward

l) Aleene shall have access with Bradley every other weekend, starting on Friday after daycare and ending on Sunday at 6 PM, and

m) every Wednesday from the conclusion of daycare until 7 PM,

n) notwithstanding the regular schedule, Burley and Bradley shall have such further and other time with Aleene as may be agreed upon by them in writing via email; the parenting time outline in the regular schedule shall not be altered, even on a temporary basis, unless both Burley and Bradley have agreed in advance and in writing,

o) when Aleene is in either Burley's or Bradley's care in accordance with the regular schedule, daily decisions affecting the child's welfare will be made by the parent in whose charge Aleene happens to be,

p) neither Burley nor Bradley shall arrange any activities for Aleene during the other parent's time with her without the other parent's advance written consent,

q) both Burley and Bradley may attend extracurricular activities and scheduled school events for Aleene regardless of the regular schedule,

r) the following holiday residence schedule ("holiday schedule") shall override the regular schedule:

(i) the Family Day long weekend, Easter Sunday, Easter Monday, the Victoria Day long weekend, the Canada Day long weekend, the Civic Holiday long weekend, the Labour Day long weekend, the Thanksgiving long weekend and any Professional Activity Days ("P.A. Days") for Aleene's school shall fall to the parent who would otherwise have Aleene in his or her care on the aforementioned long weekend or other day(s) in question in accordance with the regular schedule,

(ii) Aleene will spend March Break with Burley in even numbered years and with Bradley in odd numbered years,

(iii) in even numbered years, Aleene shall be with Burley on Christmas Eve day beginning at 10:00 a.m. until Christmas Day at 10:00 a.m., and with Bradley on Christmas Day, beginning at 10:00 a.m. and continuing until Boxing Day at 10:00 a.m.,

(iv) in odd numbered years, Aleene shall be with Bradley on Christmas Eve day, beginning at 10:00 a.m. until Christmas Day at 10:00 a.m., and with Burley on Christmas Day, beginning at 10:00 a.m. and continuing until Boxing Day at 10:00 a.m.,

(v) Aleene shall reside with each parent for one (1) week each year during Christmas vacation from school; Burley and Bradley shall advise the other of their chosen weeks by no later than November 15 of each year, with Burley to have the first choice of week in odd-numbered years and Bradley to have the first choice of week in even-numbered years,

(vi) in making future plans, each parent will take into account any scheduled Christmas leave that Bradley may have and any other scheduled activities; Burley and Bradley will each organize "family" Christmas for Aleene with their respective families during their scheduled parenting time,

(vii) if Aleene is not otherwise scheduled to be with Burley on Mother's Day in accordance with the regular schedule, she shall be with Burley on Mother's Day from 9:00 a.m. until 7:30 p.m.,

(viii) if Aleene is not otherwise scheduled to be with Bradley on Father's Day in accordance with the regular schedule, she shall be with Bradley on Father's Day from 9:00 a.m. until 7:30 p.m.,

(ix) Aleene shall reside with each parent for two (2) non-consecutive weeks each year during her summer vacation from school; Burley and Bradley shall advise the other of their chosen weeks by no later than May 1 of each year, with Burley to have the first choice of both weeks in even-numbered years and Bradley to have the first choice of both weeks in odd-numbered years.

(x) in making future plans, each parent will take into account any scheduled block summer leave that Bradley may have, Aleene's summer camp plans (if any) and other scheduled activities,

(xi) for the 2020 summer vacation only, Bradley's two non-consecutive summer weeks shall be reduced to three (3) days in total,

(xii) Burley and Bradley will both have access to Aleene on the child's birthday, but Aleene will reside with Burley or Bradley as dictated by the regular schedule,

(xiii) Burley and Bradley will each organize "family" birthday parties for Aleene with their respective families during their parenting time as set out in the regular schedule,

(xiv) on Aleene's birthday she will have access with the parent she is not residing with on that day from 3 pm – 6 pm,

(xv) if Aleene is not otherwise scheduled to be with Burley on her birthday, the child will spend Burley's birthday with her, beginning immediately after school or daycare if it is a school day or, if it is not a school day, beginning at 9:00 a.m. on the day of Burley's birthday, and continuing until 7:30 p.m. on the day of Burley's birthday, and

(xvi) if Aleene is not otherwise scheduled to be with Bradley on his birthday, the child will spend Bradley's birthday with him, beginning immediately after school or daycare if it is a school day or, if it is not a school day, beginning at 9:00 a.m. on the day of Bradley's birthday, and continuing until 7:30 p.m. on the day of Bradley's birthday.

s) prior to Aleene attending school, any above-mentioned reference to a school schedule shall be in accordance with the following:

(i) summer vacation shall be deemed to be July 1 – August 31, and

(ii) March Break and Christmas Break shall be in accordance with the Renfrew County District School Board's March and Christmas Break schedules,

t) if Bradley's employment with the Canadian Armed Forces requires him to miss two or more consecutive scheduled access times with Aleene, Burley shall be flexible in scheduling and facilitating at least one make-up weekend access for every two scheduled access dates he has been unable to exercise; make-up access shall be implemented within eight (8) weeks of Burley resuming the regular schedule,

u) in the event that either party is not able to care for the child for one or more days of their time with Aleene as set out in the regular schedule, that parent will promptly notify the other parent and will give the other parent the opportunity to care for Aleene before making any arrangements for a third party caregiver,

v) if the other parent is also unable to care for Aleene, the parent who is scheduled to have the care of Aleene shall be solely and financially responsible for making alternate childcare arrangements,

w) Aleene's Ontario Health Insurance Plan card shall travel with her between Burley's and Bradley's homes,

x) neither Burley nor Bradley shall change Aleene's name without the other parent's advance, express written consent,

y) if either Burley or Bradley plans a vacation with Aleene, that parent will give the other a detailed itinerary at least thirty (30) days before it begins, including the name of any flight carrier and flight times and all of the details relating to their accommodations, including address and telephone numbers, and details as to how to contact Aleene during the trip, and

z) if a signed parental travel consent is required for travel, neither Burley nor Bradley will unreasonably withhold consent.

[388] I shall grant counsel for the parties a period of two weeks to negotiate the issue of costs. If no agreement can be reached between them, I will consider written submissions from counsel concerning costs, which submissions are not to exceed three pages in length for each.

Released: September 4, 2019

Signed: Justice M.G. March