Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-000104090-0000 DATE: 2023 06 14
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Vishal Grover v. Pawanjeet Grover
BEFORE: Fowler Byrne J.
COUNSEL: B. Rossi and H. Rich, for the Applicant E. Crawford, for the Respondent
HEARD: June 13, 2023, by video-conference
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] The Applicant seeks an interim order granting him equal parenting time with the child of the marriage.
[2] By way of background, the parties were married on November 28, 2010 and separated on April 23, 2022. There is one child of the marriage, a daughter, who is now 8 years old. Since separation, all parties continue to reside in the matrimonial home, along with the paternal extended family.
[3] This Application was started in 2022, and the Respondent has responded, albeit late. There has been no regular case conference yet. The Applicant though, did obtain an early case conference date on the issue of parenting. When a resolution was not reached, he was granted leave to bring this motion. A full case conference is now scheduled for July 25, 2023.
[4] In July 2022, the Mother states that she and the Father agreed to an informal arrangement through counsel, in which the Father would be primarily responsible for the child on Wednesdays from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., on Fridays from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and all day Sundays. Otherwise, the Mother would care for the child. The Father acknowledges these times but claims they were imposed on him. Neither party provided any correspondence between counsel to support or refute this. The Father also claims that the Mother has overscheduled the child so as to minimize his time with the child.
[5] This matter is still in its early stages. As indicated, both parties remain in the matrimonial home. There has been no suggestion or determination if it is to be sold or if one party can be bought out. No child support or spousal support is being paid, despite the Applicant Father being the sole wage earner in the family. I am unaware of the status of disclosure and I am not sure if an equalization calculation can even be made at this point.
[6] Nonetheless, the Father has asked for a 50/50 parenting schedule. Although the issue of housing is not before me, nor been conferenced, he suggests that during his parenting time, the Respondent Mother can leave the matrimonial home and reside at another property he owns in Caledon, Ontario. When it is her parenting time, she can remain in the matrimonial home with him and his extended family.
[7] The parties have discussed and agreed to integrated therapy and mediation with the MacKenzie Clinic. They have been delayed in implementing it. At this point, it is hoped that it will commence in August 2023.
[8] The Mother resists this motion. She argues that it is premature given that other necessary and interrelated issues have not been addressed. She also argues that mediation should be pursued first before a formal parenting order is put in place.
[9] The affidavit evidence is conflicting. The Father alleges alienation activity on the part of the Mother. The Mother alleges that the Father has never been an equal parent in that he worked long hours while she remained in the home. The Mother claims the child is becoming stressed by the separation and by the Father’s efforts to become more involved in her life.
[10] In order to address the conflict in affidavit evidence, the Father has provided a number of photos and videos showing the extent of his involvement with his daughter and their close bond. He argues that these photos and videos directly contradict the Mother’s position and therefore, puts the credibility of her affidavit evidence into question.
[11] Interim motions by their very nature do not easily lend themselves to resolve cases where there is conflicting evidence on critical issues presented to the court by way of affidavit evidence, untested by cross-examination: Al Tamimi v. Ramnarine, [2020] O.J. No. 3510 at para. 57; Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002 at para. 25.
[12] Without having to make a finding of credibility though, it is clear on the evidence is that this child is well-loved, supported, and amply provided for. The child’s life right now is as stable as it could be – she is living in her home and is able to see both her parents and extended family every day. The difficulty is the interaction between the parents. I sense that the parties are trying to position themselves with respect to parenting, and I am being asked to weigh in, at this early stage and in a significant manner, and put in place a parenting plan that may very well steer the litigation going forward.
[13] At times, such an early course correction is needed. Families are often in crisis, their safety is at risk, or a financial emergency is upon them. None of that is the case here. The family is financially secure. With the exception of the child experiencing some stress associated with the separation and the behaviour of her parents, she is doing well. The parties are willing to undergo integrated counselling and mediation. Unfortunately, emotions are running high and the parties have lost sight of the effect of all of this on their daughter. The child needs stability and the knowledge that she will continue to have both parents in her life. She needs to know that they can both agree on what is best for her. What she does not need is an order dividing her home into separate camps.
Interim Parenting Orders
[14] The status quo will be maintained on an interim parenting motion in the absence of compelling reasons indicative of the necessity of a change to meet the best interests of the child. This is so whether the existing arrangement is de facto or de jure: Grant v. Turgeon (2000), 5 R.F.L. (5th) 326 (Ont.S.C.) at para. 15.
[15] In Coe at para. 25, Justice Pazaratz summarized the principles to be considered when deciding parenting issues on an interim basis. The factors relevant to this proceeding are as follows:
c. …the obvious strategic dynamics associated with temporary motions cannot be ignored. Already, counsel are arguing “status quo” even before they can agree on what the status quo consists of. Temporary and even temporary-temporary orders often have long-term implications. Being fair to the parties as litigants is important. Being fair to the children is even more important.
d. Temporary orders are meant to provide a reasonably acceptable solution on an expeditious basis for a problem that will be more fully canvassed at subsequent stages in the process – quite often at a trial;
e. The status quo should ordinarily be maintained until trial unless there is material evidence that the children’s best interest demands an immediate change;
f. Courts must be mindful of – and actively discourage – efforts by parents to unilaterally create a new status quo through manipulation, exaggeration or deception.
(citations omitted).
[17] In this case, the status quo is that both parents were very involved with the child. The Father worked full time and established a successful accounting firm. The Mother looked after matters at home. At every chance, the Father spent quality time with his daughter.
[18] Following separation, the child continued to see both parents every day. While the Father states he was not in agreement, a pattern evolved wherein the Father spent the entire Sunday with the child, and then two days after work. Unfortunately, the situation broke down as the Father alleges the Mother started sabotaging his time with the daughter, either by overscheduling the child’s activities, calling the police or being overly rigid. He maintains that the Mother is trying to alienate the child against him.
[19] I accept that both parties love their daughter very much. I also accept that both have been very involved parents to the extent they were able. At this juncture, I am not so much concerned with how many doctors’ appointments each attended or how much fun they have when together. What is important is that each parent continues to be an important part of the child’s life, and that neither parent try to diminish the other parent’s role in the child’s life. The child has and will continue to need both parents well into her adult life.
[20] I also accept that while the Father may have worked long hours during the marriage, things will change when the separation is finalized. Both parties will have to get used to new parenting schedules and work themselves around it. Just because a party had more or less time with the child during the marriage, does not mean that this will remain the case until the child is an adult. This is certainly not the case when a family remains intact, and nor should be the rule when parties separate. Parents will change their schedules. The child’s needs will change as she gets older and the parties need to be child focused and flexible throughout.
[21] In the meantime, though, the child should not be disrupted any more than possible pending resolution or trial. That means following the status quo, which was that the Father saw the child in the evenings and on the weekends. The status quo was altered in July 2022 when the Father started having parenting time on Sunday and the Mother on Saturday. The Father had time with his daughters on Wednesday and Friday evenings. That should continue. I find no compelling circumstances that would warrant a change.
[22] I am also not inclined to make a finding of credibility on affidavits at this early stage, nor use such a finding as a basis to increase or decrease parenting time. The issues are too important. The evidence needs to be tested. More importantly, the parents need to step up, and mediate this issue with the help of the therapist proposed and put the interests of the child ahead of their own.
[23] Accordingly, other than reminding the parties of some basis principles of parenting, and fine tuning the status quo to avoid conflict, I find that it is premature to put in place an interim parenting order as requested by the Father. The parties should have an opportunity to arrange a parenting schedule on their own. They need to understand where the parties are going to live, what support is going to be paid, and what equalization payment may be owing.
[24] Accordingly, I make the following orders:
a. On a without prejudice basis, i. the child shall continue to reside in the matrimonial home with both parents; ii. the child shall spend Sundays with the Father and Saturdays with the Mother; iii. the Father’s parenting time on Wednesdays and Fridays shall be from after school, or day care, until bedtime; b. The Mother and Father shall recognize the child’s need for positive and ongoing relationships with the other parent and make every effort to facilitate the relationships of the child with the other parent and each parent’s extended family; c. The Mother and Father will not denigrate or disparage the other parent or members of their extended family, either overtly or covertly, in any communication with the child or in her presence. Each parent will advise others, including their extended families and friends, to maintain the same standards, refraining from criticizing the other parent to or in front of the child; d. The Mother and Father will not speak with the child directly or indirectly about any issues related to child or spousal support, property and financial issues between them, or about the litigation in general; e. The Mother and Father will not ask the child to relay information between them and they will not be “letter carriers,” but rather the parents will communicate directly with one another about issues related to parenting. The parents will not communicate with each other about parenting or other issues about their relationship at transition times, joint activities or special events, except to address immediate childcare issues; f. The Mother and Father will be polite and respectful to each other at all times, especially when the child is present or nearby. In the presence of the child or in public places, the parents will greet each other cordially. The parents will not discuss contentious issues in front of the child. If one party considers that a discussion is not courteous, they will discontinue the conversation and will take the issue up at a different time; g. The Mother and Father will respect each other’s privacy and towards that end will refrain from initiating discussion or questioning the child about the other parent’s personal lives and activities; h. The parents shall not prohibit the child from visiting any part of the matrimonial home at any time; i. The Mother and Father will make every reasonable effort to ensure that the child attend special occasions involving their extended family (e.g., special birthdays and anniversaries); j. Except as specified in subparagraph 24(m) below, both the Mother and the Father may attend “public events” related to extracurricular activities (e.g., games, recitals, performances, etc.). The parents will remain cordial and not discuss child-related arrangements or any contentious issues at that time and will require any of their guests to also remain cordial to the other parent; k. Neither party shall interfere with the other parent when they are exercising parenting time; l. The Mother and the Father should not interfere with the child’s willingness to communicate with the other parent at any time; m. The child shall continue in her currently scheduled extracurricular activities until its scheduled completion; the Father will bring the child to her activities if they occur on Wednesday, Friday or Sunday; the Mother shall bring the child to her activities on the other days; the child shall not be enrolled in any further extracurricular activities without the advance consent of each parent, not to be unreasonably withheld; n. The parties shall forthwith arrange for integrated therapy with MacKenzie Clinic; the Father shall pay the fees associated with it upfront, without prejudice to each party claiming an adjustment at trial; o. The parties are encouraged to settle the issue of costs themselves; if they are unable, both parties are to serve their Costs Outlines, any offers to Settle, and their written costs submission, limited to two pages, single-sided and double spaced, on or before June 30, 2023; the other party may file responding written submissions, with the same size restrictions, on or before July 14, 2023; and p. The remainder of the motion is dismissed, without prejudice to either party’s right to seek an interim parenting order after a full case conference and after participation in mediation, or upon the sale or transfer of the matrimonial home.
Fowler Byrne J.
DATE: June 14, 2023
