Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Brampton 1962/04 Date: 2012-05-14 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Rikki Szuky, Applicant

— And —

William Pereira, Respondent

Before: Justice P.W. Dunn

Heard on: 8 May 2012

Ruling on Respondent's Motion dated 26 March 2012, released on 14 May 2012

Counsel: Paul C. Buttigieg Esq., for the applicant Anthony V.R. Martin Esq., for the respondent

Decision

P.W. DUNN, J.:

[1] Before the court is the respondent's motion dated 26 March 2012 (in Volume 8, Tab 1) for specified access.

[2] The present order for the respondent's access is dated 8 April 2011 by Justice Dunn. It provided that the respondent will have access:

(1) When the child is in school, on alternate weekends from Fridays after school to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday evening. The respondent shall collect the child from school on Fridays and return the child to the applicant's residence on Sundays.

(2) During the summer school holidays, on alternate weekends from Fridays to Monday mornings, or Tuesday morning, if Monday is a holiday, with a return at 9:00 a.m.

(3) Alternate Wednesdays, in the week when the respondent does not have alternate weekend access, from after school until 6:00 p.m.

(4) Such other access on the respondent's special family occasions for which the parties agree.

[3] The respondent complains that he has only been exercising the usual alternate weekend access since 8 April 2011, about a year ago. Before that, he only had supervised access, then later, he received day access. The respondent believed the applicant was unduly restrictive in only permitting access the court ordered, and that the applicant was not encouraging open and liberal access. The applicant's position was that she did give extra access when she believed it was in the child's best interests.

[4] In any event, it is time to review the respondent's access regime. He has proven to be a committed father, and there is no complaint by the applicant about his ability to care for the child in a safe and stimulating manner.

[5] In considering the respondent's specific requests for access, it seemed to the court that:

(1) The respondent wanted access on many extra occasions, such as a cousin's birthday or for that of the paternal grandfather. I appreciate that the respondent saw such occasions as being fun and important for the child, but if there is a number of special requests, it can be disruptive to the child's routine. Perhaps the special occasions should not be as numerous as that requested by the respondent, and it would be better if they were on the consent of the parties.

(2) There were certain requests for access which would be helped by input from the Children's Lawyer.

(3) In a general way, there are benefits to a child being in day care, a PLASP programme and summer camp. There can be important and advantageous activities that develop a child and there is also the importance of socialization with other children.

(4) Just because the respondent thinks he would be available to care for the child in the summer when the applicant works, does not make it so. The respondent may have a lighter work schedule in summer, but as the respondent stated, he is in the process of building his business, and the real estate market is well known for its time consuming schedule and irregular hours.

[6] Considering now the respondent's specific requests:

On page 2 of his motion:

(a) There will be no additional weekday access for singing and dancing lessons. Such activities do not require full access days. This request as stated would be too disruptive to the child's routine.

(b) The respondent's request for access on Monday, 21 May 2012 is denied. It is the applicant's weekend which is a holiday weekend and she should be able to enjoy the extra day. I expect that after the Children's Lawyer becomes involved, the parties will alternate holiday weekends, depending on whether the years are odd or even.

(c) The respondent shall have access from 30 May 2012 at 8:00 a.m. to 15 June 2012 at 11:00 a.m. I appreciate that this request will disrupt the child's schooling, but Ayres is only seven years old, so I would not anticipate that the interruption would be too onerous. I find that the benefit of the child attending a wedding, even if it is for people she does not yet know, and a trip to Florida would be stimulating and interesting and beneficial for a child of Ayres' age. The respondent is to give an itinerary of travel to the applicant with contact points where the applicant can reach the child by telephone.

(d) This request was dealt with in the parties' Minutes of Settlement.

(e) The respondent's request for day access in summer months is dismissed. The input of the Children's Lawyer is requested. As mentioned previously, there could be value to the child by participating in summer camp. However, I see no reason why the respondent should not have summer access for three weeks during the school vacation of 2012. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the respondent shall have access:

(1) from Friday, 29 June 2012 at 5:00 p.m. to Friday, 6 July 2012 at 5:00 p.m.

(2) from Friday, 20 July 2012 at 5:00 p.m. to Friday, 27 July 2012 at 5:00 p.m.

(3) from Friday, 24 August 2012 at 5:00 p.m. to Friday, 31 August 2012 at 5:00 p.m.

(f) The request for access from 25 August 2012 to 26 August 2012 is dismissed. Even the respondent was uncertain at first as to which cousin had the birthday. As mentioned previously, there needs to be further consideration of access on "special events".

(g) The request for access on the Labour Day weekend is dismissed, given the temporary orders for the respondent's summer access schedule in 2012.

(h) The request for extra access on the child's birthday to 8:00 p.m. is dismissed. The respondent shall have access on 19 September 2012 from after school to 6:00 p.m. (This will allow time for the applicant also to have access on the child's birthday.)

(i) There will be no access on the paternal grandfather's birthday on 21 September 2012, until the parties have a clear agreement on when access should occur on special occasions.

(j) The respondent's request for access on the Thanksgiving Day holiday for 2012 is dismissed until there is an arrangement for when the parties share holiday weekends.

[7] Paragraph 2 of the respondent's motion requests that family representatives be allowed to do access exchanges when the respondent is not available. The applicant mistrusts this request. The applicant believes the respondent should be able to effect access exchanges personally, if indeed he is available during the access itself.

[8] The respondent submits that it would not be on a regular basis that a substitute would do the access exchanges. I agree that the respondent's request is reasonable, provided it is not abused. Temporary order to permit Dianna Egredzija, Maria Eugenia Pereira, Abilio Pereira or Brian Pereira to do access exchanges. The applicant is ordered to provide written authorization to the child's school and/or daycare provider to release the child to the above named parties.

[9] The respondent's motion is complete.

[10] Any request for costs is adjourned to the return date of 18 September 2012, Courtroom 210 (allow 60 minutes for case conference).

Released: 14 May 2012

Justice P.W. Dunn