Court File and Parties
Court File No.: D56415/12 Date: 2015-07-24
Ontario Court of Justice
Between:
C.L.B. Applicant
Andrew Sudano, for the Applicant
- and -
A.J.N. Respondent
Allyce B. Mutungi, for the Respondent
Heard: July 21, 2015
Justice S.B. Sherr
Reasons for Decision
Part One – Introduction
[1] The parties have both brought motions to change the order of this court dated October 9, 2013 (the final order). The major elements of the final order are:
a) The applicant (the mother) has custody of the parties' seven-year-old child (the child).
b) The respondent (the father) has final authority for making major medical decisions regarding the child, while the mother has authority for making daily medical decisions regarding the child.
c) The father has access to the child on three out of every four weekends.
d) The parties equally share holiday time with the child.
e) The father pays the mother child support of $210 per month, based on an imputed income of $26,000 per annum.
f) The father pays for 70% of the child's special expenses, as defined by section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines, such cost not to exceed $800 per annum.
[2] The father was the first party to move to change the existing order. In his motion to change, he seeks sole custody of the child, a termination of his support obligations and child support from the mother. He proposes that the mother have access to the child on each weekend, except the second weekend of each month, from Friday to Sunday evening, plus an overnight visit on the second Thursday night each month.
[3] The mother filed a Response to Motion to Change. She asked that the father's motion to change be dismissed and his access be reduced to alternate weekends. She also asked to increase child support based on imputing income to the father of $60,000 per annum.
[4] At the hearing of the motions to change, the mother changed her position. She asked that the court make a joint custody order with an equal time-sharing parenting plan (rotating weeks). She asked the court to make an order that the father pay her child support, applying section 9 of the guidelines. She proposed that the father pay the set-off amount of the parties' respective guidelines table amounts, based on an imputed income to him of $60,000 per annum and an income attributed to her of $21,000 per annum.
[5] A clinical investigation and report was conducted by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) pursuant to section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act. Its report, dated March 9, 2015, was filed with the court. Neither party filed a Notice of Dispute to the report. The parties agreed that the report could be relied upon at this hearing without the need to examine the clinician who prepared it (the investigator).
[6] The parties agreed, pursuant to subrule 1 (7.2) of the Family Law Rules, to have the motions to change heard based on the affidavits and financial statements of the parties filed, the evidence in the OCL report and through submissions. Neither party asked to examine the other.
[7] The material facts of this case were not seriously disputed.
[8] At the conclusion of submissions, the case was held down to permit counsel to negotiate holiday schedules, travel arrangements and other incidents of custody and access. After failing to reach agreement, counsel asked for, and were granted a one day extension to see if they could reach agreement. The parties were able to agree on many of these terms and minutes of settlement were filed. The terms agreed to will be incorporated into the court's order.
[9] The primary remaining issues on the motions to change were:
a) Has there been a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the child since the final order?
b) If so, what parenting order is in the best interests of the child?
c) Has there been a change of circumstances that warrants a change in the child support order?
d) If so, from what date should child support be changed?
e) If the guidelines table amount of support is ordered, what income should be attributed to the payor?
f) If the court makes a shared parenting order (as requested by the mother), as defined in section 9 of the guidelines, what amount of child support should be ordered on an ongoing basis?
Part Two – Background Facts
[10] The mother is 26 years old. The father is 29 years old.
[11] The parties had a relationship from 2004 to 2008.
[12] The parties had the one child together. Neither party has another child.
[13] The child primarily resided with the mother after the parties ended their relationship.
[14] The mother issued an application for custody and child support in 2012. The litigation between the parties was acrimonious. The case was resolved by the final order, reached on consent, on October 9, 2013.
[15] The father brought a motion for contempt shortly after the final order. He claimed that the mother was denying him access.
[16] On the return of the contempt motion, the parties consented that the child would be placed in the temporary care of the father, with weekend access to the mother, on all but the second weekend each month. The parties also agreed that the mother would have one overnight visit on the second Thursday night each month. The case was adjourned and the father was instructed to bring his motion to change. He did this.
[17] The mother did not attend at court on the return date of April 7, 2014. The case was adjourned, peremptory on her.
[18] The mother attended on the return date of April 23, 2014 and sought the return of the child. Timelines were set for filing material to argue temporary motions on the motions to change.
[19] The parties agreed to adjourn the temporary motions on the return date of July 2, 2014. The father's support obligation was suspended and the parenting schedule continued without change. The referral was made to the OCL.
[20] On the return of the motions on August 27, 2014, the parties consented to continuing the temporary order to await the results of the OCL investigation.
[21] The OCL appointed the investigator who prepared a report dated March 9, 2015.
[22] The parties advised the court that the father's support payments are in good standing.
[23] The father works for a moving company. He deposed that he is earning about $34,000 per annum.
[24] The mother was hired on an 8-month contract by a communications company on March 9, 2015. The mother has paid the father total support of $600 since she started working.
Part Three – Material Change in Circumstances
[25] Section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act (the Act) provides the statutory authority for varying a custody or access order. It states:
A court shall not make an order under this Part that varies an order in respect of custody or access made by a court in Ontario unless there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the child.
[26] The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27 sets out a two-stage process for the court to conduct:
a) First, the parent applying for a change in the custody or access order must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in the circumstances affecting the child.
b) If the threshold is met, the court must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child's needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them.
[27] There clearly has been a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the child since the final order was made on October 9, 2013. The mother struggled in meeting the child's needs after the final order. She agreed to temporarily place the child with the father in January of 2014 and the child has been primarily living with him since then. The mother did not proceed with her temporary motion to change custody of the child back to her.
[28] The court must next determine what parenting order is in the best interests of the child.
Part Four – Parenting
4.1 Legal Principles
[29] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, [2005] O.J. No. 275 sets out the following principles in determining whether a joint custody order is appropriate:
There must be evidence of historical communication between the parents and appropriate communication between them.
It can't be ordered in the hope that it will improve their communication.
Just because both parents are fit does not mean that joint custody should be ordered.
The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate does not preclude an order for joint custody.
No matter how detailed the custody order there will always be gaps and unexpected situations, and when they arise they must be able to be addressed on an ongoing basis.
The younger the child, the more important communication is.
[30] Joint custody should not be ordered where there is poor communication and the parties fundamentally disagree on too many issues affecting the child's best interests. See: Graham v. Butto, 2008 ONCA 260; Roy v. Roy, [2006] O.J. No. 1872.
[31] Courts do not expect communication between separated parties to be easy or comfortable, or free of conflict. A standard of perfection is not required, and is obviously not achievable. See: Griffiths v. Griffiths, 2005 ONCJ 235. The issue is whether a reasonable measure of communication and cooperation is in place, and is achievable in the future, so that the best interests of the child can be ensured on an ongoing basis. See: Warcop v. Warcop.
[32] In Ladisa v. Ladisa, [2005] O.J. No. 275, the court did not interfere with a joint custody order made by the trial court. Despite the intense conflict between the parents, in emergencies and when the parents had an opportunity to consider the real interests of their children, they behaved appropriately. They coexisted at the doctor, at school functions and activities. Those circumstances supported a joint custody order.
[33] Where a conflict between parents (such as an inability to communicate effectively) is primarily the fault of one, that parent should not be able to use the conflict as justification to oppose a joint or shared parenting order. To do so allows an obdurate parent to engineer a result in his or her favour. See: Geremia v. Harb.
[34] In recent years, there has been more willingness to grant joint custody where such an order is necessary to preserve the balance of power between the parents, especially where one parent has been primarily responsible for the conflictual relationship: See: Garrow v. Woycheshen, 2008 ONCJ 686; Hsiung v. Tsioutsioulas, 2011 ONCJ 517.
[35] The 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.
[36] Ultimately, the court must decide what parenting order is in the child's best interests and consider the factors set out in subsection 24 (2) of the Act in reaching this decision. The court has done this. The court has also considered allegations of domestic violence made by the mother against the father pursuant to subsections 24 (3) and (4) of the Act.
4.2 Positions of the Parties
[37] The father deposed that the child has done much better since being placed in his primary care in January of 2014. He says that the child's health needs have been looked after more consistently. The child, he says, is doing much better in school. He is attending school more regularly and has benefitted from tutoring arranged by him.
[38] The father does not believe that he and the mother communicate effectively and a joint custody order is not in the best interests of the child. He raised instances of the mother unilaterally telling the child's school in June of 2014 that she would be sending him to school in Brampton in September of 2014 (while the child was in his care) and unilaterally arranging a trip this summer outside of Canada (during his access month) as examples of her inability to communicate well with him. The father is also concerned that the mother makes poor decisions for the child and a joint custody order would impair his ability to make effective decisions for him.
[39] The father submits that the current schedule works very well. He feels that significantly changing it could destabilize the child. He lacks confidence in the mother's ability to properly address the child's medical and school needs while the child is in her care. The father would like the mother to return the child on Sunday evening, rather than to school on Monday morning. He deposed that the child's teacher told him that the child often returns to school tired on Mondays.
[40] The father acknowledged that the child's relationship with the mother is very important for the child.
[41] The mother submits that it is in the child's best interests to spend equal time with each parent. She deposed that she was the child's primary caregiver until January of 2014. She stated that her intention (in agreeing to the temporary custody order with the father) was for the child to only spend two months with the father, so she could focus on her own schooling. She thought that the child would return to her care.
[42] The mother raised historical allegations of controlling and abusive behaviour by the father (denied by him). She provided no evidence of such behaviour since the final order was made. The investigator wrote that the mother did not express current concerns regarding verbal, physical or emotional abuse.
[43] The mother acknowledged some difficulties with communicating with the father, but feels that it has improved considerably. She feels that they can jointly make decisions. She is concerned that the father will exclude her from the child's life if he is given a sole custody order.
[44] The mother presently resides in Brampton. She deposed that she plans to move to Toronto to live closer to the child's present school.
[45] The mother also deposed that she values and supports the child's relationship with the father.
4.3 The Child
[46] The parties agreed that the child is happy and thriving. He is a talkative and friendly child.
[47] The child has special medical needs. He has a heart condition called Brugada Syndrome, which must be monitored. Careful attention must be paid to his medication regime.
[48] The child was struggling socially and academically in school while in the mother's care. His school attendance was poor. He was aggressive at school. His reading was extremely delayed.
[49] The child has made significant gains since being placed in the father's primary care. His school attendance is now excellent. His teacher advised the investigator that the child is respectful to staff, consistently completes his homework and is doing well. His reading and school performance has improved. However, he is still behind one grade level in his reading, delayed in his motor skills, needs one-to-one assistance at school and is sometimes aggressive.
[50] The child has a close connection with and feels comfortable with both parents.
4.5 The OCL Report
[51] The investigator noted that the parents both care deeply about the child but have challenges communicating with one another.
[52] The investigator observed that the parties were able to cooperate about the child during her involvement in the case.
[53] The investigator wrote that all collateral sources advised her that the child is doing well in the father's primary care.
[54] The investigator confirmed that the child has made significant reading progress with the help of the Sylvan Learning Centre. The mother initially opposed the child being involved with this program, but now agrees that it is helpful for the child. At the hearing, the mother submitted that her initial opposition to this program was based on its cost.
[55] The investigator spoke to the child's principal. She told the investigator that while the child was in the mother's primary care:
a) There were significant difficulties with the child's attendance and lateness.
b) The mother was inconsistent with exchanges at school.
c) There were concerns that the child was being sent to school by the mother with no lunch and a lack of appropriate winter clothing.
d) The child was aggressive and having emotional reactions.
e) The school made a social work referral, but the mother refused further social work involvement at the end of Junior Kindergarten.
[56] The principal told the investigator that since September of 2014 the child appears more settled, calmer, gentler with peers, wants to do work, is eager to learn and is bringing his homework and agenda to school.
[57] The child's current teacher advised the investigator that there have been notable improvements in the child's behaviour and academic progress since the start of September of 2014. She sees no need for the school social worker to be involved with the child.
[58] The child's dentist advised the investigator that the mother did not follow the hygiene process instructed by his office and did not bring the child to him for dental care for two years. The child had to undergo significant dental work. His teeth are currently in good condition.
[59] The investigator obtained records from the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (the society). The society reported four file openings for this family to the investigator. The first file opening was in 2011 due to domestic conflict. The parents were warned about the impact of conflict on the child. The second opening was again in 2011 when the father reported a concern that the maternal grandfather was driving the child, when he was not supposed to do so, due to a stroke. The society noted that the child's doctor reported that the child was not being seen regularly.
[60] The third opening, in April of 2013, related to the society's concerns about contacting the mother, the child's poor school attendance, lack of appropriate winter clothing, exposure of the child to violence at home, the child not consistently having lunch at school and late school pick-ups. The child was in the mother's care at this time.
[61] The fourth opening in September of 2013 related to concerns about no parent being at the bus to pick up the child. The school reported this to the society. The school reported concerns about difficulty contacting the mother. The child was in the mother's care at this time.
[62] The society closed its file on each occasion.
[63] During the course of her investigation, the investigator referred the case to the society. The society investigated and found that the mother had used physical force on the child on one occasion. The mother reported to the society that she had "issues" with her current partner, but that their conflict wasn't occurring in front of the child. The society closed its file after finding the child to be safe in the mother's home.
[64] The mother did not meaningfully dispute any of the evidence set out in the OCL report. She only provided a bald denial of neglecting the child's needs. She attributed the child's poor school attendance record to the demands of her own school schedule.
[65] The investigator felt that the child would benefit from spending additional time with the mother, but since the mother is in the process of moving from Brampton and obtaining employment, it was difficult to recommend any changes to the present parenting schedule. The investigator also made recommendations about holiday times and communication.
[66] The investigator recommended that the parties have joint custody over religious and educational issues and that no changes be made to the current medical decision-making regime for the child set out in the final order.
4.5 Best Interest Factors in Subsection 24(2) of the Act
Factor #1: The Love, Affection and Emotional Ties
[67] The court finds that the parents love the child very much. The court also finds that the child loves his parents.
[68] The investigator wrote that the child presented as comfortable with grandparents and partners in both homes.
Factor #2: The Child's Views and Preferences
[69] The child loves both parents and wants to spend significant time with both of them. He did not express a preference about where he wanted to live.
Factor #3: The Length of Time the Child Has Lived in a Stable Home Environment
[70] The child lived primarily with the mother until January of 2014. From 2012 to 2014, he also spent considerable time with the father.
[71] The child has lived primarily with the father since January of 2014. The mother spends considerable time with the child.
[72] The father has provided the child with a stable home environment.
Factor #4: The Ability and Willingness of Each Person Applying for Custody
[73] The father has responsibly attended to all of the physical and emotional needs of the child. He is the parent who followed up on the child's heart condition. He takes the child regularly to medical and dental appointments. He has ensured that the child's academic needs have been attended to. He arranged tutoring for the child and is in close communication with the child's school. He ensures that the child has appropriate clothing and has proper lunches for school.
[74] The mother struggled with attending to the child's needs while he was in her care. She missed medical appointments to address the child's heart condition. She did not take the child to the dentist in a timely manner. The child was often late for school or did not attend. This contributed to the child's problems at school. The mother was resistant to the school's suggestions for social work help for the child. The school often had difficulty reaching her. She also failed at times to provide the child with adequate lunches and clothing. The mother was also resistant to the child attending at the Sylvan Learning Centre for tutoring.
Factor #5: Any Plans Proposed for the Child's Care and Upbringing
[75] The father's plan is to continue the current parenting schedule, with the exception that he would like the child returned home on Sunday evenings. The child will attend the same school and attend at daycare when not in school. The child will continue tutoring at the Sylvan Learning Centre. He will be involved with extracurricular activities and attend at camp.
[76] The father will receive parenting assistance from his partner and from his mother.
[77] The mother plans to move from Brampton to Toronto. She says that she has an agreement to lease an apartment close to the child's school. The child would stay in the same school. The mother is agreeable to the child continuing with his tutoring. She would also have the child involved with extracurricular activities.
[78] The mother plans to live with her partner. He is planning to become a lawyer and will assist her in parenting the child.
Factor #6: The Permanence and Stability of the Family Unit
[79] This was a neutral factor in making this decision.
Factor #7: The Ability of Each Person Applying for Custody or Access to Act as a Parent
[80] The father has demonstrated very strong parenting skills. He has also shown a very high level of responsibility in caring for the needs of the child.
[81] The father has also shown that he values the child's relationship with the mother. He has consistently complied with the parenting order. He has been flexible in providing the mother with parenting time. He has been vigilant in keeping the mother informed about the child's medical appointments and school progress.
[82] The mother clearly loves the child very much. She is warm and affectionate with him. The child is comfortable with her and feels safe in her care. She is interested in his welfare and wants to be involved in his life.
[83] However, the evidence reveals many concerns about the mother's parenting judgment including:
a) She neglected the child's dental needs.
b) She was not responsive in dealing with the child's heart condition.
c) She was responsible for the child's poor school attendance.
d) She was not reliable in picking up the child from school.
e) She did not provide, at times, adequate lunches and winter clothing for the child.
f) The mother's neglect contributed to the child's school struggles. Yet, she was resistant to social work assistance suggested by the school.
g) The school had difficulty contacting the mother.
h) The mother's neglect of the child's needs resulted in society referrals.
i) The mother did not comply with the access terms of the final order. The father had to bring a contempt motion. The mother explained that she became confused about the parenting schedule. At best, this is more evidence of a lack of organization when it comes to the needs of the child – in this case the need of the child to regularly see his father.
j) More recently:
i) The mother advised the child's school in June of 2014 that the child would be going to school in Brampton in September despite the fact the father had temporary custody of the child. The result was that the school did not have a class placement for the child on the first day of school in September of 2014.
ii) The mother booked a trip outside of Canada for July (during the father's access time) without prior consultation with the father and contrary to the court order.
Factor #8: The Relationship by Blood or Through an Adoption Order
[84] This was a neutral factor in making this decision.
4.6 Analysis
4.6.1 Parenting Plan
[85] The court finds that it is in the child's best interests to order the parenting schedule suggested by the father on a final basis for the following reasons:
a) The child has thrived in the father's care.
b) The schedule is stable and predictable.
c) The schedule ensures that the child will spend considerable time with both parents.
d) The schedule provides a stable home for the child during the school week so he can focus on his school work.
[86] The court accepts the father's evidence that the child is tired when he is returned to school on Mondays. This is understandable since the mother has to bring the child to school from her home in Brampton. While the mother says that she plans to move to Toronto, it is unclear if she will still move without the parenting schedule she sought being ordered. The child is still behind in school and an emphasis needs to be placed on providing an access schedule that gives him the best opportunity to succeed at school. This requires stability during the school week, ensuring that his schoolwork is done and coming to school rested. The court finds that these objectives can best be achieved by the child spending Sunday evening at his father's home.
[87] The mother's proposal for a week-about parenting plan is not in the child's best interests. She did not consistently meet the child's medical and academic needs when the child was in her primary care. The court is not confident that this would change. The child needs stable and consistent parenting – particularly during the school week. For the same reason, the court finds that it is not in the child's best interests to grant the mother's alternative request of adding an additional overnight visit each week.
[88] The Minutes of Settlement filed provide for an equal sharing of time with the child during holidays (including the summer). It sets out travel terms and how communication should take place between the parties. The parties are commended for reaching this agreement.
[89] The final order contained a clause restricting the mother from moving the child's residence more than 50 km. without a prior court order or the father's consent. It is in the child's best interests to maintain that clause, but now with respect to the father.
4.6.2 Decision Making
[90] The court gave serious consideration to the OCL's recommendations about decision-making.
[91] The court considered that there have been improvements in communication between the parties over the past year. They have attended parent-teacher meetings and medical appointments together. They have cooperated in arranging extra-curricular activities for the child and ensuring his attendance. The father implemented an online calendar with all of the child's medical appointments and shared it with the mother.
[92] The court praises the parents for these positive gains and encourages them to continue with this approach. It can only benefit the child.
[93] However, notwithstanding these positive factors, the court finds that even the partial joint custody recommendation made by the OCL is not in the child's best interests. It will award custody to the father for the following reasons:
a) The historical communication between the parties has been poor.
b) The parties have been in almost constant litigation since 2012.
c) The court did not make a joint custody order on October 9, 2013, largely due to the poor communication between the parties. The father was granted decision-making authority about major medical issues – the mother custody regarding all other issues.
d) There has been police and society involvement with the parents due to their conflict.
e) The court observed the parties during this hearing. It was apparent that their interpersonal conflict is still high.
f) The mother demonstrated very poor parenting judgment while the child was in her care. She has continued to make some poor and impulsive decisions. The court is not confident in her ability to make good decisions for the child moving forward.
g) The father has demonstrated a far stronger ability to make good parenting decisions for the child.
h) The child has special academic and medical needs that need to be addressed responsibly. There may be occasions when decisions about medical and academic issues need to be made quickly. It is not in the child's best interests that the father's ability to make such decisions be unduly fettered.
i) The father has demonstrated a stronger ability than the mother to facilitate the child's relationship with the other parent. This is an important consideration. See: Leggatt v. Leggatt, 2015 ONSC 4502.
j) The father has demonstrated a better ability than the mother to keep the other parent informed of the child's medical and academic progress. There is no evidentiary basis to support the mother's concern that if the father is granted sole custody he will exclude her as a parent from the child's life.
[94] This order will require the father to meaningfully consult with the mother prior to making major decisions about the child. The mother will also be entitled to have direct contact with the child's school, doctors and other service providers.
Part Five – Child Support
[95] The parties agreed that the father has met his child support obligations. This order will set out that the father owes no support to the mother.
[96] The mother asked the court for a parenting plan that would have resulted in a shared parenting order (40% of the time with the child) pursuant to section 9 of the guidelines. The court did not make this order. The parenting order made does not meet the 40% parenting time threshold in section 9.
[97] The father asks that the mother's child support obligation begin as of April 1, 2015, when she began working full-time. This is a reasonable request.
[98] A letter from the mother's employer states that she is being paid at the rate of $39,994 per annum. This is the best evidence of her income. The mother argued that since she started working in March, the court should base her child support payments on the gross income she will actually earn in 2015 (she earned no income in 2015 up until March 9th). This argument might have had merit if the father was seeking child support effective from January 1, 2015, but that is not the case. Wherever possible, the court should use the most current income information available in assessing income for child support purposes. See: Vanos v. Vanos, 2010 ONCA 876; Wright v. Christie, 2011 ONCJ 109.
[99] The table amount for one child at the income attributed to the mother is $360 per month.
[100] The mother will be credited for a $600 payment made after April 1, 2015.
[101] This support order will create support arrears. To avoid any hardship to the mother, she will be permitted to repay the arrears at the rate of $150 per month, starting on September 1, 2015.
[102] The father also sought at the hearing a contribution to special expenses of the child pursuant to section 7 of the guidelines. The court is not prepared to grant this request at this time because:
a) The father did not plead this relief in his motion to change. At no point did he seek permission to amend his motion to change. See: Rodaro v. Royal Bank of Canada, [2002] O.J. No. 1365.
b) The father did not provide supporting documentation for this claim in an organized or comprehensible manner.
c) The father provided no evidence of the net cost of these expenses, after taking into consideration any tax benefit or tax deduction.
d) The father provided inadequate financial disclosure of his own income. While he is now an employee, he apparently owned his own moving company until very recently. He failed to provide comprehensive records about this business or why it is not operating. There is a real issue as to what his actual income is, or should be. If the issue cannot be resolved, the court will likely require an oral hearing to make this determination.
[103] The parties are encouraged to negotiate an agreement regarding the child's section 7 guidelines expenses. If they cannot reach an agreement, the father has leave to bring a motion to change to specifically address the mother's contribution to the child's section 7 expenses.
Part Six – Conclusion
[104] A final order shall go on the following terms:
a) The final order dated October 9, 2013 is terminated.
b) The father shall have custody of the child.
c) The father shall meaningfully consult with the mother prior to making any major decision for the child.
d) The mother shall be entitled to directly communicate with the child's teachers, doctors and service providers. The father shall sign any consent or direction required to permit her to do this.
e) If the father wishes to relocate more than 50 km. from Toronto, the consent of the mother or a prior court order will be required.
f) Paragraphs 1-8 of the Minutes of Settlement, dated July 22, 2015, addressing holiday time, travel, communication and rights to information shall form part of this order.
g) In addition to the holiday access set out in the Minutes of Settlement, the mother shall have access to the child as follows:
i) All weekends except the second weekend of each month. Weekends are considered to be from Fridays after school/day-care until Sundays at 6 p.m.
ii) On the second Thursday of each month, the mother shall pick up the child from school/daycare at the end of the day and drop him off at school/daycare on Friday morning.
h) The holiday schedule shall take priority to the regular access schedule.
i) The father's child support obligation pursuant to the October 9, 2013 order is terminated. He does not owe the mother any child support.
j) The mother shall pay the father child support in the sum of $360 per month, being the guidelines table amount for one child, based on her annual income of $39,994, starting on April 1, 2015.
k) The mother shall be credited with child support paid of $600 since April 1, 2015.
l) The mother may repay the child support arrears created by this order at the rate of $150 per month, starting on September 1, 2015.
m) This order will not preclude the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from collecting arrears from any government source, such as HST or income tax returns, or from any lottery or prize winnings of the mother.
n) The Director of the Family Responsibility Office is requested to adjust its records in accordance with the terms of this order.
o) A support deduction order shall issue.
p) If the parties cannot agree on the mother's contribution to the child's section 7 guidelines expenses, the father has leave to bring a motion to change to specifically address this issue.
q) The mother's motion to change is dismissed.
[105] If either party chooses to seek costs, they are to serve and file written submissions by August 7, 2015. The other party will then have until August 17, 2015 to make written response. The submissions should not exceed three pages, not including any bill of costs or offer to settle. The submissions should be delivered to the trial coordinator's office on the second floor of the courthouse.
Justice S.B. Sherr
Released: July 24, 2015
