Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 61757/13 Date: May 19, 2016 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Peter Livisianos, Applicant

— AND —

Niki Liadis, Respondent

Before: Justice Roselyn Zisman

Heard on: April 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18 and 26, 2016

Reasons for Judgment released on: May 19, 2016

Counsel:

• Brian Ludmer, for the Applicant
• Dani Z. Frodis and Samantha Dineno, for the Respondent

ZISMAN, J.:

Introduction

[1] This is a focused Family Law Rule 1 trial. The parties have one child, Evangelos Liadis born February 5, 2012 ("Evan" or "the child"). The case was extensively case managed and there were numerous court attendances for motions, case conferences and a settlement conference. The case was before the assignment court judge who provided the parties with 4 days for the trial and 1 day for submissions. Brian Ludmer attended as agent for the father and advised the court he could not attend on April 6th when the case was originally scheduled to begin.

[2] A trial management conference was held before me. At the time Mr. Ludmer again attended as agent for the applicant ("father") and advised that he was not available on either April 6 or 7th, due to personal reasons. He subsequently sought an adjournment of the entire trial that was not granted. Mr. Ludmer then sent a form 14B to the court requesting that the trial commence on April 8, 2016. He was required to file a Notice of Change of Representation as he had still not confirmed that he had been retained was counsel for the trial. His request for the trial to begin on April 8th was granted on the condition that he would need to make himself available for any further days the court determined were necessary to complete the trial. Costs if sought were reserved.

Issues to be Determined and Positions

[3] At the trial management conference the following issues for trial were outlined:

a) Custody of Evan: The father sought an order of either sole or joint custody and the respondent ("mother") sought a continuation of her temporary sole custody order;

b) Access to Evan: The father sought an order for equal time sharing. The mother sought a continuation of the current temporary order namely, access to the father every Wednesday overnight to Thursday morning and alternate week-ends from Friday to Monday morning with pick up and drop off at the child's daycare, with an extension of access on a holiday week-end and changes to the times once the child commences school in September 2016;

c) Child support: The father was prepared to pay child support in accordance with Child Support Guidelines. Although the father did not stipulate on what income child support should be based, I assume that he was prepared to base child support on his income as disclosed in his income tax returns as he deposed in his affidavit that he had no undisclosed income and there was no basis to impute income to him. It was also the father's position that his child support should be adjusted if he was granted equal time sharing. The mother sought to impute income to the father in the amount of $225,000. The mother also sought a proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses and child support retroactive to the child's birth;

d) Name change: The father sought to change the child's surname from "Liadis" to his surname "Livisianos". It was the mother's position that this court lacks jurisdiction to order a name change; and

e) Non-removal and mobility restrictions: The father sought an order preventing the mother from removing the child from Ontario without his consent or court order. He also sought an order preventing the mother from moving the child's residence from outside of the City of Toronto without his consent or court order. The mother was opposed to both orders as being unnecessary and given the conflict between the parties that such orders would cause further conflict and increase her legal fees.

[4] At the commencement of the trial, the court was advised that the parties had settled the custody issue, some incidental parenting issues and the child support issues. I have outlined the initial positions of the parties as it provides some context and insight as to the distrust and conflict between the parties that permeated the trial even though the trial had been reduced to the issue of access.

[5] The parties agreed that the mother would have sole custody of the child, that she would consult with the father about any major issues, that neither party would move their permanent residence outside of Toronto without the prior written consent of the other party or a court order.

[6] The father agreed to pay child support of $1,263 per month and $338 per month as his share of the full-time daycare expenses based on an imputed income of $150,000. The parties agreed to re-adjust the daycare expenses once the child commenced school in September 2016. The parties agreed that the father pay retroactive child support of $7,500 and costs of $4,000 with respect the financial issues in addition to any previous costs orders. The parties further agreed that the issue of child support would not be reviewable by either party until 2018.

[7] At the commencement of the trial, counsel for the father submitted that if the court ordered an equal parenting schedule that he would not seek any change to his child support in accordance with section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

Issues to be Determined at Trial and Parties' Positions

1. What access schedule is in the child's best interests? The father seeks an equal parenting schedule on a 2, 2 and 3 schedule that could be gradually introduced, an order of right of first refusal that if either parent is unavailable to care for the child, some conduct orders and a sharing of the holidays. The mother continues to seek a continuation of the current schedule and a sharing a holidays although on a different schedule than the father.

2. Can this court order the change of the child's name? It is conceded by father's counsel that this court does not have the jurisdiction to order a name change but he urged the court to make a strong suggestion to change the name to avoid future litigation. The father would agree to the child's name being changed to "Liadis-Livisianos". The mother in her evidence very reluctantly agreed as long as the father would be responsible for any cost and the necessary paperwork.

Background

[8] The father is 38 years old. He is self-employed. He has owned parking lots, worked for his father's limousine business and in construction. One of his witnesses described that he also builds and "flips" houses. As he is self-employed it appears his hours of employment are flexible although there was never any clear evidence with respect to his schedule or availability.

[9] The mother is 43 years old and employed as a teacher. She is certified as a kindergarten and music teacher specialist. She teaches in the same school where Evan attends daycare and where as of September 2016 he shall be attending kindergarten.

[10] Both parties are Greek and are interested in ensuring the child maintains his Greek heritage and culture. The father speaks Greek to the child and would have preferred that the child attend a Greek school rather than a public school.

[11] The parties met in 2005 and reconnected in November 2010. It is the mother's position that they never cohabited and always had separate residences. Although there were times that the father stayed at her condominium and he stored some boxes there, it is the mother's position that he never stayed for more than a few weeks.

[12] It is the father's position that the parties cohabited from May 2011 until July 2011 but then later that summer travelled to Greece together for a 5 week vacation. The parties then resumed a relationship and cohabited again as of February 2012 and separated again on May 29, 2012.

[13] In April 2011 the mother unexpectedly became pregnant. According to the mother she was not on speaking terms with the father at the time but once he discovered she was pregnant he wanted them to be a family. The parties began to look at homes together but the relationship never became permanent.

[14] It is the mother's position that she realized she could not maintain a healthy relationship with the father due to his aggressive and controlling manner and his extreme views that she did not share. The father denies the mother's allegations and it is his position that the separations were caused as a result of the mother's abusive behaviour towards him and her mental instability.

[15] I find that the parties had a short lived and volatile relationship. I do not draw any adverse inference against the mother, as submitted by father's counsel, with respect to her evidence regarding the length or nature of the relationship.

[16] The parties do agree that the police were called on numerous occasions before and after Evan's birth although each blames the other for the necessity of police involvement.

[17] It is the mother's position that she tried to involve the father in Evan's life, advised him of medical appointments and permitted access but that the father was inconsistent in attending access and caused conflict when he attended medical appointments. It is the mother's position that she sought to gradually increase access consistent with the child's age and stage of development.

[18] It is the father's position that he was actively involved prior to and after the child's birth and that he had access a few times a week for up to 7 to 8 hours a day and that the mother refused overnight access without any reason. He states that the mother refused to provide a schedule or if she did she would unilaterally change or cancel the visit. It is his position that the mother attempted to marginalize his role in the child's life and as a result he had no choice but to commence a court application.

[19] It is against this background that the parties have been before the court since October 2013.

Summary of Court Proceedings

[20] The following is a brief summary of the court proceedings and decisions by Justice Carole Curtis who was the case management judge:

Date	Outcome/Order/Endorsement
September 17, 2013	Application issued for sole custody and equal time sharing, child support payable by the mother, non-removal order and appointment of Office of Children's Lawyer First appearance court date of November 14, 2013
October 31, 2013	Urgent motion by father for non-removal, access on equal time sharing; Cross-motion by mother to dismiss; court finding no urgency but case conference held; on consent father to submit to drug test and once done, access to father on Wednesdays from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; pick up and drop off at maternal grandparents' home, access to be supervised by paternal grandparents; child support payable by father of $235 month as of January 1, 2103 based on $28,720 income; costs reserved
December 13, 2013	Urgent motion by father for increased access, removal of supervised access and access to child's medical records and Christmas access; motion held not to be urgent but order regarding Christmas access. Costs payable by father fixed at $2,500 payable by January 31, 2014
January 9, 2014	Form 14B motion for adjournment of case conference granted and order for disclosure by father as requested by mother; costs reserved
March 6, 2014	Case conference held; on consent requirement for supervision of father's access deleted; costs for October 31, 2013 urgent motion fixed at $2,500 payable; Costs of January 9 th form 14B fixed at $700 payable by father as he would not agree to disclosure request; costs to be enforced as support by FRO
May 9, 2014	Motion scheduled; on consent access increased to alternate Fridays from 4:00 p.m. to Saturdays at 4:00 p.m. and on alternating weekends from Saturday at noon to Sunday at noon with mother dropping of the child near the father's home and father returning child to the lobby of the mother's home; and on Wednesdays from noon to 7:00 p.m. with pick up at daycare and drop off by father; child support of $320 a month based on $36,393 and share of daycare expenses of $487.50 month on a without prejudice basis re amount or commencement date; endorsement notes that father has not paid outstanding cost orders and must do so
May 28, 2014	Case conference held; endorsement notes that father paid costs; discussion re issues and motion date set
July 4, 2014	Contested motion by mother for child support; endorsement notes that there are difficulties determining father's income which may be related to disclosure; for oral reasons child support of $595 based on gross income imputed at $65,000 and share of daycare expenses of $487.50 month being 50% as on January 1, 2013 without prejudice re amount or commencement date
September 16 and October 20, 2014	Form 14B and confirmations re costs and procedural issues for temporary access motion
November 5, 2014	Contested access motion by father; order that father have access Wednesdays from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., alternate weekends from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and issue re Wednesday overnights to be revisited in 3 months; mother not to attend daycare when father picking up the child; nominal costs of $500 payable by father as positions close enough that motion should not have been brought and once brought should have settled
February 11, 2015	Form 14B adjournment request on basis temporary order of November 5, 2014 being appealed; adjournment denied; endorsement also required parties to advise the court if decision re July 4 th motion still required as counsel in December advised that parties were in negotiations and no costs order should be made
March 13, 2015	Reasons for costs of July 4 th motion released; father ordered to pay costs of $4,000 – not on a full recovery basis as parties close to same position
April 1, 2015	Consent submitted for father's access to be every Wednesday from 3:00 p.m. to Thursday morning at 9:30 a.m. and alternate weekends from Friday at 3:00 p.m. to Monday at 9:30 a.m. to be extended to Tuesday of a holiday weekend; pick up and drop off at daycare; each party to bear own costs re father's motion and his appeal
April 21, 2015	Case conference held; endorsement notes that this is a high conflict case and conflict getting worse, not a suitable case for joint custody; leave granted to bring motion by mother if necessary for custody as required as a result of issues at daycare
July 6, 2015	Motion by mother re custody; endorsement notes that the level of conflict is quite extraordinary and harmful to the child; temporary order granting mother sole custody and father entitled to obtain information regarding the child; costs reserved; father's motion re increased access adjourned due to late filing; neither party permitted to file any further affidavit materials
August 13, 2015	Contested motion by father to increase access; motion dismissed as no material change of circumstances since consent orders of February 12 and April 1, 2015; father's Form 14B motions also dismissed; timelines set for written cost submissions
November 4, 2015	Case conference held; order for disclosure by father; parties ordered to exchange written offers to settle
December 14, 2015	Settlement conference held; recommendations made; trial planning meeting held and advised trial would proceed as Rule 1 hearing; evidence in chief by non-professional witness to be by affidavit; father advised that he would not be permitted to call 24 witnesses and to pick his best 5-7 witnesses; scheduled for 5 day trial with 2 days for each party and 1 day for submissions
January 6, 2016	Trial assignment court; dates set for 5 days Rule 1 trial with directions re number of witnesses ; as a result of father's counsel not being available on April 6 th, trial to commence April 7 th ;
February 29, 2016	Trial management conference held before myself as trial judge; request for adjournment of trial adjourned to case management judge
March 3, 2016	Adjournment request denied; trial to commence on April 7 th , 2016; trial dates peremptory to both parties; endorsement notes that after 2 1/2 years of litigation child deserves certainty and finality
March 30, 2016	Cost decision of Justice Curtis released regarding motions heard on July 6 th and August 15 th , 2015 re custody and access; father ordered to pay costs of the motion of $9,034.84; the endorsement notes that it was not clear if father paid the previous costs orders totalling $7,700; the endorsement also notes that the father had not changed his behaviour since the litigation began and continued to pursue matters that he had already been unsuccessful in
April 5, 2016	Form 14 B request by father's counsel to vacate April 7 th date due to unavailability for personal reason; opposed by mother's counsel; adjournment granted on condition that father's counsel make himself available for any further days required for trial; costs if requested reserved

[21] The father filed his affidavit as his evidence in chief and was permitted to supplement that evidence orally and was subject to cross-examination. The father called as a witness Dana Kendal who conducted an investigation of the father's plan of care and filed two reports. He also called as witnesses a daycare worker and daycare resource worker. The father filed affidavits of 5 friends and relatives who were subject to cross-examination. The father also filed affidavits from his sister in law and a cousin and on consent it was agreed they would be entered without cross-examination.

[22] The mother filed her affidavit as her evidence in chief and was permitted to supplement that evidence orally and was subject to cross-examination. The mother also called the daycare supervisor and a social worker who is providing counselling to her. On consent, the child's doctor's letter was filed as were the children's aid society records and several police reports.

Adverse Inferences

[23] Father's counsel submitted that an adverse inference should be drawn as the mother did not file affidavits or call any collateral witnesses such as her parents or her sister. The mother did call two professional witnesses who, as they were independent witnesses were of much more assistance to the court, than family or friends. Further, this was scheduled as a focused trial and therefore the expectation is that the parties should limit their witnesses to those that can provide the most pertinent and relevant witnesses.

[24] There were witnesses that both parties could have called with respect to several issues that remained confusing and unclear at the end of the trial, but there are practical issues for counsel to consider including the staggering cost of litigation and judgement calls must be made as to which witnesses are most crucial to the determination of the issues before the court. I therefore do not draw any adverse inference against either party with respect to further witnesses either side could have produced.

Credibility

[25] The credibility and reliability of the evidence of both of the parties are important issues to be determined in this case.

[26] Although the financial issues had been settled both counsel cross-examined the opposing party on their finances and submitted that the evidence should be assessed with respect to issues of credibility. I found the father's evidence with respect to his financial circumstances to be convoluted, evasive, inconsistent, unreasonable and unreliable.

[27] Generally, I find that the father exaggerated, provided internally inconsistent evidence and that his evidence was contradicted by other neutral witnesses. His evidence was vague at times, self-serving and he exhibited an inability to recollect significant events.

[28] Overall, I find that the mother was much more credible and reliable than the father. I find that she was truthful and sincere in recollecting events. Although at times the mother's evidence was also vague, I find that some of her inability to recollect events, especially with respect to the overwhelming number of texts and emails sent by the father, was due to her emotional stress in coping with the father's relentless tactics to achieve his goal of equal parenting. As outlined in further detail in these reasons, I prefer the evidence of the mother over that of the father where their evidence conflicted.

Evidence of Dana Kendal

[29] The father retained Dana Kendal to investigate his plan of care and his ability to parent. It was sought to have her qualified as an expert to provide the court with opinion evidence with respect to parenting capacity assessments, the assessment of a parent's capacity and interest in parenting and the assessment of the needs of a child in terms of a parent's ability to meet those needs.

[30] I found that Ms Kendal was not qualified as an expert. Ms Kendal is a registered social worker and has 25 years of experience. She worked briefly for the children's aid society and since 2002 has been in private practice working with families, parents and couples. About three years ago she expanded her practice to include parenting capacity assessments and has conducted about a dozen such assessments. None of her cases have gone to court. She has never been qualified as an expert, she has not taught or written in the area or taken any specialized training in conducting parenting capacity assessments. Although she testified that she followed the protocol as outlined by her governing body, the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, regarding custody and access assessments, no further information was provided especially with respect to the professional ethics and limitations of conducting a one-sided assessment and drawing conclusions and making recommendations based on such an assessment.

[31] Ms Kendal filed her reports dated October 19, 2014 and January 26, 2016 and was permitted to testify as to her observations of the father and child. As she was not qualified as an expert, I did not consider her opinion about custody or access.

[32] Ms Kendal testified that she observed the father and child from August 2014 to January 2016. She observed the father and child 7 times in both of the father's two homes and in the community and 3 times for short observations at the daycare. She spoke to some collaterals and one of the child's daycare providers. She also reviewed the mother's affidavit and her allegations against the father and found them not to be substantiated.

[33] Overall, she found there was a strong bond between the father and the child, that they interacted naturally and the father was able to put boundaries in place and follow her suggestions. She did not observe any anxiety by the child. She also testified that she observed that after the child had not seen the father for seven days, he had trouble going to the father, put his hands over his eyes and did not appear happy whereas when she observed the child after only a two day absence from seeing the father he went to him immediately and appeared happy to see him.

[34] The problem with Ms Kendal's observations and the conclusions she makes is typical of all such one-sided observations, they are simply not balanced and make assumptions based on only reviewing one side of the evidence. In this case, Ms Kendal's observations and conclusions are particularly flawed due to a lack of follow up and the contrary evidence of more neutral observers.

[35] I have the following concerns with Ms Kendal's reports and evidence:

[1] Based on the calendar produced for 2015 and 2016, the days she observed the child at the daycare, both would have been following the child's week-end with the mother. Therefore her conclusion about the different reactions of the child at the exchanges and that the child "forgets" the father or has a hard time reconnecting with him after an absence of seven days are simply wrong as being based on a false assumption;

[2] Ms Kendal reports a telephone discussion with Mr. Basso, an assistant supervisor and a daycare worker, wherein Mr. Basso is cited as being extremely positive about the father's interactions with the child and the father being appropriate at the daycare. But when the comments were put to Mr. Basso when he testified, he stated that the comments were "definitely not" his words;

[3] When Ms Kendal was asked why she did not ask Mr. Basso if the child had different reaction when he saw his father after an absence of 7 days as opposed to an absence of 2 days, she responded that it was her understanding that Mr. Basso was not in the daycare and would not have observed the pick-ups. In fact Mr. Basso testified that he was the daycare worker who spent the most time with the child. She also did not explain why she had then not spoken to other staff members. Ms Kendal then testified that she spoke to Mr. Basso on October 17th, 2014 and at that time the father had limited access to the child and the court order that resulted in the long absences of the child and father was not yet in place. But then she did not explain why when she observed the father's pick-ups on December 2nd, 2015 and January 13th, 2016 she did not ask the daycare staff if they noticed any difference in the child's reactions to his father. Instead she was content to form an opinion by relying on her own two observations;

[4] Ms Kendal indicates in her report that the father although initially skeptical about the value of daycare came to understand its benefits. Yet it is clear from the fathers evidence and his affidavits and his discussions with children's aid society worker and others that he sees no value in the child attending daycare and blames his attendance at daycare for the behavioural issues that the child displayed;

[5] Ms Kendal testified that she was satisfied that none of the mother's concerns were verified based on her discussion with the father and his collaterals. But for example, she testified that she asked the father about a photograph of the child with what appears to be a Hitler style moustache and that he told her that it was just a "smudge", a "joke" and "nothing to do with Hitler." But in cross-examination, she testified that although the photograph had been attached to the mother's affidavit that she testified she had reviewed she had not seen the photograph before or the words "Hail Vageli" on the top and looking at the photograph she agreed that it was not just a smudge. Although she spoke to two of the father's friends about the father's drug use, she did not follow up with one of the friends with respect to this photograph that was apparently sent to him;

[6] Ms Kendal reviewed the mother's allegations regarding drug use and domestic violence. Although she testified that she felt she was not investigating but only assessing the father's plan of care and was therefore limited in the scope of what she could, she nevertheless draws the conclusion that there was no basis for the mother to believe the father used drugs. She did not specifically ask about the father's Neo-Nazi affiliation or other photos that were produced at trial, but testified that she did ask some general questions and was satisfied that the father was not affiliated with any such groups;

[7] Ms Kendal spoke very generally about suggestions she made to the father about is concerns about the child's behaviour and nutrition and that he was open to following her suggestions but gave no concrete examples. She did testify that was time went on there was an evolution of the relationship and it became stronger, and that the father took on more of a parenting role and was better able to set boundaries, limits and structure. The only example of any negative behaviour offered was that at the beginning the child would not eat and she helped the father with this issue and also helped him setting up strategies to control the child's behaviour. But again Ms Kendal gave no examples in her evidence or in her reports of any problems with the behaviour;

[8] The evidence of Ms Kendal is in contrast with the evidence of both Mr. Basso who indicated the father could be "too permissive" with the child and the evidence of Cathy Henderson the daycare supervisor who also testified that the father has difficulty controlling the child's behaviour and she observed some safety concerns;

[9] Ms Kendal testified that the father has strong opinions and ideas about the role of a parent. But she did not explore the mother's allegations about the father not wanting the child to have ultra-sounds or be vaccinated or his concern about privacy issues and not wanting his name on government documents or his objection to obtaining a social insurance number for the child. Her report only refers to the fact that the father believes that there are negative side effects when children are immunized and then states that he voiced his concerns but the child is up to date with his immunizations. She failed to explore with the father's statement in his affidavit where he states that he was concerned about vaccinations because he wanted to be cautious about "new drugs" introduced to the market which makes no sense in the context of vaccinations. Ms Kendal fails to point out that it was the mother who assured the child was vaccinated. The lack of any in depth investigation of the father's beliefs was relevant not only to his parenting abilities but the mother had raised concerns about several of the father's extreme beliefs;

[10] Ms Kendal testified that the father was unable to enroll the child in any scheduled activities because he did not have a consistent date for access at the beginning but then did not explain why he would not have done so since he has had the child in his care every Wednesday evening since February 2015;

[11] Ms Kendall agreed that she had no input from the mother; and

[12] In her October 19, 2014 report, she recommends increasing access to the father and awarding joint custody as this would allow for a more consistent second home environment for the child. She then states that she strongly believes, "this would help facilitate a more grounded positive upbringing and would be in Evan's best interests. After getting to know Mr. Livisianos and his parents I can strongly recommend that Evan be allowed the benefit of such a positive and nurturing environment." Ms Kendal makes these recommendation without ever speaking to the mother, observing the child with his mother or having any discussion with the daycare staff or the resource teacher that were involved with the child.

[36] Overall, I find that the evidence and reports of Ms Kendal to be so one sided, superficial, inaccurate and lacking in depth that I put limited weight on both her evidence and her conclusions. When her observations are contradicted by neutral third party observers I prefer that evidence over the partisan evidence of Ms Kendal.

Evidence About the Child and the Parties' Respective Roles

[37] Evan was born a healthy child. He suffered from a weak neck and needed to wear an orthotic helmet from 6 to 18 months. He met most of his developmental milestones but was delayed in walking and there is some ongoing concern about his gross motor development.

[38] He is described by his mother as a sensitive child that can be highly emotional and that he exhibits extremes in his behaviour and can have terrible tantrums. He has anxiety and difficulty with transitions. He is described by the father as a loving child with no problems at all with his behaviour or anxiety.

[39] Evan has been attending the Arbour Daycare Centre since September 2014. I was impressed by the staff who testified about their knowledge and understanding of him. He was described as a child with a lot of energy by both Len Basso a daycare worker and assistant supervisor who works with him daily and Cathy Henderson the daycare supervisor who also sees him almost daily.

[40] According to Mr. Basso and Ms Henderson, when Evan first began attending their daycare, he exhibited a lot of behavioural and social issues. He had extreme fluctuations in his behaviour, he had mood swings and his behaviour changed throughout the day. His level of anxiety was also described as higher than usual. He had more trouble with transitions and changes than other children. There were concerns about his reading, writing and language development. The daycare staff focused at the beginning on his verbal skills, behaviour and cognitive issues.

[41] As a result of the concerns, the daycare was able to engage the services of Cherie Dale, a resource worker with Adventure Place. Ms Dale observed Evan and made suggestions for the daycare staff to implement to assist with managing his behaviour. Ms Dale testified that based on information from the mother, her own observations and information from the daycare staff, she also found that the child was anxious and needed help with self-regulation and help with peer interactions.

[42] The daycare was also able to fund a one on one worker for the child for about 220 hours in blocks of 4 hours sessions. This extra assistance was generally provided in the mornings that were the most difficult times for the child.

[43] According to the evidence of Ms Henderson, when the child first began daycare, he had a great deal of difficulty separating from the mother and it was stressful for him. For a few months, the mother was coming into the daycare room a couple of times a day, and it was difficult for when the child heard her voice, as her classroom was across the hall. The mother was told to stop coming into the daycare and she stopped. Further, when the father was picking the child up at noon, as permitted in the order of May 9, 2014, the mother would come into the classroom and this confusing for the child. The mother would try to speak to the father who would be largely unresponsive. Ms Henderson asked them to make the exchanges outside the classroom as Evan was finding having them both in the classroom confusing and stressful. She suggested that the mother pick up the child and take him to the father's car and the mother began to so this.

[44] Ms Henderson also testified that when the father first began to pick up the child at daycare, he picked him up at noon in accordance with the court order and he did not know how to react and the pick-up time was disruptive. The child would not listen to the staff, threw things and sought attention from the father. The father would not know how to control his behaviour.

[45] Ms Henderson also testified that the father would bring the child in late on Mondays and that the child would not want to leave the father and the father would linger and would make it a long drawn out process. When the father was reminded to bring in the child earlier, he responded that it was "just daycare" and it "did not really matter". But Ms Henderson testified that if the child misses his snack and the morning routine he has a harder time settling in for the rest of the day.

[46] Ms Henderson who works late on Wednesdays and sees the father's pick-ups testified that the father still has trouble controlling the child. She also testified that the father did things that she felt were not safe such as putting Evan on the recycle bin to change his shoes. Mr. Basso commented that the father can be too permissive with the child and sometimes has to bribe him to leave but other times the child is happy to go.

[47] Mr. Basso who works late on Fridays indicated that he did not see any pattern with the father's pick-ups. Sometimes the child has more difficulty leaving but this also can happen when the mother picks him up, it all seems to depend on how his day went. Generally the child is happy at daycare and the transitions to the father are smoother now and he did not see any particular pattern.

[48] There have been issues with Evan over the summer. The daycare also runs during the summer although it is run more like a summer camp with a more relaxed schedule and the staff are aware that parents take summer holidays so attendance is not always consistent. According to the daycare staff, both parents were dropping off the child later and picking him up earlier than usual. Ms Dale, the resource worker, had advised the mother that there should be no issue with bringing the child to daycare later and bringing him up earlier in the summer but Evan did not react well. She then suggested that that the mother bring in the child on a more consistent schedule. According to the daycare staff the mother worked hard to create a consistent schedule and when it was not working in the summer she corrected it. However, in cross-examination of several witnesses and based on the attendance records it was submitted by father's counsel that the mother continued to not follow a consistent pattern. I have examined the attendance records and I find that both parents were more lax over the summer with respect to adhering to the regular schedule although the mother did remove the child for some extra days over the summer.

[49] According to the evidence of the daycare staff and Ms Dale, it is clear that Evan has made good progress at the daycare; he has lots of friends, good relationships with the staff and does not want to leave. He is less aggressive but still can have tantrums. He participates well in the activities, he is eating and sleeping well and is able to transition from the daily activities as the staff have implemented the strategies and arrangements that were suggested. He is still observed about once a month by the resource worker. He still asks if it is a "mommy day" or a "daddy day" and can react to either parent picking him up. He still has good and bad days.

[50] Although Evan has made good progress, there remain concerns about his emotional well-being. In the children's aid society notes, a risk of emotional harm is identified to the child if the parents are not able to resolve their custody and access dispute and continue to expose Evan to further police involvement and conflict as he grows up.

[51] Adventure Place that offers support to the daycare staff also offers family support services. The mother availed herself of these services and met with the coordination team. A summary of their conclusions in the intake service plan report prepared by Kristin Yeo, a clinical social worker, dated February 26, 2015 states as follows:

Evan is a three-year-old boy who is exhibiting symptoms of emotional distress. He is described as hyper vigilant because he constantly "assesses his surroundings". He is also prone to over-reactive behaviour if someone "invades" his personal space or raises their voice while nearby. It is the opinion of this worker that Evans' parents' ongoing relational issues have impacted Evan's social and emotional development.

[52] Ms Yeo testified in these proceedings and her conclusions were not diminished or discredited in cross-examination.

Evidence of Concerns About the Child's Car Seat

[53] A great deal of evidence was heard about the issue of the conflict between the parties regarding the mother's allegations that the father was not properly installing the child in a car seat. Normally, I would not review this evidence as the child is now in a booster seat and there appears to be no allegations of any ongoing concerns. However, I intend to review the evidence as the father's counsel is asking the court to draw negative inferences about the mother as a result of these incidents that is, that this is an example of her "maladaptive behaviour" and attempts to marginalize the father. I find the evidence relevant for another reason, namely that instead of finding ways to accommodate and alleviate the mother's concerns the father acted in a childish and inappropriately manner. I also find that the mother's concerns were not baseless as alleged by the father.

[54] I make the following findings:

[1] The father called the police on February 1, 2014 as he alleged the mother refused to release the child. The mother then called the police to confirm that she did not want to release the child due to her concerns about the safety of the father's car seat. The police report indicates that the officer checked the care seat and re-adjusted and tightened the straps and the mother then permitted the father to take the child. The mother explained that she called the police because there had been several prior instances and it was her word against the father's word so she wanted some proof about her concerns;

[2] Ms Kendal testified that she was aware of the mother's allegations about the car seat and that police had been involved. In any event she always checks the car seats and this would have been a valid concern by the mother. She testified that in October 2014, she checked and although the car seat was properly bolted the straps should have been tighter at the back and she re-adjusted the straps accordingly. I note that this is the same issue the police needed to correct months earlier;

[3] In the Winter of 2014, the father, his brother and the paternal grandmother came to pick up the child. Due to the weather, it was impossible to see inside the car and the mother felt there was no car seat, the father and his family drove off and the mother followed them. Instead, of simply opening the door to show the mother there was a car seat, the father seemed to taunt the mother and took a video of the child in his car seat and sent it to the mother;

[4] In October 2015, the father picked the child up in a truck with dealer's plates and put the child in the front seat in a booster seat but he testified that the seat was properly tethered. The mother would not release the child. The father decided not to call the police and left. The father made no attempt to show the mother that it would be safe to transport the child;

[5] For several months from November 2014, the mother continued to insist on checking the father's car seat when the father picked the child up from daycare. This was despite the fact that the child was having trouble with transitions at the time, but the mother testified that the child seemed to do better if she put him in the father's car. The father naturally resented this intrusion. Yet neither parent could come up with a logical solution. For example, the father being aware of the mother's anxiety around this issue could have attended a child car safety clinic to ensure he knew how to put the car seat in properly. The mother's evidence is that she eventually just gave up although there was some evidence that she was told by the case management judge to stop inspecting the car seat every time.

[55] I find that although the mother initially had some legitimate concerns about the car seat being properly installed, her continued concerns were not justified. But I do not find that she did this to marginalize the father but rather out of genuine concerns about her son's safety. The father's lack of communication with the mother and his behaviour simply antagonized the mother without making any attempts to alleviate her fears.

Evidence of Father's Insensitivity to the Child's Needs and Lack of Judgement

[56] I find that although the father clearly loves his child and wishes to be a part of his life, his obsession with being an "equal" parent and having "equal time sharing" has in many instances clouded his judgement. I also find that he has shown a lack of insight into the child's needs.

[57] I find as follows:

[1] The father sought equal time with the child since he was only an infant. When the child was only 8 months old he requested 6 out of 14 days and he sought equal time when he commenced this application. He failed to appreciate or consider that the child would have become more closely bonded and attached to the mother than to him as she was the parent who was with him on a daily basis since her maternity leave and thereafter was his primary parent;

[2] The father deposed that the mother had no basis for believing that the time he spends with Even should be increased slowly and gradually. The father's total lack of understanding that a child's time with his non-residential parent should be increased in this manner shows a lack of any understanding about a child's development and about the particular difficulties of his son;

[3] The father did not consider the impact on the mother of his allegation that the mother chose not to breast feed the child or blaming the child's delayed development on her. The mother testified that she was numb when he degraded her in this way as she had tried but had been unsuccessful at breast feeding the child. There I also no evidence that any delays in the child's development were the fault of the mother;

[4] The father felt that there was no impact "at all" on the child due to him moving homes three times and the child staying at the paternal grandparents' home while he was staging one of the homes for sale. Yet the father was critical of the mother because she spent time with the child living at either her parents' home or her own condominium;

[5] The father was critical of the mother permitting the child, until quite recently, of sleeping in the same bed as her; whereas, he saw nothing wrong with him sharing a bed with the child when he resides at his parents' home with the child which his mother testier testified was about for half of the time that the child spends with the father;

[6] The father saw no benefit to daycare and saw it as a glorified baby sitter and as a result saw no need to bring the child into daycare at consistent times and in tune with the daycare's activities and schedules;

[7] The daycare staff recommended that to help with transitions that the mother pack special things in the child's backpack which the mother did. But the father testified that he did not take it as the child did not want to take it. I do not accept the father's evidence on this issue as it is common sense that a child's security would be increased with familiar things in both homes. I find either the father is so petty as to not want anything the mother sent to travel with the child or is simply oblivious to the needs of a young child;

[8] The father caused conflict at the daycare and almost caused the child to be removed by insisting he had joint custody and should be consulted with respect to all decisions. In March 2014, the father had his counsel, Mr. Ludmer, write to the daycare insisting that he had joint custody as there was no court order in place; this is despite the fact that the child had lived in the mother's primary care since birth and she had made all of the decisions. The daycare had to consult its own counsel and was considering that the child would have to be removed from the daycare if the issue was of child's custody was not resolved;

[9] The father who is concerned about the child not being exposed to his Greek culture and heritage as he was not attending a Greek school, failed to bring books or share Greek words with the daycare staff as they requested he do. When asked why he failed to do this, his only response was "for a variety of reasons". The father also did not send or prepare a photograph album of him and his family although told by the daycare staff to do so. The mother however did prepare such an album for the child of her and her family and the daycare staff testified that he enjoyed looking through the album;

[10] The father was insensitive or unaware of the child's anxiety, his inability to self-regulate his emotions, his troubling behaviour and concerns about his interactions with his peers. The father blamed the daycare or the mother for this behaviour. Despite the evidence from all of the neutral third parties which was disclosed prior to the trial, the father in his trial affidavit continues to deny that the child has any problems with change and continues to blame the daycare or the mother for any of his behavioural issues;

[11] When asked to participate in a session with a resource worker from Adventure Place who were retained by the daycare staff to assist in managing the child's behaviours, the father did not return the call for several months. When he finally did participate, his only concern was assuring the participants that his son was not "mentally ill" or "a retard";

[12] The father delayed for several months returning a signed copy of the parent's code of conduct to the daycare. Although he initially testified that he saw no urgency and needed time to review it, he later testified that he was upset because he had not been asked to sign it when the child was first enrolled and the delay was therefore the daycare's fault. He felt his role as a parent was being marginalized. This is just another example of foolish behaviour by the father and causing conflict with the daycare staff;

[13] When the father picked up the child late, he was asked in the future to call the daycare staff to let them know that he would not be there at his usual time so that the staff could prepare the child. Instead of showing any understanding that the child might be upset or confused if the father did not come at his usual time, the father wrote an aggressive letter complaining to the daycare about how he was being treated;

[14] When the court order was changed on November 5, 2014, the father was to pick the child up at 4:00 p.m. and instead he arrived at 3:30 p.m. and told a staff member that he thought the time was 3:00 p.m. It was explained that the daycare needed to abide by the court order and that it was up to the mother if she agreed to release the child earlier. When the mother stated that they should abide by the court order, the father stood outside knocking on a classroom door and then left. Again childish behaviour and oblivious to the effects on young children with him knocking on their classroom door;

[15] On August 31, 2015, the mother reported to the children's aid society that the child had returned to daycare from the father's care over the week-end with a mark on his abdomen that the mother found disturbing. When she asked the child how it happened he said, "daddy said mommy do it". The father had not offered any explanation to the mother or advised the daycare staff about the mark. The mother was advised to take the child to SCAN. The mark was later determined to be consistent with a "rug burn" which is how the father explained the mark when he later met with the children's aid society worker. The father's explanation for not sending a text or email about what happened was that he did not want the mother to make a big deal of this, so instead he ended up causing the child to be needlessly medically examined and interviewed;

[16] When it was suggested in June 2015 that the parents participate in the Triple P parenting program to learn to implement the same routines and rules in their respective homes, the father did not put his name on a waitlist and testified that he had not yet had the time to take the program but intended to do so. In contrast, the mother immediately put her name on the waitlist and has completed the program;

[17] It was also suggested that the parents attend the Fun Friends program that has parallel sessions for children and parents. The mother put her name on a waitlist as soon as the child turned 4 years old and was eligible for the program and has now completed it. The father, on the other hand, blames the mother because he wanted to participate in the program with her and she would not allow this. There was conflicting evidence with respect to whether or not the parties could have attended the program together. I prefer the evidence of Ms Yeo that if there is conflict between parents they do not recommend that parents attend the program together. I find this accords with common sense. For the father to realistically assume that he and the mother could attend the same parent group in view of the high conflict between them is a stark example of his lack of insight into their relationship and ability to communicate;

[18] The father does not acknowledge any responsibility for the conflict or lack of communication between the parties and continually blames the mother; whereas, the mother acknowledged her role in the conflict and that it takes two parties to cause conflict. The mother has sought counselling as she is aware that at times she is emotionally overwhelmed and that her own challenges could impair and might impact her parenting. The father sees no need for any improvement in his parenting and did not see the need for any counselling. It is the father's belief that if his time with the child was increased all of the issues and problems would disappear. Although he did not directly state that he considers himself the better parent, his affidavit and his oral evidence certainly implies this;

[19] The father was highly critical of the fact that the mother volunteered to teach a music class to the child's daycare. The daycare staff saw this an opportunity to give the children an enhanced opportunity to learn music. Generally, the child understood that this was his mother's job and he was able to handle her teaching the class. Recently, he had to be removed as he was being disruptive and the staff determined that he will be able to attend the class when he is able to behave appropriately. Instead, of seeing this as an opportunity for the child to gain some insight into differentiating his mother's role as a teacher, something he will have to learn as he continues at this school, the father saw this as an example of the mother being unable to disentangle herself from the child's daycare. I find that this is simply another example of the father feeling it was not fair for the mother to have even more time with the child; and

[20] The father's lack of transparency regarding where he resides when the child is in his care: The mother has expressed ongoing concerns about where the child was sleeping when with the father. The father maintains that the mother has always been aware of where he was residing with the child. In December 2015, he blamed the mother for waiting at the wrong address as he had told her he was staying at this parents' home. However, when asked to produce proof he had advised the mother he testified they were on good terms at the time and he only told her verbally. I find this not to be credible. During this time, the parties had been in court and were unable to settle and it was agreed that a trial would be necessary. Further, I find that it is simply not believable that the father would have only told the mother about his change of address verbally when he kept proof of every other request or issue between them especially as the mother had made him aware that she had concerns about where the child was sleeping. Several of the father's witness gave contradictory evidence or were unclear with respect to their understanding of where and when the father lived at various addresses. Although it is understandable that this would not be an issue that they would be concerned about, the father should have understood that this would be an issue that the mother would be worried about and he should have clearly advised her where the child would be residing when in his care. According to the maternal grandmother, whose evidence I accept on this issue, the child resides at her home at least half of the time he is in the father's care. I find that the father did not keep the mother advised of where he was living as there was a very serious dispute about what the father did for a living and he did not want her to know about his various homes that it appears he fixed up and then sold;

Allegations with Respect to the Father's Credibility and Reliability

[58] Many of the instances cited above also impact on the father's credibility as does some of my later findings about the allegations the father makes about the mother's credibility.

[59] I find that the following evidence and incidents also raise questions about his credibility:

[1] The father deposed that since September 2014 he was constantly trying to learn about Adventure Place and the daycare and accuses the mother of having the audacity in her affidavit to allege that he declined to contact Ms Dale. But Ms Dale began working with Evan in January 2015 and Ms Yeo from Adventure Place testified that she left the father a message on March 31, 2015 and he never returned her call. The mother had provided Adventure Place with the father's contact information. The father was again contacted and did attend a service meeting on June 24, 2015. Ms Yeo advised him that he should contact her if he wished to be involved and he did not do so. Ms Yeo called him again in September to invite him to participate in another service meeting. The father agreed to provide his input in a telephone discussion. She reinstated to the father that the same services were available to both parents but the father chose not to be engaged;

[2] The father alleged that he was not able to obtain information from the daycare as the mother's restricted his access to information. But the daycare staff testified that the mother made it clear that the farther was entitled to receive all information about their child but only restricted his access to any information about herself;

[3] The father alleged that he was restricted in obtaining medical information about the child from his doctor. But the affidavit filed by the doctor states that there was no restrictions on him obtaining any information but that the father has never requested any information;

[4] The father alleged that the mother fabricated concerns about his drug use and never mentioned any such concerns before the court application and was making up these allegations to frame him. But the children's aid society records indicate that the mother voiced these concerns in her first meeting with the children's aid society on July 31, 2012 over a year before the court proceedings were commenced. The paternal grandmother confirmed that the mother had told her about her concerns about the father using drugs and wished her help to intervene;

[5] The father alleged that the mother asked the daycare staff to check the child every day for any marks or bruises, but Ms Henderson testified that the mother had only asked the staff to do this on three occasions due to her concerns about the child while in the father's care;

[6] In his trial affidavit the father deposed that he was unemployed before and after the child was born. In his parenting affidavit sworn September 17, 2013 he deposed hat he was a stay at home parent and only worked part-time. But all of his witnesses testified about how hard the father has always worked. Not one of them confirmed that he was ever unemployed and one of his witnesses testified that the father typically worked 10 to 12 hours a day. Also based on the father's Notices of Assessment his income in 2012 and 2013 was respectively $28,719 and $36,392. His income tax returns indicated that he had business income and rental income for both of those years;

[7] I find that the father's responses to questions about his finances raise concerns about is credibility. He failed to make financial disclosure in contravention of previous disclosure orders for copies of any mortgage or loan applications and he omitted to list assets and liabilities on his financial statement. With respect to questions about owning $150,000 boat, he was evasive and testified he was "tied to the boat" and that he had a partner. When asked why he did not disclose the boat on his financial statement, he provided a convoluted account of how he is partners with a friend who somehow duped him. But the loan application is in his name and signed by him. The father seemed to imply that he had not actually signed the application but he testified that he had not contacted the police or taken any steps to sue his friend. The father did not dispute a photograph of him driving the boat with his friends. Finally he relied on the fact that the boat and a vintage BMW he owned were both listed for sale and had little equity. Although he claims to earn a very modest income, this cannot be reconciled with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in transactions that pass through his business accounts and in connection with his real estate holdings. The father was not forthcoming as to the hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax-free money he earns from what appears to be his primary business of flipping houses.

Allegations with Respect to the Mother's Credibility and Her Behaviour

[60] The father has alleged many instances of the mother making "patently false statements", that she "engineered a false status quo of minimal and supervised access", and exhibiting a "remarkable pattern of angry and caustic and unhelpful behaviour". It is based on these allegations that the court is asked to draw the inference that the mother has been intent on interfering with the father's relationship with the child, that she refuses to co-parent or acknowledge her maladaptive views are harmful to the child and the child's relationship with the father.

[61] I make the following findings of fact with respect to these various allegations:

[1] The mother denied that the parties were in a relationship: I find that the mother agreed that the parties lived together briefly but were never in a relationship which she defined as being in a trusting and respectful relationship. I find that the mother's view of the relationship does not impact on her credibility. I find that the father's emphasis on this issue was extremely unhelpful and irrelevant. Even if I had found the father's evidence credible, the relationship lasted for only a few months before and after the child was born which is hardly a relationship upon which any trust or co-parenting could have been based;

[2] The mother other refused to acknowledge the father: The only instance where the mother declined to acknowledge the father was in a police report dated July 9, 2011 when she was pregnant and declined to divulge who the father was. This was an incident where the mother called the police as she alleged she put a chain on the door to keep the father out and he used his key to force himself into the apartment to get his belongings. The mother certainly acknowledged the father as the father on the initial hospital documents, to the doctor and to all third parties. There is no basis for this allegation and this issue does not impact on the mother's credibility;

[3] The mother unilaterally dictated the parenting schedule: It is the mother's position that the father was inconsistent in his access and would say he was coming and then not turn up or turn up hours later. The father produced a large amounts of texts that show he was asking for access and for a schedule and the mother did not respond. When asked he testified that he could only produce his side of the exchanges as the mother simply ignored him. He testified that he did not edit or omit any responses as the program he used did not permit him to do this. However, in cross-examination, he was shown a response that had been omitted; the father then testified that as the response was irrelevant maybe he had omitted it. Given the father's change of evidence on this issue, I do not put weight on these exchanges. The mother's recollection was somewhat vague as she recalled receiving some of the texts but not all of them and seemed to think she would have responded and she also testified that she believed that the father had omitted the entire thread of the texts as he would frequently threaten to take her to court. She also testified that sometimes the father was on vacation out of the country and he would still send her these texts asking for access. The mother testified that it was the paternal grandmother that wanted to see the child and many of the exchanges and arrangements were made through her. The father agreed that it looked like his mother was making the arrangements as the mother only responded to her and not to him. This is plausible as in reading the tone of the father's texts and emails it is easy to understand why the mother would not respond. What is not disputed is that the mother took the child to the paternal grandparents' home and the paternal grandmother only came to her home once as she complained that she did not drive. If the mother had wanted to deprive the father of a relationship with his son, then I find it strange that she would inconvenience herself by driving the child to the paternal grandparents' home and permitting access to the father at that home. However, I do agree that the mother who considered herself to be the primary parent imposed her view of what she felt was appropriate access for the father. However, if the father was so unhappy with the arrangements and if the mother was depriving him of access for weeks and sometimes months at a time, he never explained why he waited so long to commence a court proceeding;

[4] The mother did not insist on supervision until the court proceedings: The mother testified that as the father was exercising access at the paternal grandmother's home, she had no concerns about the child's safety. Prior to the court proceedings, the mother had raised concerns about the father's ability to meet the physical needs of the child on his own with the children's aid society. The father alleged that prior to the court proceedings, the mother dropped the child off for 10 days with him but later changed this to 5 days and then could not recall if the days were consecutive. The mother gave very clear and consistent evidence on this issue and stated that she did drop the child off for one overnight visit but that the father called her at 1:00 a.m. and she had to go pick up the child. I prefer and accept the mother's evidence on this issue;

[5] The father was forced to commence court proceeding as the mother refused any meaningful contact: In the months prior to the court proceeding being commenced, the mother agreed that she terminated the father's access as she was concerned about his drug use and requested a meeting with the paternal grandparent to deal with the issues. As they were not willing to assist with her concerns she terminated the father's access. The mother admitted that she then sent the father texts and emails calling him a deadbeat and told him to get a lawyer if he wanted to see his son. I accept her evidence that she was frustrated by the father and that she acknowledges that her language was not appropriate. I also accept that she did not agree with the amount of access the father was requesting and felt he was harassing and trying to intimidate her. Therefore, although she could have expressed herself in more appropriate language, it was appropriate to suggest that the issues be resolved through counsel;

[6] The mother refused to put father's name on child's birth registration: The mother initially registered the child with the father's surname but she testified that the father was to sign the documents before she left the hospital and he did not arrive so she had to change them to be discharged. She testified that when she later asked him to fill in the necessary forms he did not want his name on government documents. She was frustrated with the father and then submitted the documents with her surname. It is clear that the father raised this issue in his court application and wanted the child to have his surname. It is the mother's position that it was the paternal grandmother who was upset that the father's surname was not included and therefore the father then raised the issue. Thereafter, the mother did not feel that she should spend the funds or her effort in changing the child's surname to include the father's name. I do not find that the mother was vindictive or that this is an example of her trying to marginalize the father. The father did not deny that he was not at the hospital to pick up the mother or attended at the hospital to straighten out the paperwork. The father denied that he told the mother he did not want his name on the paperwork. However, in a telephone discussion with a children's aid society worker, she noted that he appeared wary and untrusting and asked if their telephone call was being recorded and on more than one occasion told her that he was not interested in speaking to her as he did not want the state meddling in his affairs and did not want his private matters discussed with a government organization. He testified that this all happened when he was sleeping and the mother insisted on him completely the paper work and when he did not she went ahead. The father never explained why in the prior 30 days he had not found the time to complete the paperwork for the birth registration. I found the mother's evidence consistent and clear on this issue as well. Her actions afterwards in refusing to change the paper work should also be viewed in the context of the father's relentless litigation and accusations against her. It is understandable that she would not wish to co-operate with him;

[7] The mother made the photograph of the child with the "Hitler" style moustache: The father's evidence on this issue was inconsistent. He denied that he put the moustache on the child or took the photograph or sent it to his friend. But he told Ms Kendal that it was just a "smudge" and "a joke". The paternal grandmother testified that it was the mother who showed her the photograph on her IPAD and was laughing. But when asked if she recalled yelling at her son and chasing him and telling him to delete the photos she could not recall. The mother gave a very detailed account of how the father did this while they were at his parents' home but at the time until she saw the photo she had not realized what the father was doing. She was very upset as was his mother and yelled at the father to delete the photograph. I find the father created this photograph and showed extremely bad taste and judgement in doing so; it is the father's credibility that was shaken not the mother's with respect to this incident. Father's counsel asked that the court draw a negative inference as the mother did not call as a witness the father's friend to whom this photograph was allegedly sent. This was the father's friend not the mother's, if I was to draw any negative inferences it would be against the father not the mother as he could have easily called his friend as a witness;

[8] The allegations that the father has Neo-Nazi sympathies and has other extreme nationalistic views: The mother produced several distasteful photographs that she testified she removed from the father's computer. The father did not identify the photos and denied sending or receiving them although he acknowledged they were sent to and from his emails accounts. As a result the photos were not made exhibits and therefore put no weight on the photographs and draw no inferences. The mother testified that the father held extreme political views about Greece being only for the Greek and other nationalistic political views. The father denied that he was political and in fact seemed to take some pride in testifying that he never even voted. The father was also shown a document entitled a Treatise on Renaissance of Ellias that contained some extreme nationalistic and racist statements. The mother testified she obtained this document from the father's computer. The father denied that he had sent this treatise but as he admitted it came from his computer, it was made an exhibit. The father testified that it was possible someone sent it to him. But in closing argument it was submitted that as the mother had access to the father's computer she could have planted this. I find this submission to be ludicrous. I find that the mother is not vindictive or even capable of doing something such as this. The mother has known the father for a considerable length of time and spoke convincingly of some of his political ideas that are concerning to her. I find that there is no evidence upon which to base a finding that the mother sent this treatise but I also find that there is no evidence that the father sent it rather I am prepared to accept the father's evidence that probably someone sent it to him;

[9] The mother made up concerns about the father's drug use as a means to curtail his access: I find that before the court case commenced the mother expressed her concerns to the children's aid society and to the paternal grandmother about the father's use of drugs. The father submitted that as a result his access was supervised for 18 months. According to the court orders, the need for supervision was ordered on consent on October 31, 2013 and was removed on consent on March 6, 2014 that is, only about 4 months later, after the father submitted two hair strand drug tests. The test results were negative. However, as I advised counsel I am not prepared to put any weight on the drug results in view of the findings in the Motherrisk Review by Justice Susan Lang with respect to concerns about the reliability of hair strand tests. The mother also alleged that the father cut his hair between the drug tests but she presented no evidence to substantiate this allegation that was denied by the father. I find that there is no evidence that the father used drugs or was under the influence of drugs while caring for the child. However, just because the allegations proved to be unsubstantiated does not mean as alleged by father's counsel that the mother was vindictive or made up the allegations to interfere with his access;

[10] The mother made further unsubstantiated allegations about drug use and domestic violence: The father was cross-examined as were his parents about a raid to their home sometime in 2000 where the police were looking for drugs and or stolen jewellery. The father and the paternal grandmother recalled the raid but testified that it was all a mistake and had to do with some neighbour. Their recollections of the events was sketchy at best as was the mother's evidence which she testified was based on what the father told her about, but she was unclear about the details. Similarly the father was asked about an incident involving a girlfriend in Florida that he explained as a misunderstanding and no criminal charges were laid as alleged by the mother. It is proper in cross-examination to test a party's credibility by suggesting events that may have happened but then the opposing party is stuck with the answers received. I find that these dated and vague allegations were not proven and put no weight on them. However, I see no basis for drawing any adverse inference against the mother for putting these allegations to the father as clearly there was some basis for the line of questioning;

[11] Car seat issues: This is raised as an example of the mother's "maladaptive thoughts". I find that there were many instances where the mother was quite correct that the father had not properly secured the car seats and quite the contrary it was the father's childish behaviour in not properly showing the mother on several occasions that the car seat was properly secured that escalated this issue;

[12] Police report about the father and paternal grandmother entering the mother's home: The mother reported to the police that she heard voices in her parents' home where she was staying with the child. In her evidence the mother reported that she not only heard voices but also heard steps in the home. The father and mother denied they entered the home but merely they had gone to the front door and when there was no answer they went to the back door and called but did not enter the home. They then heard a police siren and waited in front of the house. The father and grandmother admitted that they had gone to the home uninvited. The police report does not mention that the mother heard anyone on the steps. There is a subsequent children's aid society report that does not mention that the mother heard anyone on the steps. But this report is just repeating what is in the police report. The mother was adamant that she told the 911 operator and the police officers she heard steps. The mother also claimed that her car keys were missing and it appears that the father and paternal grandmother were searched and no keys were found. The police report does indicate that the father and paternal grandmother were warned about trespassing. I found the mother's evidence convincing on this issue and have considered that a police report does not always include all of the details. But hearing someone on the steps inside the house is a significant issue and I would have expected that such a fact would have been included in the report. A copy of the 911 call was also not provided. Without having the benefit of hearing the police testifying and comparing that evidence to that of the mother's I am unable to conclude the mother is not telling the truth and find that on a balance of probabilities I prefer her version of the events. What is abundantly clear, is that neither the father nor the paternal grandmother appreciated the inappropriateness of attending at the mother's parents' home uninvited and going to their back door. They showed a remarkable lack of understanding of proper boundaries something the mother had accused the father of doing several times in the past;

[13] The mother has exaggerated about the father's lateness: In particular the father relies on the police report of November 11, 2014 when the police responded to a call from the mother due to an allegation that the father was late in returning the child. According to the police report, the mother advised she attended to pick up the child and waited for 15 minutes before the father was ready to return the child. The mother insisted that she waited 50 minutes. The police report indicates that the call was placed at 18:30 and the police responded at 18:37. At the time the court order stipulated that the father's access was until 6:00 p.m. (that is, 18:00). The mother reported that she put the child into her car, the father stayed and began to video tape the mother, the child began to cry to the point of throwing up and when told to leave he began to laugh and antagonize her. Based on the mothers version of events and the time on the police report it is unlikely she waited 50 minutes. However, what is much more concerning is the description of the father's behaviour. The father denied that he behaved in this manner. However, the mother's description is consistent with his behaviour and taping the child on other occasions. The mother was not cross-examined on this incident except for the timing and therefore her description of the father's disturbing behaviour is unchallenged. The mother had on many other occasions complained to the police and children's aid society about the father not returning the child on time. With respect to this particular incident, I find that the mother's evidence although exaggerated on the timing is credible with respect to the events and reflect more on the shortcomings of the father than herself;

[14] Mother's "maladaptive and unhelpful thoughts": In closing submissions father's counsel repeated this phase many times and in several different contexts. The mother is involved in counselling and as part of the service review the mother and her counsellor set out goals. One of the goals outlined was working on the mother's "maladaptive and unhelpful beliefs or thoughts." When asked for examples, Ms Yeo the counsellor stated that an example was the mother's belief that the child's future success is forever negatively impacted by his early trauma and the mother's belief that she is not a good parent. The mother when asked about any maladaptive beliefs started that she is worried that the child's believes that she left him and does not call him when he is with the father and he then becomes very emotional. She also spoke about the fact that she had painted one of the child's toe nails and the paternal grandmother scratched off the polish and the child was crying because his grandmother told him boys don't paint their nails. The mother also stated that she does not believe she has any unhealthy beliefs and if she did she would receive help. In closing submissions, counsel for the father twisted these words, "maladaptive and unhelpful beliefs and thoughts" and made all kinds of allegations against the mother that have no basis in the evidence on anything said by either the mother or her counsellor. The mother should be credited for having the insight to understand that her relationship and the litigation between herself and the father is having an emotional toll on her and therefore can have an impact on the child. She has been proactive in seeking assistance and has the insight to understand that both she and the child needed some assistance. I found that in many of the criticisms about the mother's behaviour, it appeared that the father was implying the mother was unbalanced or emotionally ill. When questioned about this by the court, father's counsel stated that that was not the intent of his submissions. I find that there is not a shred of evidence that the mother has any "maladaptive and unhelpful beliefs or thoughts" that impact on her parenting.

[62] As opposed to the image of the mother, the father attempted to portray, Ms Yeo the mother's counsellor filed a report dated April 30, 2015 with her assessment of the mother which was not discredited in cross-examination. Ms Yeo states as follows:

Ms Liadis and I have met on a weekly to best interests-weekly basis since January 19, 2015. In this time, I have come to know her as a kind and intelligent individual committed to meeting the best needs of her child. It is clear that she struggles with inordinate amounts of stress stemming from the family's legal situation. In our sessions, we focus on alleviating Ms Liadis' anxiety and the importance of self-care. I provide Ms Liadis wth positive parenting strategies to implement at home to encourage the healthy development of Evan's affect regulation and socialization skills. We spend considerable time discussing how Ms Liadis can help Evan adjust to living in two unique environments.

Statutory Framework and Applicable Legal Principles Regarding Access

[63] In determining the issues of custody and access the sole consideration is what is in the best interests of a child. Each case must be decided with a careful consideration of the unique circumstances and needs of the individual child.

[64] "Access" is defined in section 20(5) of the Children's Law Reform Act. The entitlement includes:

the right to visit with and be visited by the child and the same tight as a parent to make inquiries and to be given information as the health, education and welfare of the child.

[65] In determining what custodial and access orders are in a child's best interest, a court is guided by section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act and the factors set out in section 24(2) which is a non-exhaustive framework of relevant considerations in determining the anaysis of the best interests of the child.

[66] Section 24 provides as follows:

Merits of Application for Custody or Access

24. (1) The merits of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or 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).

Best Interests of Child

(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 entitled to or claiming custody of or 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 child's views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;

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

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child's care and upbringing;

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

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

(h) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application.

Past Conduct

(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.

Violence and Abuse

(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.

[67] I have considered all of these factors in reaching my decision.

[68] I have also considered that although section 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act does not specifically include the principle that children should have as much contact with both parents as is stipulated in section 16(10) of the Divorce Act, it is accepted that this is also an applicable principle in proceedings pursuant to the Children's Law Reform Act, provided that such an order is consistent with a child's best interests. But it is also clear that if other factors indicate that the "maximum Contact" principle is not in the child's best interests then the court can and should restrict contact.

Analysis

[69] It is submitted by counsel for the father that it is a fundamental Canadian value that a child should have "maximum contact" with both parents and that this principle favours parents who are better able to support the other parent's relationship with the child that is, the so called "friendly parent" principle. He provided copies of about 26 cases that support this principle. I do not accept that the maximum contact principle means equal time sharing as if Parliament had wished to include a presumption of shared and equal parenting it would be specifically included in the Divorce Act.

[70] Counsel for the father cited and produced about 29 cases that have ordered equal time sharing and a further 25 cases with respect to the maximum contact and friendly parent principle. He also cited the works of about 10 "authorities" that support the concept that in normal circumstances shared residential arrangements for children under 4 years of age is appropriate. No expert testified in this trial to support such a concept. I find that the works of these so called "accomplished researchers and practitioners" is not admissible. It would not be permissible for the court take judicial notice of such literature and studies which are controversial and certainly not generally accepted as there are just as many studies and other literature that would not support the concept of equal shared parenting.

[71] Counsel for the father also cited and produced a further 16 cases and 2 articles about the benefit of a detailed parenting order in high conflict cases and cases where joint custody with parallel parenting decision making. However, in this case the father has conceded sole custody to the mother and the current order minimizes conflict between the parents as the majority of the exchanges are at the child's daycare.

[72] Although trite law, it is worthwhile to repeat that each case turns on its own circumstances and the only issue is the best interests of the child in the particular circumstances of the case. The focus is on the best interests of the child not the interests and rights of the parents.

[73] The case law and the Children's Law Reform Act provides the court with factors to consider but the overarching principle in determining what parenting arrangements are in a child's best interests is from the perspective of the child rather than from the parents; parental preferences and rights do not play a role in the analysis except to the extent that they are necessary to ensure the best interests of the child. I would add that ideological and philosophical views also have no place in determining what is in the best interests of the particular child before the court.

[74] There is no question that there are fact situations that support parenting arrangements that are equally shared and that such arrangements are sometimes necessary to ensure one parent does not exclude the other parent from the child's life and where shared parenting time is in a child's best interests. Although I have not referred to the many cases that father's counsel has produced, the principles are well known and most of these cases are familiar to the court and turn on their own unique facts.

[75] In determining what access arrangements are in this particular child's best interests, it is important for the court to consider that in his short life, this child has been exposed to 7 or 8 police interventions due to conflict between his parents and 3 or 4 children's aid society investigations including an unnecessary medical examination. I also consider that this child is more anxious than other children and has a more difficult time with changes and transitions in his life.

[76] In this context and based on the evidence I have accepted, I make the following findings regarding the access arrangements that are in this child's best interests:

[1] Both parents love the child and the child loves both parents. The child spends time with both sets of grandparents and has a loving relationship with them;

[2] The mother has been the child's primary parent since birth. There is no basis for a finding, as suggested by the father, that the mother dishonestly engineered a false status quo. The clear facts are that the parents had a brief relationship and shortly after the child's birth had no relationship. The child remained in the mother's full-time care as she was the parent who was home on a maternity leave and she was the parent with whom the child lived. The mother was open to the father spending time with the child but the father was not reliable or consistent in seeing the child or later would only accept a schedule whereby he had the child for half of the time. The mother has complied with all of the court orders and has consented to the father's access gradually being increased;

[3] The mother has provided a stable home for the child since birth. The child is accustomed to living with his mother in both his mother's condominium and in the home of his maternal grandparents. The father's living arrangements have been and continue to be less stable. The father has moved several times since the litigation began and is now temporary living in rented accommodations. I find that he is in the business of renovating homes, living in them and then selling them which has resulted and will continue to result in less stability for the child;

[4] Both parents can meet the child's basic physical needs. I do not accept the father's evidence that the child is fed unhealthy foods at daycare or while in the mother's care.

[5] The mother is the parent that has been and will continue to be the parent best able to meet the child's emotional needs and any other special needs. She is motivated to seek out assistance both for herself and the child. She is the parent that recognized the child's anxiety and behavioural issues and she has worked diligently with service providers and taken parenting courses to ensure that she understands those needs and how she can best meet those needs. She has been involved in individual counselling to learn how to best cope with the stress of this litigation and how to ensure her own anxieties do not impact on her parenting. She is the parent that helps the child understand and adjust to spending time in both her home and the father's home. On the other hand, the father has no insight into the needs of the child or his difficulties with change because he is so focused on his rights to equal shared parenting and the unfairness of the mother having more time with the child that he has lost sight of the needs of his son. The father does not recognize how his behaviour has contributed to these problems. He has not had the time to take the parenting course that was recommended in June of 2015. He did not actively engage with the resource workers and counsellor from Adventure Place. He did see the benefit of daycare for his son and stated that he preferred if he or his parents cared for the child. He could not explain how he would have time to care for the child when he had not even had the time to take a parenting course. Many of his interactions with the daycare staff have caused a concern about him undermining the daycare placement;

[6] The mother's plan is to continue the current arrangements. Based on the evidence of the mother and the daycare staff it appears the child has adjusted to the current schedule and is having less trouble with transitions and changes. However, as of September 2016, he will be commencing junior kindergarten which will present some changes in his schedule and in his learning environment. I accept the mother's evidence that she would have preferred a slower and more gradual increase in the father's access but she consented to the current schedule in April 2015 to avoid any further motions from the father for increased access and to avoid further legal fees with respect to the father' s thearts to appeal the temporary access orders;

[7] The father's plan is to change the child's schedule to a 2, 2, 3 schedule so that the child is with him for Monday and Tuesday, with the mother for Wednesday and Thursday and then with him for Friday, Saturday and Sunday and then with the mother for Monday and Tuesday, with him for Wednesday and Thursday and then with the mother for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. It is his belief that since the child had already adjusted to the current schedule he should have no trouble adjusting to such a new schedule. But the evidence is overwhelming from everyone that has worked with the child that he has more trouble than other children with changes and transitions and is more anxious than other children. Such a drastic change is clearly more about what the father wants than what is in the best interests of this particular child. The father's proposed schedule indicates a lack of insight into the need and best interests of the child;

[8] The mother has been the parent that has been pro-active in arranging for referrals for services such as an occupational therapy and a speech and language assessment. She is the parent that immediately put her name on a wait list for a parenting program for herself and has completed that program. She also put her name of the waitlist for a parenting program for herself and the child as soon as he was eligible and she has also completed that program. The father on the other hand was content to blame the mother for not allowing him to attend the same program with her and the child and as indicated has not had the time to take a parenting course for close to a year. Either the father is as he testified too busy to find the time in the evening to take the parenting program or he has no insight into how such a program would assist him and the mother in learning to parent in separate home. Either scenario is problematic for a parent who is seeking to spend more time with his child;

[9] The mother has arranged for the child to be enrolled in Greek dancing and martial arts. The father has not taken the initiative to enroll the child in any extra-curricular activities and instead blames the mother for not consulting him or complaining that he cannot take the child as the lessons the mother arranged are too far away;

[10] Although the father has expressed concerns with the child being exposed to his Greek heritage and culture, he has not taken any steps to assist the daycare staff in ensuring that he had that exposure;

[11] The father wished the child baptised. Yet despite the mother indicating that she has no objection to him having a baptism and her only issue was that she was not prepared to have a joint service, he had still not arranged the baptism;

[12] The mother is the parent that will continue to ensure that the father has a meaningful relationship with the father. The mother has ensured that the father had full access to all information from the daycare, medical professionals and other professionals involved with the child. There is no basis on the facts that I accept that the mother has attempted to marginalize the father's role in the child's life. The father's allegations throughout the trial that the mother's actions were "one big effort" to minimize his role in the child's life or that he was forced to bring the litigation because of the mother's "complete denial of any relationship" are without any factual basis. The mother has agreed throughout the litigation to increase access to the father as has been consistent with the child's age and stage of development. The mother has recognized that it is important for the father to have a strong and healthy relationship with his father despite the conflict between his parents. Just because the mother does not agree that the father should have equal parenting time does not mean that she is marginalizing the father's role. If there is a concern about which parent would in the future attempt to marginalize the other parent I have more concerns about the father as despite consenting to the mother having custody, he has continued to criticize her abilities to parent and her decision making. The father has not even been forthcoming about such basic information as to where he resides when the child is with him. I accept the mother's evidence that when the child is away from her for 3 days he does have trouble adjusting and can become quite emotional and have difficulties sleeping; and

[13] Although the child has now adjusted fairly well to the current access schedule he still requires extra support and still asks where he will going that is, if it is a "mommy day" or a "daddy day". This is not a child that handles changes well. The schedule proposed by the father is a drastic change from the current schedule. The current schedule provides regular and frequent contact with both parents and eliminates conflict as the majority of the when the exchanges occur at the daycare.

[77] The father before the commencement of the litigation and throughout this litigation has aggressively and relentlessly sought an order for equal shared parenting time and up to the trial sought an order for joint custody. He has brought numerous motions and threatened appeals of the temporary orders that were made. The emotional toll and the stress on the mother were obvious throughout the trial. She has not always acted appropriately as evidenced by some of the emails and text messages she sent to the father. However, the mother has sought professional assistance in order to learn how to cope and better handle the stress of this litigation and how to better deal with any conflict with the father. She is aware of the impact her behaviour can have on the child. Throughout the trial, I found that the father did not display any understanding or consider the consequences of his actions.

[78] The father's litigation strategy has been to wear the mother down so that she capitulates to the order he wishes. It is clear from the submissions of father's counsel that he intends to continue this strategy.

[79] Father's counsel submitted that if the mother does not consent to changing the child's name that he will pursue further litigation to force her to do so. The court was requested to make a strong recommendation that the mother agree. Despite my finding that the father is totally responsible for the fact that his name is not on the child's birth registration, I see merit to the child of having both of his parents' name as part of his surname.

[80] Father's counsel also made submissions regarding the benefit of finality in any order made by this court. Counsel for the father cited and produced 60 cases and 1 article about the test for a material change of circumstances. I infer from the submissions and the case law produced that if the court does not make the order the father wishes for equal shared parenting that the father will be "forced to bring" a motion to change. In the alternative, counsel suggested that if the court was not willing to make an order for equal shared parenting at this time that a review should be ordered so that the father would not have to meet the legal test of proving a material change of circumstances.

[81] I wish to be abundantly clear that I find that the current access order is in the child's best interests for the foreseeable future. I do not find that this order would only be in the child's best interests for the next year until he adjusts to kindergarten. The passage of time in my view would not be a reason to change this order. The child is more closely bonded to his mother, she is the parent who is most sensitive and aware of his needs and she is the parent best able to meet those needs and therefore it is in his best interests that he spend more time in her care. Although the father has a great deal to offer the child he has ample opportunity to do so in the generous time he already has with this child.

[82] Although there were some differences in the orders requested by both parents with respect to extended holidays and other special occasions, neither party made any submissions on the merits of their schedule over the other parent's schedule. As I find that the mother is more attuned the best interests of the child, I will make the order for the sharing of holidays and other special occasions as requested by her. I also find that the request by the father for a right of first refusal if either parent is unable to care for the child for more than 18 hours is not workable given the lack of these parents' ability to communicate and their history of conflict.

Order

[83] There will be an order as follows:

[1] The Applicant shall have regular access to the child's, Evangelos Liadis, born February 5, 2012 ("Evan") in accordance with the following schedule:

a. every Wednesday from 3:00 p.m. to Thursday morning at 9:30 a.m. The applicant will pick Evan up from daycare at Arbor Glen Community Child Care on Wednesday when access commences and return Evan to daycare on Thursday morning; and

b. alternate weekends from Friday at 3:00 p.m. to Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. The applicant will pick up Evan and drop Evan off at daycare at Arbor Glen Community Child Care. If the applicant's weekend falls on a long weekend, his weekend will extend to include the holiday and he will drop Evan off at daycare on Tuesday morning at 9:30 a.m.; and

[2] The applicant's access with Evan continue in accordance with the schedule set out above at paragraph (1) above, to be adjusted when Evan begins attending school full time, in September 2016, such that the pick up and drop off times will be amended to reflect that school begins at 8:45 a.m. and ends at 3:15 p.m.

[3] The parties shall share the holidays with Evan equally by implementing the following holiday schedule:

a. Christmas Eve/Day – Evan will be in the respondent's care for Christmas Eve every year from 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve to 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day. Evan will be in the applicant's care for Christmas Day every year from Christmas Day at 3:00 p.m. to Boxing Day at 3:00 p.m.;

b. Easter (Greek Orthodox) – Evan will be in the applicant's care for Greek Orthodox Easter, from Friday after daycare or school to Saturday at 7:00 p.m. Evan will be in the respondent's care from Saturday at 7:00 p.m. to Monday morning when Evan returns to daycare or school. If the Greek Orthodox Easter falls on the same weekend as Catholic Easter, the schedule below will apply;

c. Easter (Catholic) – Evan will be in the applicant's care from Thursday after school or daycare to Saturday at 7:00 p.m. Evan will be in the respondent's care from Saturday at 7:00 p.m. to Tuesday morning when Evan returns to daycare or school;

d. March Break – the parties will equally share the March break holiday with Evan, such that Evan will be in the respondent's care for the March Break in even years and in the applicant's care in odd years. March Break will commence depending on when the regular scheduled weekend falls for the parent who has Evan during the March Break. For clarity, the regular weekend access will not be disrupted by the March Break access. The parties will facilitate telephone access for the non-resident party during the March Break on Wednesday at 9:30 a.m.

e. Mother's Day – if Evan is not otherwise scheduled to be in the respondent's care for Mother's Day, Evan will be in the respondent's care from Sunday at 10:00 a.m. to Monday morning when Evan returns to school or daycare.

f. Father's Day – if Evan is not otherwise scheduled to be in the applicant's care for Father's Day, Evan will be in the applicant's care from Sunday at 10:00 a.m. to Monday morning when Evan returns to school or daycare.

g. Summer holidays – the parties will each have one week with Evan during July and August. In even years, the respondent will be entitled to select her weeks first and the applicant will select his weeks first in odd years. The party with the first selection will notify the other party of his or her selection no later than January 30th. The regular schedule will apply for the balance of the summer holidays.

[4] All access exchanges will take place at Evan's daycare or school. In the event that Evan's daycare or school is not open, the applicant will drop off and pick up Evan from the respondent's home.

[5] The parties shall provide each other with notice 90 days in advance of any change of residence within the City of Toronto. Neither party will withhold information regarding where Evan resides when he is in the care of either parent.

[84] If counsel cannot settle the issue of costs, the mother shall serve and file brief written costs submissions, not to exceed 3 pages, with a copy of a Bill of Costs and any Offer to Settle attached within 30 days. The father shall serve and file brief written responding submissions, not to exceed 3 pages, with a copy of his Bill of Costs, if desired, and any Offer to Settle within 30 days of receipt of the mother's cost submissions. If counsel refer to any case law it is not necessary to provide a copy of any such case law to the court.

[85] I wish to thank both counsel for their obvious hard work in presenting and organizing this case.

DATE: May 19, 2016