COURT FILE NO.: FS 2009-29
DATE: 20120625
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Wendy Anne Kelly
Applicant
– and –
Christopher John Metcalfe
Respondent
D. Andrew Thomson, for the Applicant
Michael Anne MacDonald, for the Respondent
HEARD: June 11, 2012
J.S. O’Neill
REASONS ON MOTION
[1] Part A: Introduction
[2] On April 27, 2012, Wendy Kelly filed a Notice of Motion with the Superior Court at Parry Sound, requesting the following relief:
Requiring the production forthwith of the Respondent’s Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment for the tax years 2009, 2010 and 2011.
That the Respondent pay child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines retroactive to January 1, 2011.
Varying access to the children by the Respondent effective July 1, 2012 to enable the Applicant to move from Parry Sound to Aurora by granting access as follows, subject to the wishes of the children;
a. every other weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. or Monday at 6:00 p.m. if Monday is a holiday;
b. one half of the school Christmas holidays, the first half in even numbered years and the second half in odd numbered years;
c. the school March break in odd numbered years;
d. one half of the school summer holidays on a two week about basis from 7:00 p.m. Friday of the first Friday following the last day of school with exchanges to take place at 7:00 p.m. Fridays;
e. transportation for access shall be shared, the Respondent to pick up at the beginning of access at the children’s home and the Applicant to pick up at the end of access.
Costs of this Motion.
Such other relief as this Court deems just.
[3] Affidavit and financial materials were filed by each of the parties with respect to the motion. Included in these materials were two reports from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the first dated October 26, 2009 and the second report dated October 18, 2011.
[4] At the conclusion of the motion, I reserved my decision pending the release of written reasons.
[5] Part B: Background Facts
[6] The Kelly and Metcalfe application first came into the court on April 2, 2009 when Wendy Kelly filed an application requesting, among other things, an order for a divorce, an order that she be granted interim and permanent custody of the children of the marriage, namely Oonagh Moonbeam Kelly-Metcalfe born November 15, 2000 and Jubal Hale Kelly-Metcalfe born October 19, 2003, as well as an order that the Respondent pay to her interim and permanent child support. Since the application was filed, the parties have been engaged in a number of court proceedings, most of which have related to the issues of child custody, child access and child support.
[7] In the Continuing Record filed with the Superior Court, there are 46 tabs containing multiple documents including the following: affidavits, financial statements, temporary minutes of settlement, Notices of Motion, OCL Reports, Motions without Notice and financial statements.
[8] There have been approximately 8 orders made during the life of this proceeding including in particular, the following:
May 12, 2009 - Order Appointing Children’s Lawyer, an Order for Shared Care and Control of the Children and access on a week about schedule.
March 23, 2011 – The Respondent, Christopher Metcalfe, shall have care and control of Jubal Kelly-Metcalfe from Friday after school until Monday morning when the Respondent shall return him to school commencing Friday April 1, 2011 and every second weekend thereafter pending further order of the court.
June 22, 2011 – Temporary Order re: Summer Access for the months of July and August, 2011 followed by alternating weekends to Father commencing September 9, 2011 after school to September 12, 2011 return to school and alternating thereafter (with respect to Jubal).
December 22, 2011 – Temporary Order re: Christmas access with respect to Jubal.
[9] The last order made on the file with respect to access was the order of December 22, 2011, implementing Christmas access with respect to Jubal.
[10] In paragraph 1 of her affidavit of April 27, 2012, the Applicant indicated as follows:
The history of our parenting arrangement for the children is detailed in my Answer and Claim which facts are true and until the Order of the Court dated May, 20009 the Respondent had the children in his care every other weekend. Subsequently the Court ordered a five day two day cycle of parenting which was in place until October, 2010 when our daughter, Oonagh, refused to go with her father.
[11] It is not disputed that since January 2011, the Respondent has had access to Jubal every other weekend and specified access in accordance with the orders of the Court made on June 22 and December 22, 2011. Oonagh continues to refuse to spend time with her father.
[12] Since the date of their separation, the Applicant and the Respondent have continued to reside in Parry Sound where the two children presently remain in school. Wendy Kelly has been in a committed relationship with Dan Fournier since the summer of 2008. On April 29, 2009 Mr. Fournier purchased a home in Aurora with the intent that Ms. Kelly and the children move into that home with him. Ms. Kelly is requesting that no changes be made with respect to the access arrangements between the Respondent and Jubal, but that the Court approve of her plan to move to Aurora with her two children, such that the children’s home community and their place of schooling will change from Parry Sound to Aurora. In his responding materials, Mr. Metcalfe opposes the request for the move and requests that ultimately, he and the Applicant return to shared parenting with respect to each of the two children.
[13] Part C: The OCL Reports
[14] i. The Report of October 26, 2009
[15] The first OCL Report is attached as exhibit A to Mr. Metcalfe’s affidavit of May 18, 2012. The report is 29 pages in length and it details the contacts, the interviews, the court documentation and the observations made by the report writer. Under the portion dealing with Summary of Situation, it was noted at that time that both parties were sharing the children equally, that Ms. Kelly was requesting sole custody and primary residency in Aurora, with access to Mr. Metcalfe every second weekend, while Mr. Metcalfe was requesting shared parenting on a week about basis and with the children to accordingly remain in Parry Sound. At page 27 of this Report the writer stated:
From the information received from the parties, as well as from collateral sources, it would appear that Ms. Kelly’s decision to relocate, with the children, to Aurora, has triggered the current level of conflict, and breakdown in the established routine of interaction with the children, thus creating an environment which is tension filled, and, producing a negative impact on the relationship between Oonagh, Jubal, and, Mr. Metcalfe.
Ms. Kelly’s decision to purchase a home in Aurora, as well as to prepare the children to move, and to become re-established in a new community and school, appears to have been preemptive, on her part, and has created conflict between herself, and, Mr. Metcalfe, as he does not agree with the children moving with their mother, to a new community.
Escalating conflict, tension, and, frustration, being demonstrated by the parties, towards one another, appears to have had a significantly negative impact, in particular, on Oonagh, who has expressed her anger towards her father, and escalating frustration with this situation, repeatedly, both during this investigation, as well as, during therapy session with Ms. Stanley, and, with Ms. Allen. Jubal, as well, has demonstrated increasing anxiety, in particular, at the school level, becoming emotionally distressed, and, unable to be calmed.
In light of Mr. Metcalfe’s relationship, and, involvement with Oonagh, and Jubal, it would be appropriate to allow Mr. Metcalfe to continue his active role in the children’s lives. Furthermore, relocation of Oonagh and Jubal to Aurora, would impact significantly on the ability of Mr. Metcalfe to continue having active involvement in their lives on any significant, or, consistent level, distance between communities, as well as, factors such as, school attendance. It is for these reasons, that Ms. Kelly not be granted leave to relocate the children to Aurora.
[16] Accordingly, in paragraph 1 of this report the writer recommended that Oonagh and Jubal remain in the community of Parry Sound, in the sole custody and primary residency of their father, Mr. Metcalfe.
[17] ii. The Report of October 18, 2011
[18] In accordance with my Order of March 10, 2011 a further report was prepared by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. Once again the Clinical Investigator interviewed the parties, carried out observation interviews with the children and the parties, interviewed the children and had collateral contacts with various persons. The report writer also reviewed court documentation.
[19] At the time that the report was prepared, Mr. Metcalfe was continuing to work seasonally at Premium Docks while Ms. Kelly was employed on a part time basis at one of the local banks. Both children were attending W.S. Beatty Public School.\
[20] As outlined at page 4 of the report, in 2010 the parties attempted mediation with Mr. Don Powell. Allegations were subsequently made by Oonagh in relation to Mr. Metcalfe. The allegations were investigated by the Parry Sound O.P.P. as well as by the C.A.S. No charges were laid and the file was closed. Following the police and C.A.S. involvement, counselling was sought for Oonagh, by Ms. Kelly. Oonagh has refused to have any contact with her father and she has not participated in access visits since October 2010.
[21] At pages 19 and 20 of the report, the writer set out a summary with respect to what occurred with the mediation counsellor, Mr. Don Powell:
Mr. Powell met with Mr. Metcalfe and Ms. Kelly in regard to mediation services in 2010. Mr. Powell stated that the main issue the parties were dealing with, was the residency of the children. Mr. Powell stated that, because Mr. Metcalfe was “set in his approach”, there was “no bargaining to deal with” in mediation. He described Mr. Metcalfe as being adamant that it was “his way or no way”. Mr. Powell stated that alternatives were suggested, for example, the children spending one year in the care of each parent, with a re-evaluation at the end of the two year period, however, Mr. Metcalfe refused to consider any options.
Mr. Powell described Ms. Kelly as being flexible, and, attempting to work cooperatively with Mr. Metcalfe, which Mr. Powell felt was to avoid a “blow up” by Mr. Metcalfe. Mr. Powell stated that Ms. Kelly was willing to allow as much access as Mr. Metcalfe wanted, when the children were with her, however, he described Mr. Metcalfe as being “far less flexible” in regard to allowing access when the children were with him.
Mr. Powell stated that the children wanted to be involved with both parents.
Mr. Powell stated that, after five sessions, no resolutions were reached, and, the mediation process was not successful.
[22] At pages 21 to 23 of the report, the writer set out a summary of concerns, findings and recommendations. At page 22 the writer stated:
At this time, it is not recommended that the children be permitted to relocate away from the Parry Sound area, in that significant concern has been identified in regard to the potential for the relationships of both children, with their father, to be significantly impacted by the distance, as well as by the potential for Ms. Kelly to not support or follow through on providing the children for access to their father, as has occurred in regard to Oonagh. Oonagh’s refusal to see her father raises concern, especially given that she links her willingness to see her father, to her ability to relocate to Aurora. Oonagh’s perceptions appear to be the result of influencing factors. Mr. Brian Middaugh, Supervisor, CAS, stated that the content of the letter is concerning in that it is unlikely that a ten year old child would construct such a letter, as well as, in regard to raising suspicion with the timing of the submission, which Mr. Middaugh deemed to be demonstrative of manipulation.
[23] Six recommendations were made in the report of October 2011 which I reproduce below:
Ms. Wendy Kelly is to continue to be the primary caretaker for the children, Oonagh and Jubal Kelly-Metcalfe.
Jubal Kelly-Metcalfe is to continue to have access to his father according to the established schedule of access.
Exchanges are to occur at the OPP station, or, at a mutually agreeable public location.
Treatment is to be sought with the focus of treatment being to determine the potential for reparation of the relationship between Oonagh and her father.
Mr. Metcalfe is to be provided with a comprehensive list of all service providers for the children, including school and educator contact names and numbers, as well as any health care providers. All necessary consents will be provided by Ms. Kelly, allowing Mr. Metcalfe access to the children’s information.
Ms. Kelly is not granted leave to relocate with the children.
[24] Part D: The Applicant’s Employment and Financial Situation
[25] At paragraph 16 and 17 of her affidavit sworn April 27, 2012 the Applicant stated:
I have been employed on a part time basis at the local branch of the Bank of Nova Scotia. Through my employer I have taken a six month training program which, when I complete it in May, will result in my being qualified in the financial planning, investment management field. It is expected that I will continue with the Bank for at least 18 months but it is my employer’s preference that I move to another branch as it is unlikely that a position will be available in Parry Sound where I can use my upgraded skills and qualifications. A move to Aurora will mean that I can apply for and obtain a position with the bank within a 50 km. radius which encompasses Richmond Hill, Vaughan, Newmarket, Barrie and Markham and the prospects for better employment are far greater than in Parry Sound.
I can also use my skills in the insurance and mortgage fields. I have searched the job market in anticipation of a move and the following opportunities were available: Executive Assistant at a Alternative Energy firm ($53,000.00/yr), Personal Banking Officer at financial institutions ($35,000.00-$40,000.00/yr.); Investment Adviser ($40,000.00/yr); Fitness Professional at L&G Fitness Studios (where I can use my degree, $50,000.00/yr.); and a franchise opportunity as a yoga instructor (Childlight Yoga). None of these opportunities are available in Parry Sound.
[26] It is the Applicant’s position that given the distance between Parry Sound and Aurora, 190 kilometres, that the access schedule with respect to Jubal be continued and that she and the Respondent share the transportation to such assess visits equally. The Applicant also proposes to share the Christmas school holiday, the March school break and the summer holidays equally.
[27] Part E: The Respondent’s Present Financial Circumstances
[28] The Respondent attached Notices of Assessment to his affidavit of May 18, 2012. He earned $32,500.00 in 2010 and $25,892.60 in 2011. He has not paid any child support since January 2011. He continues to be employed on a seasonal basis by Premium Dock and Marine where at present he earns $3958.84 gross each month.
[29] Part F: The Respondent’s Position with Respect to Alienation
[30] On the motion before me, and in his affidavit material, Mr. Metcalfe made it clear that the Applicant has done everything in her power to alienate Oonagh from him and that she will continue to exercise control and influence over both children. At paragraph 7 of his affidavit of May 18, 2012 he stated:
In October 2010, after months of deliberate coaching and manipulation by Ms. Kelly and her extended family, Oonagh was made to believe that she no longer wanted a relationship with me. Ms. Kelly severed all ties between me and Oonagh and effectively eliminated me from Oonagh’s life. Since approximately October 2010, neither me or my extended family have been permitted to communicate with Oonagh. Ms. Kelly unilaterally began denying me access to Oonagh and started limiting my access to Jubal. As such, I was only getting access to Jubal every other weekend at the unilateral discretion of Ms. Kelly.
[31] At paragraphs 10, 14 and 18 he stated:
Both the Applicant and I moved on in our lives with new partners. This is probably the best thing both of us could do for our children to bring some stability back into each of our home lives. One thing I would never even consider is to move away from my children or to move the children from the only home they have known – Parry Sound. Their interest must come first and they are my first and foremost responsibility. I do not want to be a weekend father. I do not think it is good for the children to know me as a weekend father. They need the stability of their biological father in their life. I believe that this is very important for a child growing up. They need to know that they are loved and supported by both of their biological parents.
I love both my children and want to be a part of their lives. Due to past events and the fact that the Applicant has now totally alienated me from my daughter, I understand that I now need to be reintegrated gradually, into Oonagh’s life with the assistance of independent professionals.
With respect to relocating the children to Aurora, this is nothing more than the Applicant’s final attempt to keep me from my children. She has continued with her training at the Bank of Nova Scotia in investment management, insurance and mortgage brokerage field. There is plenty of work in the Parry Sound area in her field. I do not believe that there is a “necessity” for her to move to Aurora. This is a choice she is making to further keep me from my children. Parry Sound is the only home the children have known. Their school, their friends, some of my family and counsellors who already have a relationship with Oonagh are all in the Parry Sound area. I have never agreed to allow the Applicant to move my children to Aurora. I do not believe it would be in the children’s best interests to relocate to Aurora at all. I adamantly oppose the proposed move of my children to Aurora. Both OCL reports have recommended against moving the children out of the Parry Sound Area.
[32] Part G: Legal Principles
[33] At the hearing before me, counsel for the Applicant filed a Brief of Authorities, including an article entitled: Parental Relocation: Social Science Research and Canada Jurisprudence Moving Towards a Child-Focused Approach to Best Interests Relocation Decisions. The article is written by Nicholas Bala and Andrea Wheeler. I reproduce below various sections of this article, which effectively summarize the legal principles governing the within application:
Page 10-16
As is discussed more fully below, the law in Ontario is now governed by the 1996 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, a decision that requires judges to make individualized determinations of a child’s best interests, without any presumption in favour of either parent.
Page 10-19
The Supreme Court in Gordon v. Goertz held that the Divorce Act requires the merits of any relocation application be decided based on an assessment of the best interests of the specific children involved, without a presumption or onus in favour of either party. Justice McLachlin summarized the law in an oft-quoted passage:
The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests and rights of the parents.
More particularly the judge should consider, inter alia:
a) the existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent;
b) the existing access arrangement and the relationship between the child and the access parent;
c) the desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents;
d) the views of the child;
e) the custodial parent’s reason for moving, only in the exceptional case where it is relevant to that parent’s ability to meet the needs of the child;
f) disruption to the child of a change in custody;
g) disruption to the child consequent on removal from family, schools, and the community he or she has come to know. 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, at para. 49. Emphasis added.
[34] In the section of the article dealing with mental health experts and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the authors state at page 10-43 as follows:
While the test for relocation articulated by Gordon v. Goertz is an assessment of the “best interests” of the child, the application of this test is quite different from that which applies in other custody and access disputes. The reality is that applications for relocation generally do not arise because of a genuine desire by the custodial parent to promote interests of the children involved, except indirectly, insofar as the children’s welfare is enhanced if the custodial parent has enhanced social or emotional satisfaction or improved economic prospects.
In ordinary custody and access disputes, the legal and the psychological conceptions of the “best interests” of a child are likely to be similar, and the evidence of a psychologist about the children involved may be of genuine value to a court. In a relocation case, the immediate psychological well-being of a child will rarely improve, no matter what decision is made by the court. The court is generally faced with a limited range of alternatives, each of which poses risks and involves speculation about the future. There is not much psychological research that casts direct light on the making of this type of decision.
[35] Part H: Analysis and Conclusion
[36] In considering the Applicant’s request to vary access and to enable her to move from Parry Sound to Aurora, I am to decide the merits of the access and relocation plan based on an assessment of the best interests of the children involved, without a presumption or onus in favour of either party. In this respect, I consider the best interests of the children, and more particularly those issues and matters outlined by Justice McLachlin in the Gordon v. Goertz case.
[37] We are coming up on five years since Wendy Kelly and Chris Metcalfe separated. When the Application was signed, Oonagh was 8 and Jubal was 5. Between the date of the application and today’s date, considerable changes have occurred in the lives of the family members. While it is true that the parties shared a week-about access for a considerable period of time, since approximately December of 2010 the existing or defacto parenting situation has been one which has the children residing with their mother on a primary basis, and Jubal exercising access to his father every second weekend from Friday to Sunday.
[38] In addition to the alternate access weekend, of course, Jubal has exercised access to his father on other holidays and special occasions. To some extent, the present existing situation was recognized under the list of recommendations made by the clinical investigator in the second OCL report dated October 18, 2011. Under recommendation 1 Wendy Kelly was to continue to be the primary caretaker for the children, Oonagh and Jubal, and Mr. Metcalfe was to continue to have access to Jubal according to the established schedule of access.
[39] Much has changed in the last five years, most particularly, and perhaps sadly, with respect to the relationship between Oonagh and Mr. Metcalfe. The documentation that I have reviewed and referred to herein clearly establishes that at least at the present time, Oonagh does not wish to maintain an ongoing relationship with her father or indeed with members of his extended family. What may have began as a nudity issue in relation to Mr. Metcalfe’s habit of dress from time to time in the family home over time grew into allegations of inappropriate behaviour with respect to Mr. Metcalfe. I am satisfied that all of the allegations made by Oonagh have been properly and fully examined and that competent and caring people have concluded that there are no outstanding issues or concerns in relation to parental abuse. Having said that, this court cannot force or effect reconciliation between Oonagh and her father.
[40] To some extent, Mr. Metcalfe’s counsel is correct when she suggests that absent some form of parental alienation or control or manipulation by the mother, the relationship between Oonagh and her father might not be what it is today. But again, this court cannot magically reverse the situation, or make positive findings with certainty given Oonagh’s continued refusal to visit with or to enjoy a relationship with her father. In other words, while Wendy Kelly should have done more and ought to have done more, there is no doubt that Oonagh has internalized many of the problems, hard feelings, emotional entanglements and conflict issues as between her parents. In some manner or other she has sided with her mother, so that at the end of the day the father daughter relationship is, for the foreseeable future, nonexistent. In all of this there can be no doubt that the mother bears a good deal of responsibility.
[41] Having said that, the issues here are complex and now relatively long standing and while this court will make an order in these proceedings that treatment is to be sought by Wendy Kelly to determine the potential for reparation for the relationship between Oonagh and her father, this court cannot right a wrong as it were, by pulling Jubal away or by further punishing the mother by imposing dramatic changes to the access schedule.
[42] It is in the best interest of the children to have maximized contact with their parents. In my view, the access plan put forward by the Applicant recognizes the nature of the relationship between Jubal and his father, and attempts to maintain this relationship through an access schedule that has been working reasonably well for the past number of years.
[43] If the mother is permitted to move to Aurora with the children, there can be no doubt the children’s home community and schooling situation will change. So too will their connection with their young friends. However, a move to Aurora, approximately 2 hours south of Parry Sound, ought not to change the present access schedule or the access schedule proposed by the Applicant in her motion. Alternate weekend access, one half of the school Christmas holidays, the school March break in odd numbered years, and one half of the school summer holidays on a two week about basis can in my view be accommodated even through the Applicant and the children may be living two hours south of Parry Sound.
[44] If the mother moves to Aurora, I am not satisfied that continued and reasonable access and contact between the father and the father’s extended family will be disrupted. The Applicant’s proposed access schedule, properly enforced by this court, will ensure that Mr. Metcalfe and his extended family members continue to enjoy ongoing access and contact with Jubal. I also conclude that a real possibility exists that after such a move, the tension and underlying conflict between the parents will lessen, leaving open a greater possibility for reparation of the father and daughter relationship herein.
[45] Oonagh will have to see a treatment counsellor and the order that I have to make in these proceedings will require Wendy Kelly to secure appropriate treatment to determine the potential for reparation of the relationship between Oonagh and her father.
[46] Wendy Kelly has desired to move to Aurora for many years. She and the children have continued to reside in the Parry Sound area since the date of separation almost five years ago. The mother has continued to upgrade her skills, to work when able, and to take ongoing courses in the banking field. The affidavit materials that I have reviewed from the mother confirm that while she has been employed on a part time basis at a local branch in Parry Sound, as a result of her further training program she will earn additional qualification in the financial planning and investment management field.
[47] I am satisfied that economic opportunities exist for Wendy Kelly in the Aurora/Richmond Hill/Vaughn/Newmarket/Barrie/Markham area which are not presently available and will be less likely available to her should she remain in Parry Sound. I am satisfied that Ms. Kelly wishes to remain in the banking field given the young age of the children and the ever growing financial burden present on parents to support their children’s needs and aspirations. The clear potential for greater economic opportunity for the mother, at a relatively close distance south of Parry Sound, cannot be overlooked or put aside.
[48] Mr. Metcalfe has not supported the children since January 2011. His work is both stable and in a sense guaranteed, but on the other hand, only permanent part time. A review of his Notice of Assessment materials confirms that he can only expect to earn between $25,000 and $35,000 per annum. I am satisfied that the greater responsibility for the financial support of the children will rest on Ms. Kelly’s shoulders as has been the case for several years now. I repeat that the financial burden on the parents to raise children is an ever growing heavier one and this court must recognize, if only to some extent, the economic benefits of a move to Aurora as opposed to an order refusing leave for the mother to seek other economic opportunities in a more populous area to the south.
[49] Oonagh and Jubal are still in elementary school and I am satisfied that at their ages, a move into a new community and a new school will open up an exciting new chapter in their lives. While no one can doubt that stability in a child’s life is important, it can also be said that exposure to different communities and different life circumstances can broaden a child’s outlook and increase the potential for growth and development.
[50] I would not sanction the mother’s move to Aurora if I were not satisfied that it would not impact, lessen, or denigrate the father’s existing relationship with Jubal. Nor would I consider sanctioning the move if I was not satisfied that Wendy Kelly and her partner have been in a permanent relationship for several years now, and have a settled home into which the children can move as their primary residence. I point out that the children have visited and remained overnight in the Aurora home for a considerable period of time and they are in that sense adjusted to the home and to the community in which the home is located. They are well familiar with Ms. Kelly’s present partner and his son.
[51] A move to Aurora ought not to have been sanctioned four or five years ago but in my view, having regard to the present circumstances, and the reasons outlined herein, the mother’s desire to effect a change with respect to her children’s primary residence ought to be sanctioned and permitted. For all of these reasons, I make the following orders, having regard particularly to the most recent recommendations made by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer:
Wendy Kelly shall continue to be the primary caretaker for the children, Oonagh and Jubal Kelly-Metcalfe.
Jubal Kelly Metcalfe is to continue to have access to his father according to the following schedule:
a. Every other weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. or Monday at 6:00 p.m. if Monday is a holiday.
b. One half of the school Christmas holidays, the first half in even numbered years and second half in odd numbered years.
c. The school March break in odd numbered years.
d. One half of the school summer holidays on a two week about basis from 7:00 p.m. Friday of the first Friday following the last day of school with exchanges to take place at 7:00 p.m. Fridays.
e. Transportation for access shall be shared, the Respondent to pick up at the beginning of access at the children’s home and the Applicant to pick up at the end of access.
Wendy Kelly is to seek appropriate treatment with the focus to determine the potential for reparation of the relationship between Oonagh and her father, Chris Metcalfe.
Wendy Kelly is to provide the details and options with respect to possible treatments to Mr. Metcalfe within the next 90 days. Wendy Kelly is to consult with Chris Metcalfe with respect to this treatment. She shall secure such treatment and ensure that it is undertaken, to the extent that it is determined by an appropriate treatment or therapeutic counsellor that there is a potential for reparation of the relationship between Oonagh and her father.
Mr. Metcalfe is to be provided with a comprehensive list of all service providers for the children, including school and educator contact names and numbers, as well as any health care providers. All necessary consents will be provided by Wendy Kelly, allowing Chris Metcalfe access to the children’s information.
Wendy Kelly is granted leave to relocate with the children to Aurora, Ontario.
Mr. Metcalfe shall pay child support, for Oonagh and Jubal, in the sum of $375.00 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2011, based on 2011 income of $25,892.60. Mr. Metcalfe’s 2012 annual income is not yet known given his temporary monthly work at present. 2012 child support shall be adjusted when Mr. Metcalfe receives his 2012 Notice of Assessment. He shall provide this notice to Ms. Kelly within 30 days of his receipt of such notice.
[52] Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, as well as all of the events which have occurred between the date of the separation up to the present time, there shall be no order as to costs.
Justice J.S. O’Neill
Released: June 25, 2012
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Wendy Anne Kelly
Applicant
– and –
Christopher John Metcalfe
Respondent
REASONS ON MOTION
Justice J.S. O’Neill
Released: June 25, 2012