COURT FILE NO.: D19341-11
DATE: 20120713
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Shanon Katherine Abigail MacNeil, Applicant
AND:
Clint Anthony Jude MacNeil, Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice R.G.S. Del Frate
COUNSEL: Réjean Parisé, for the Applicant
Nicola S. Munro, for the Respondent
HEARD: July 12, 2012
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This motion involves the issue of summer access to the father of the three children of the marriage, Kayleigh MacNeil born November 5, 2003, Lochlan MacNeil born May 24, 2006 and Breeghan MacNeil born January 15, 2008.
[2] On October 24, 2001, R.S.J. Gauthier ordered a specific schedule for access to the children by the father. The Order however did not deal with summer access.
[3] In the summer of 2011, the parties had agreed to a week about with the children being in daycare. This year unfortunately, the parties could not agree on any type of reasonable schedule. Proposals were exchanged but none seemed to suit the wishes of the parties.
[4] Since the children are still in daycare, the first issue was the continued payment to daycare even if the children did not attend. Otherwise, the children would lose their spots for the coming year. Eventually, the father proposed that he would pay the daycare costs.
[5] The father also proposed that since he is a school teacher, there would be no necessity for the children to attend daycare. Whatever they could learn at daycare, he could provide the same education. This would permit him to spend considerable more time with his children. He was still prepared to pay the cost of the daycare.
[6] Mother objects to this proposal on the basis that the children are in a routine and there are some summer activities that the children wish to participate in and if the father does not take them to daycare, then the children will be deprived.
[7] As in many cases involving access, it appears to me that the parents are putting their wishes above what is in the best interest of the children. Our Courts have consistently held that the parents should have the maximum contact with the children and that the main consideration is the best interest of the children.
[8] In this case, the disagreement first arose on the payment of the daycare expenses. Once that issue appeared to be resolved, the mother is attempting to impose conditions which in my view, are not necessary. The father is an educator and if the children need any type of schooling, he is in a position to provide it.
[9] The materials do not disclose that the father is not a considerate parent and it appears that the children enjoy being with him. I am convinced that being a considerate father, if there are activities at the daycare that the children wish to engage in, he would not deprive them of that opportunity.
[10] Accordingly, it is in the best interest of the children that the schedule of a week about be continued for the summer months and it should commence as quickly as possible.
[11] Since a Settlement Conference is scheduled for August, some of these issues can be addressed at that time as well.
[12] Should it be necessary to address the issue of cost, the parties can make arrangements through the Trial Coordinator’s Office.
Mr. Justice R.G.S. Del Frate
Date: July 13, 2012