COURT FILE NO.: Orangeville 160/10

DATE: 2012-09-26

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Shelley Bennett

Gillian Shute, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

Derek Joel Bennett

Self-Represented

Respondent

HEARD: June 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 2012

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

M. J. Donohue, J.

Overview

[1] Shelley and Derek Bennett married on July 21, 2007 but separated August 5, 2010. They have one daughter, Ashlyn Bennett, who was born […], 2009. Ashlyn is now two and a half years old. Shelley Bennett prefers to be addressed by her maiden name, Ms. Myers.

[2] The issues to be adjudicated were as follows;

a) Is it appropriate to award joint custody?

b) Should Mr. Bennett pay the child care expense for the services provided by Mrs. Myers (Ms. Myers' mother)?

c) Should the restraining order of June 21, 2011 be revoked?

d) If sole custody is awarded, what access arrangements should be made?

(a) Is it appropriate to award joint custody?

[3] Ms. Myers has had custody of Ashlyn since separation for almost two years. She and her daughter live with her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Myers. Mrs. June Myers provides the daycare for Ashlyn while Ms. Myers is at work. Mr. Bennett has had access with Ashlyn every second weekend and Wednesdays from noon till 6:00 p.m.

[4] Ashlyn is a very lucky girl. She has a loving mother and lives with a caring and loving grandmother as her alternate care provider. She also has a loving father and a caring alternate care provider, her father's neighbour. These facts are agreed. Each party trusted the other to parent Ashlyn well.

[5] Is it then appropriate to award joint custody? The essence of joint custody is shared decision making. The goal is to minimize the prospects of stress and instability that will negatively affect the child. (R.(J.B.) v. R.(A.M.), 2003 CarswellBC 498, 2003 BCCA 135)

(i) Litigation

[6] In the short time since separation, the parties have required the court’s assistance on a number of motions. A motion was brought to list the matrimonial home for sale. (This was ultimately on consent.) Mr. Bennett brought a motion without notice to order Ms. Myers’ counsel to produce a typed order of Justice Langdon. An order was required to have Mr. Bennett contribute to childcare costs. An order was required to allow Ashlyn to obtain a passport and travel to see family in Ireland. A restraining order was obtained.

[7] Mr. Bennett made a number of requests to settle their issues directly, without further court proceedings. In an email on February 21, 2012, Ms. Myers finally agreed to do so by way of mediation. Mr. Bennett, however, refused. He responded by email to have her counsel contact him so they could “initiate the final proceedings”.

[8] The parties had not even exchanged sufficient financial disclosure by the start of trial to allow the court to deal with issues of child support and equalization of net family property. They required orders from the court for disclosure.

[9] Joint decision making has not been demonstrated in the litigation.

(ii) Communications Book

[10] A communications book was used for over a year. The book travelled back and forth with Ashlyn and, in this manner, the parents discussed issues regarding their daughter. Despite the passage of time, the exchanges were not handled maturely or without rancour.

[11] An example is a notation where Ms. Myers remarks that none of Ashlyn’s clothes were being returned after access visits. She then writes:

That’s ok. I feel the clothes I purchase for Ashlyn can be used by us both so please feel free to use them as her normal day clothes as they do belong to her.

Mr. Bennett responds:

How can you say that none of the clothes you send Ashlyn in are coming back? The only articles of clothing she has here is a purple pair of shorts and a grey pair of stretchy pants. These have both been washed and are included in her bag.

Ms. Myers replies:

I can say that because her clothing wasn't returned to me last Thursday Aug 11^th when I picked Ashlyn up at 6 pm. Please don't misunderstand, I am not asking for these articles back merely mentioning that they are Ashlyn's clothes that can be used by us both. If you want to return her clothing to me that will be your choice to do so.

Mr. Bennett writes:

I find your comments about Ashlyn's clothing argumentative and instigative on your part. If you have no concern that the clothes be returned to you or not, then please refrain from using phrases like 'none of the clothes I send are coming back.' Everything you have sent with her has always been returned to you. Let's please keep this as it has been, return what she is sent in from me, and I will do the same for you.”

Ms. Myers responds:

In regards to Ashlyn's clothes if you want to return them to me that's ok, I will return yours as requested. Just merely stating that sharing Ashlyn's clothing is also ok with me. If you feel otherwise that's ok too. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to open the doors on 'sharing' when it comes to our daughter.

Mr. Bennett writes:

Since there have been too many disputes caused by yourself and your Mom in regards to Ashlyn's clothing in the past where Peel Police and CAS had to become involved, I would prefer to continue with the way things have been, and request that all clothing that Ashlyn is sent with is returned for her use here. With that being said, the socks she was sent in on 08/21/2011 were not returned.

Ms. Myers responds:

As for Ashlyn's socks, no problem they have been returned to you today but please note this item was purchased by me for Ashlyn to wear but I'm happy to share them.

(iii) Daycare/Nursery School and USA Trip

[12] Ms. Myers was interested in enrolling Ashlyn in part-time daycare or nursery school and sent the details and possibilities of a number of different schools via the communication book. Mr. Bennett responded that he could provide the daycare and keep costs down. The discussions did not go well.

[13] Ms. Myers also wrote requesting Mr. Bennett’s consent for her to take Ashlyn on a holiday with her to the U.S.A. She wrote:

-- “is there any chance you would change your mind and give me written consent to take Ashlyn on a holiday with me to USA, during her time with me of course?”

Mr. Bennett replies:

As for consent to the USA, I would need to know the following:

1. Where you plan on taker her? (City, State);

2. What dates are included?

3. Where she will be staying? (hotel, house, other)

4. How you plan to travel? (plane, car, train)

Ms. Myers replies:

I need to have written consent from you before I can plan my trip...if you could put together a simple letter and email it to me I would greatly appreciate it.

Mr. Bennett replies:

As for the USA, you cannot honestly expect me to grant consent without knowing the following information that I have previously asked of you and your lawyer and have not been given any direct answers from either. Please refer to my 4 questions on page 103 for more clarification.

Mrs. Bennett responds:

I don't have those details for you as of yet. I can tell you that we will or would like to go to New York. I would rather know I can take Ashlyn with me so I can plan my trip rather than plan my trip so you can say in the end, no she's not going there. By you consenting to her travelling with me I can plan my trip which I will then be able to answer all questions you might have.

Mr. Bennett responds:

Once again, before any consent is given, I would need the trip details, even if you had an estimated planned date. At the advice of Council, I prefer not to discuss this issue any further using this book. Please have your legal council contact me with the following details:

1. City and State travelling too?

2. Dates planned on going?

3. Accommodations for staying overnight?

4. Travel method?”

[14] The parties were not able to resolve either of these two issues. Mr. Bennett wrote to Ms. Myers’ lawyer on August 25, 2011 stating,

As long as it is immediately made clear to your client that I do not wish to receive any more communications regarding Daycare or the USA trip outside of being sent from your office, as I feel it is getting to the point of harassment on Shelley Myer’s part.

(iv) Medical Appointments

[15] Although Ashlyn is a healthy little girl, both parties have attended almost all her medical appointments. Justice Pugsley ordered, on September 1, 2010, that Ms. Myers was responsible for scheduling all medical appointments for Ashlyn and she would notify Mr. Bennett of the scheduled appointment times. The order stated that both parties were at liberty to attend all medical appointments involving Ashlyn.

[16] The medical appointments have been a cause of significant distress to both parents. At trial, Mr. Bennett cross-examined Ms. Myers on a number of appointments that occurred without his being told. Ms. Myers explained that two of the visits were actually medical appointments for herself but while she was there the doctor weighed Ashlyn and did a check-up.

[17] On another occasion, Mr. Bennett made an appointment for Ashlyn which resulted in a dispute.

[18] He emailed Ms. Myers after making a same day doctor's appointment October 6, 2010. Ms. Myers wrote back and said in such a case:

You are to call me immediately, not send emails.

Mr. Bennett replied:

This was an appt and not an emergency. Appointments were agreed to be communicated via the communication book or email in advance, if you wouldn't see the book in time. As you carry a BlackBerry and previously mentioned I can reach you best there, the notice was issued using this method. As this was not an emergency, you were notified with sufficient notice to attend the appointment at the advice of my Lawyer. In regards to future reference, please refrain from giving me direct instruction as to what I am to do. I welcome your input regarding situations like this, however. Please refer back to the agreed upon court documentation if you require further clarification.

[19] Ms. Myers wished Ashlyn to have the flu shot. Mr. Bennett did not. Ultimately, Ms. Myers took Ashlyn to a clinic to have the shot. She wrote in the communications book that Ashlyn received the flu shot on October 25, 2011. Mr. Bennett wrote that he was not given notice or consulted regarding the shot and stated: “this will be my final entry”. Ms. Myers testified that she never saw the communications book after that exchange. Thereafter, they communicated by email.

(v) Non-Cooperation

[20] In the course of this litigation, Mr. Bennett has shown himself to be difficult to deal with. He sought the involvement of the Children’s Aid Society in the summer of 2011. He asked for the worker who had been assigned to the file to be removed as she did not have a degree in social work. A second worker, who had a master’s degree in social work, was arranged.

[21] When the house was listed for sale, he requested that one agent from the real estate brokerage represent his interests and another represent Ms. Myers’ interests. Ms. Myers’ agent was Louise Tilly, who testified at the trial. Her evidence in chief was that Mr. Bennett was detail oriented and “obsessive compulsive”. On cross-examination, Mr. Bennett questioned Ms. Tilly and she agreed with him that he was helpful in showing the house; he did the needed repairs to help it sell; and the repairs were done in a timely fashion. He urged her to confirm that he was always professional with her but her evidence in reply was, “you drove me crazy.”

[22] A co-worker of Ms. Myers observed one of the parties’ meetings to exchange Ashlyn. Ms. Myers had placed an envelope in Ashlyn’s bag for Mr. Bennett. The co-worker watched Mr. Bennett take the envelope and place it back under the windshield wiper of Ms. Myers’ vehicle.

[23] There was evidence by both parties of Mr. Bennett’s conflict with Ashlyn’s family doctor, Dr. Enza Gucciardi. Three letters from the doctor were made exhibits in the trial. On November 11, 2010, the doctor wrote Mr. Bennett stating:

I am writing to you to give you a final warning about your interaction with my office staff. We have had previous discussions in the past regarding acceptable behaviour in my office and with my staff. The next time I am made aware of any disrespectful behaviour and boundary disruptions, I will dissolve our relationship.

[24] The doctor wrote again in January 20, 2011 saying she was dismissing Mr. Bennett from her practice as he was taping her conversation without asking her permission.

[25] A third letter was written June 7, 2012 after Mr. Bennett was critical of the doctor seeing and treating Ashlyn in his absence. He sent her a copy of Justice Pugley’s order of September 1, 2010. In her letter, Dr. Gucciardi advises Mr. Bennett that he is welcome at the appointments but she is not responsible for notifying him of appointments. She again warns him regarding his “disruptive behaviour.”

[26] Ms. Myers and her mother, June Myers, testified that Mr. Bennett was controlling. They said it was, “his way or the highway”.

[27] Mr. Bennett represented himself at trial and showed himself to be an able cross-examiner. He was able to point out a number of errors in Ms. Myers testimony. He demonstrated that she had called the police several times but there were never any charges laid. Ms. Myers admitted that he had “never laid a hand on her or Ashlyn.”

[28] He was able to get Ms. Myers to admit her unwillingness to communicate with him when he tried to arrange meetings to discuss the issues. Mr. Bennett tripped her up after she testified that she was never in contact with the contractor that did repairs on their home. In cross-examination, he showed her email correspondence between herself and the contractor. Furthermore, Mr. Bennett cross-examined Ms. Myers using a ‘pregnancy diary’ that she filled out while expecting Ashlyn. She had written that her strengths were that she was “dedicated, stubborn, and get what I want, self-control and love for my family”.

[29] In general, Mr. Bennett showed himself to be a fierce litigator. He was organized, articulate and quick, to the point that Ms. Myers appeared flustered, confused and unable to respond. The court room is an unnatural place for the parties to be but it gave some insight into the imbalance that would result in private conversations between them.

(vi) Passport for Ashlyn

[30] Both parties presented much evidence of hostility in the initial months following separation when there were hurt feelings and anger between the parties. The house had to be sold and contents divided, which is understandably difficult.

[31] More concerning is the exchanges in the last year in how the parents have dealt with issues regarding Ashlyn.

[32] On January 29, 2012, Ms. Myers requested Mr. Bennett’s permission to take Ashlyn to Ireland for two weeks in the spring. Ms. Myers required his permission for the passport. Her email stated:

I can provide a detailed itinerary of our trip at a later date as nothing has been booked yet, pending your approval. With this being said, in no way am I expecting you to forgo your time with Ashlyn, I would be more than happy to ensure your time with Ashlyn is made up.

Mr. Bennett replied by email on February 1, 2012 saying:

The following issues should be resolved before discussing Ashlyn’s passport and travel plans: access schedule for stat holidays; extend access to 9:00 a.m. pick up instead of noon; extend access on Tuesdays to overnight; pay share of repair costs of Matrimonial home; pay share of cat’s medical expenses; pay off balance of joint line of credit accounting; remove reciprocal non-harassment order; and a settlement agreement, division of assets and finalize divorce.

[33] Ms. Myers had her lawyer prepare a motion to get a court order dispensing with Mr. Bennett’s consent for the passport. After being served with the motion, Mr. Bennett wrote on March 18, 2012 saying he would consent, but on conditions of a newly detailed access schedule. Ultimately, the motion had to be argued as Mr. Bennett would still not consent to the relief requested. Ms. Myers was successful. She was able to take Ashlyn to see the child’s great grandmother in Ireland who was celebrating her 85^th birthday.

[34] Mr. Bennett’s behaviour in requiring a court order for his daughter to get a passport is bad behaviour. His refusal to sign a passport application unless he had economic concessions from Ashlyn’s mother was inappropriate. It is evidence that his hostility to Ms. Myers exceeds his desire for the best interests of his daughter.

Analysis

[35] The Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of joint custody in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 10 RFL (6^th) 373, 2005 CanLII 1625 saying:

In determinations of custody and access, the overriding consideration for the court is the best interest of the children. Difficulty in communication is not unusual and often there is an element of animosity in the process of disentanglement. This does not preclude an order of joint custody of the children.

[36] The court, in that case, noted:

The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate with the other parent does not of itself, mean that a joint custody order cannot be considered. On the other hand, hoping that communication between the parties will improve once the litigation is over does not provide a basis for the making of an order of joint custody. There must be some evidence before the court that despite their differences, the parents are able to communicate effectively with one another. No matter how detailed the custody order that is made, gaps will inevitably occur, unexpected situations arise and the changing developmental needs of a child must be addressed on an ongoing basis. When, as is here the child is so young that she can hardly communicate her developmental needs, communication is even more important. In this case there was no evidence of effective communication. The evidence is to the contrary. (Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, supra, paragraph 11).

[37] Mr. Bennett argued that during the trial the parties were dealing more cooperatively together which is certainly encouraging for young Ashlyn’s sake. There was no evidence presented of that cooperation until late in the actual trial. The historical record of things was very poor communication or cooperation. The incident where a court order was required for Ashlyn’s passport was only three months before the trial. I am not satisfied that the parties are able to carry out joint decision making.

[38] I, therefore, find that joint custody is not appropriate.

[39] I have reviewed Ashlyn’s living circumstances with her mother and grandmother for approximately the last two years. The evidence is uncontradicted that Ashlyn is safe and well cared for by them and is thriving.

[40] Ms. Myers has been faithful in honouring access arrangements and supportive of Ashlyn’s relationship with her father.

[41] I order sole custody to Ashlyn’s mother, Ms. Myers.

(b) Should Mr. Bennett pay the child care expense for the services provided by Mrs. June Myers?

[42] Mr. Bennett was ordered to pay $162.00 per month toward day care costs commencing July 1, 2011. This was ordered by Justice Langdon on June 21, 2011.

[43] Mr. Bennett was then ordered to pay $100.00 per month toward child care by order of Justice Ricchetti on September 12, 2011.

[44] Ms. Myers works full time and earns over $45,000 per annum. She lives with her parents. Her mother, Mrs. Myers, provides the day care for Ashlyn. Mr. Bennett questions the legitimacy of the costs. He does not question that the care was provided.

[45] Mr. Bennett cross-examined Ms. Myers thoroughly on the discrepancies in her tax returns and the various receipts given for the child care. He showed that the child care receipts were numerical and consecutive so likely written up all at once. They were first produced at the trial itself.

[46] Initially, Mrs. Myers signed a letter November 24, 2010 saying she would charge $150/week and sought $75/week from each parent (total $600.00 a month). Ms. Myers declared on her 2011 tax return $4,550.00 for child care, or $379/month. Ms. Myers’ 2011 notice of assessment shows $7,000.00 in child care expenses for which she cannot explain. She simply said her taxes were done by her accountant.

[47] Ms. Myers has been cavalier on information in her tax returns. The receipts appear to have been created for trial. Mrs. June Myers may well be returning the money to her daughter or waiving payments.

[48] Mrs. Myers is providing day care generally four days a week. The original payment of $162.00 a month works out to approximately $9.00 per day. The current order of $100.00 per month amounts to less than $6.00 per day. I take judicial notice that this amount is lower than any private or public daycare cost. I find that there is a cost to child care whether it is charged or not. This is a non-arms-length arrangement for child care but so modest an expense that I find it extremely reasonable. The care allows Ms. Myers to work at a job with benefits at a good income. It is a safe and loving environment.

[49] The parties have agreed that section 7 extraordinary expenses will be shared according to income. It remains to be settled or adjudicated what their respective incomes are.

[50] I order Mr. Bennett to pay $100.00 per month until such other order of this court or resolution of the parties on their respective incomes. He is ordered to pay the day care expenses in accordance with previous court orders retroactive to December 1, 2010.

[51] Ms. Myers plans to enrol Ashlyn in a daycare while in her care with a Peel subsidy that would cost $300-400/month. Should Ms. Myers choose to have different daycare arrangements, I order Mr. Bennett's payment to remain pending settlement or adjudication of their incomes.

c) Should the restraining order of June 21, 2011 be revoked?

[52] Mr. Bennett sought an order to revoke the mutual restraining order of June 21, 2011.

[53] Ms. Myers, at the conclusion of trial, agreed to revoke the restraining order and requested instead a reciprocal non-harassment order as follows:

Neither of the parties will interfere with the other Parent times when with Ashlyn except for emergencies. Neither of the parties will use email to harass or denigrate the other Parent or deliberately create conflict for self-serving purposes. The parties will both use good judgment and maturity in discussing issues regarding Ashlyn. The parties will put their minds to decision making and Ashlyn's best interest. Pick-up and Drop-off is to continue at Tim Horton's or potentially another location if agreed.”

[54] I find no evidence supporting a continued restraining order and revoke all prior restraining orders. I agree that the reciprocal non-harassment order is needed to ensure the parties behave with politeness, maturity, and respect. I so order.

(d) If sole custody is awarded, what access arrangements should be made?

[55] During the trial, Ms. Myers agreed to change the mid-week access at noon to an overnight visit to 6:00 p.m. on the following day.

[56] Ms. Myers has shown a willingness to facilitate contact between Ashlyn and her father. There previously had not been a request by Mr. Bennett for access on Father's day, statutory holidays and summer vacations, apart from his email demanding this be settled before he consider letting Ashlyn have a passport and consent to travel.

[57] I asked the parties to prepare and set out in a draft order what access arrangements they were seeking. Much of what each desired was the same or similar.

[58] Ms. Myers reviewed what Mr. Bennett proposed and made several alterations. Initially, Mr. Bennett requested 9:00 a.m. exchange times during the week. At the close of trial, he agreed to the noon exchange on mid-week exchanges. The schedule as follows is, therefore, on the parties’ consent.

[59] I order access as follows:

1. Mr. Bennett—Week 1:

Tuesday noon until Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. and Friday noon until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. (If a Statutory Holiday occurs on the Monday then Ashlyn’s time with her father is extended to Monday at 6:00 p.m.)

Mr. Bennett—Week 2:

Wednesday noon until Thursday at 6:00 p.m.

2. Holiday Schedule is as follows:

(a) Mother’s Day: if this falls on Mr. Bennett’s access time, Ashlyn is to return to Ms. Myers at 10:00 a.m.

(b) Father’s Day: if this falls on Ms. Myers’ custodial time, Ashlyn is to spend the day with Mr. Bennett from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

(c) Family Day is to be alternated with Ms. Myers to have Ashlyn with her on even numbered years and Mr. Bennett to have Ashlyn on odd numbered years.

(d) Ashlyn’s birthday is to be alternated with Ms. Myers to have Ashlyn with her on odd numbered years and Mr. Bennett to have Ashlyn with him on even numbered years.

(e) March Break, once Ashlyn has this scheduled, will be alternated yearly with Ms. Myers to have Ashlyn in odd numbered years and Mr. Bennett to have Ashlyn with him on even numbered years.

(f) Easter Holiday from Friday to Monday: this weekend will be alternated with Ms. Myers having Ashlyn with her on odd numbered years and Mr. Bennett having Ashlyn with him on even numbered years.

(g) Halloween is to be alternated with Ms. Myers having Ashlyn with her on odd numbered years and Mr. Bennett having Ashlyn with him on even numbered years.

(h) Thanksgiving, from Saturday to Monday, this weekend is to be alternated with Ms. Myers having Ashlyn with her on even numbered years and Mr. Bennett having Ashlyn with him on odd numbered years.

(i) Christmas from Christmas Eve noon to December 26 noon is to be alternated with Ms. Myers having Ashlyn with her on even numbered years and Mr. Bennett having Ashlyn with him on odd numbered years.

(j) New Year’s Day from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. is to be alternated with Ms. Myers having Ashlyn with her on even numbered years and Mr. Bennett having Ashlyn with him on odd numbered years

3. Vacation Schedule

(a) Each party is entitled to two consecutive or non-consecutive weeks during the year as mutually agreed upon.

(b) If either parent wishes to take Ashlyn on a holiday, each parent will cooperate with providing the passport (returning the passport to Ms. Myers) and letters of consent to travel; the parent wishing to travel will provide the other parent with an itinerary showing contact information for where Ashlyn will be staying and any flight/train/bus information that is appropriate; the itinerary is to be provided at least seven days in advance of departure.

(c) Ms. Myers is to keep Ashlyn’s original identification papers including passport and will provide them to Mr. Bennett as needed for travel. The documents are to be returned within five days of return from travel. Ms. Myers is to provide copies of any identification papers to Mr. Bennett.

4. Phone Access: both parents will ensure Ashlyn has reasonable telephone contact with the other parent to be twice during the week and once each weekend. The calls are to be made when Ashlyn can reasonably be expected to talk, preferably just before bedtime.

Further Orders

(i) Medical and Education

[60] I order as follows:

1. Ms. Myers will provide Mr. Bennett's contact information to schools, summer camps, health care providers and social services as Ashlyn’s secondary place of residence. Ms. Myers' address will be primary residence. Ms. Myers will share any and all mailings concerning Ashlyn and Mr. Bennett by a copy or email attachment.

2. Ms. Myers will give notice via email of all medical and other appointments relating to Ashlyn's health and well-being. Mr. Bennett may attend any appointments and have access to medical files.

3. Ms. Myers is to maintain Ashlyn on her benefit plan through her employer and will provide a copy of the plan and benefit card to Mr. Bennett.

4. Ms. Myers shall consult with the respondent on major health, education and general issues concerning Ashlyn's welfare.

5. In an emergency, the parent with whom Ashlyn is with shall have the decision-making power and shall notify the other parent forthwith.

6. Each parent will provide the name, address and phone number of any of Ashlyn’s care providers.

7. Ashlyn’s name will not be changed without consent of both parents.

8. Before enrolling Ashlyn in any extracurricular activities, each parent will discuss beforehand the activity, the cost and the transportation arrangements necessary.

(ii) Communication

9. The parties shall communicate by email or a program called the Family Wizard and may only communicate by telephone in emergencies.

10. All communications shall be limited only to child related matters.

11. The parties shall not discuss the details of litigation or argue with the other parent in Ashlyn's presence or hearing. Neither is to permit other persons to speak negatively of the other parent in Ashlyn's presence.

12. Each party shall use email to:

a) inform the other of any health issues regarding Ashlyn, including medication to be administered;

b) inform the other of any medical or dental attendances for Ashlyn;

c) notify the other of any upcoming school related event, activity or assignment, similarly to sports;

d) make any request for additional or alternative time with Ashlyn including summer vacation;

e) respond to any request with respect to time with Ashlyn; and

f) keep the other informed as to Ashlyn's health, education, development and to be used strictly for information sharing and be as clear and as concise as possible.

13. The parties shall not use email to:

a) criticize one another; or

b) express the parent's personal feeling or to impose their views on the other parent.

[61] The balance of the issues in the application, including child support, imputed income, net family property and spousal support and divorce, are severed and are to be resolved or tried at another date.

[62] There was insufficient disclosure by both parties to deal with these matters at this trial. I made orders for disclosure and trust that they will be complied with without delay.

[63] Schedule to be revised once Ashlyn begins school to accommodate for her school schedule, March break, Christmas break, and summer vacation schedule.

[64] In an emergency, the parent whom Ashlyn is with shall have the decision-making power and shall notify the other parent forthwith. If the parties cannot agree in a medical emergency, they agree to be governed by the presiding physician.

[65] Neither of the parties will move the child outside Peel or Dufferin Region. Written notice is to be obtained by the other parent 60 days before moving or by Court order.

[66] The child’s residence shall not be moved outside Peel or Durham regions without consent of the other parent or court order written notification.

[67] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, the court will review written submissions of three pages or less, not including any offers to settle or bills of costs, within 30 days of this judgment.

Justice M.J. Donohue

Released: September 26, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: Orangeville 160/10

DATE: 2012-09-26

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Shelley Bennett

Applicant

• and –

Derek Joel Bennett

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Justice Meredith J. Donohue

Released: September 26, 2012