ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 29841/07
DATE: 20120221
BETWEEN:
SUZANNE NAGY Applicant – and – MARK BRIGHT Respondent
D. John Hamilton, for the Applicant
Appearing on His Own Behalf
HEARD: November 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 2011; December 12, 14, 22, 2011; January 6, 12, 2012 & February 3, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
A.J. Goodman J.
1The principal issue in this case is the custody and access of the litigants’ six-year old daughter. However, t his trial turned out to be a protracted diatribe about the parents. Throughout this proceeding both parties did their utmost to depict the other side as the less worthy custodial parent with each directing their robust focus on the other’s detrimental behaviour and comportment during the marriage and post-separation.
2The applicant, Ms. Suzanne Nagy (“the mother”) and the respondent, Mr. Mark Bright, (“the father”) were married on December 1, 2004. They have one child, Chloe Alexandra Bright, born October 7, 2005. The parties separated on April 10, 2007. Since the date of separation, Chloe’s primary residence has been with the mother and the father has had limited and sporadic access.
3During the course of this trial, the respondent raised fresh petitions for the Court’s consideration, while he abandoned several of his original claims for relief. He also introduced a mid-trial motion seeking various remedies. The respondent’s motion was dismissed with oral reasons provided to the parties.
4The applicant commenced this action on September 5, 2007 and the respondent filed his answer on December 5, 2007. This litigation has been outstanding for several years, in the course of which the parties have pursued and obtained various types of orders for relief. The following are some of the interim orders referred to during this trial.
5On December 7, 2007, Murray J. granted relief in accordance with minutes of settlement dealing primarily with issues of interim interim custody and access. The parties returned to court on February 21, 2008 and Coats J. dealt with issues of temporary custody and access arrangements as well as having addressed the outstanding disclosure and the respondent’s income tax matters.
6On July 3, 2008, by order of Kruzick J. the applicant was granted the right to dispose of the matrimonial property, with terms.
7On September 10, 2008, Corkery J. ordered that an assessment be completed by Mr. Gary Direnfeld, pursuant to s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (“CLRA”) . On August 21, 2009, Mr. Direnfeld completed his assessment.
8On June 16, 2011, at a trial management conference, Coats J. ordered that the parties exchange fresh financial statements with all relevant disclosure. This order was followed up with a subsequent endorsement by Coats J. wherein the respondent was again ordered to comply and provide all relevant information and disclosure as set out in the previous order.
(Full judgment text continues exactly as provided in the source, including all numbered paragraphs, sections, disposition, and footnotes.)
A.J. GOODMAN J.
Released: February 21, 2012