ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: FC-12-1698
DATE: 2015/07/17

BETWEEN:

JESSIKA ASCANI
Applicant

– and –

PATRICE ROBERT
Respondent

Self‑represented

Tanya Davies, for the Respondent

HEARD: May 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and June 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 2015 at Ottawa

REASONS FOR DECISION

Doyle J.

[1] Vanessa Teya Robert‑Ascani is nearly six years old and since birth she has spent approximately equal time with each of her parents.

[2] Vanessa is a happy healthy child who has the benefit of two cultures: her father’s family from Haiti and her mother’s family from Nicaragua. She has exposure to French in her father’s residence and Spanish while in her mother’s care. She has a large extended group of family members including grandparents, aunts and uncles and a circle of friends and children who all love her. She is doing very well at school and is involved in a number of organized activities including gymnastics, soccer and swimming. She also enjoys skiing, biking, going to the cottage, travelling, dancing, gardening, baking and playing in parks.

[3] However, Vanessa’s world is scarred by ongoing confrontation and conflict between her parents. The parents have ongoing difficulties in communicating and they have been unable to agree on a number of issues including what school Vanessa is to attend and when and where the exchange of access is to take place. The parties recognize that they are involved in a high conflict matter and each blames the other for the discord.

[4] Both parties agree that the current schedule in which Vanessa has six transitions during a two‑week period is not in her best interests.

[5] The parties have agreed that each party will maintain a life insurance policy designating the other party as beneficiary in trust for the child. They have not agreed on the face amount.

[6] The Court must determine the following issues:

1. What Custody Order is in Vanessa’s Best Interests?
2. What Living Arrangement is in Vanessa’s Best Interests?
3. What Ongoing Child Support is Payable?
4. Should Retroactive Child Support be Payable?
5. Miscellaneous Issues:
   a. What section 7 special and extraordinary expenses are payable?
   b. What should be the face amount of the life insurance policy?
   c. Should there be a restriction regarding a change of Vanessa’s name?

BACKGROUND FACTS

[7] For the past 11 years, the father has worked as a lawyer in the regulatory section with the Department of Justice. He lives in Aylmer, Quebec, with Kristine Tang (“Ms. Tang”).

[8] The mother is a paralegal working with a large law firm in Ottawa. She lives alone in Kanata, Ontario.

[9] Ms. Tang is a civilian, working for the Canadian Armed Forces, is currently engaged to the father and the couple had a child in February 2015.

[10] The mother and father first met in a bar in October 2008. They commenced living together in November 2008 and separated for the first time in December 2008.

[11] Vanessa was born on August 12, 2009. Her parents had an on and off relationship as the mother moved into the father’s residence on several occasions. The parties dispute the nature of their relationship whilst they lived together. The mother states that they would reconcile while the father insists that they were living together in a platonic relationship in order that they could raise the child together.

[12] Prior to their final separation in August 2011 when the mother left the father’s residence, the parties had frequent disputes regarding the father communicating with women and his mother’s involvement in their family. Mother would allege that he was being unfaithful while the father refuted that the women were only friends. The father and his mother have been estranged for a while and the parties disputed the level of involvement of the paternal grandmother in their lives.

[13] Since the final separation, Vanessa has lived equally with both parents.

[14] In 2012, the father commenced living with Ms. Tang whom he had known since 2000 and had previously dated.

[15] The parties’ communication relationship further deteriorated as the father advised the mother that Vanessa would not be attending the daycare on the Mondays and Tuesdays when he cared for the child. She would be babysat by Ms. Tang who was taking a leave of absence having just returned from serving in Afghanistan. The mother was not agreeable to this and insisted that the father bring the child to daycare on those days.

[16] Since the final separation, there was frequent third party involvement: the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa investigated the family on several occasions, La Protection de la Jeunesse in Quebec investigated a sexual allegation made by the mother against the father, which also involved the police, and the Ottawa Police Service attended on several occasions when the parties were in disagreement on issues.

[17] Justice Kershman’s Order dated January 20, 2014, set the following parenting schedule:

In week one, mother drops Vanessa off at daycare and the father picks her up after school and drops her off on Tuesday morning. Mother picks her up after school and has her until Thursday morning when she drops her off at the daycare. The father picks her up on Thursday after school and has her until Tuesday morning when he drops her off at the school. In the second week, mother picks Vanessa up at the daycare and drops her off at the daycare/school on Wednesday morning. The father picks her up on Wednesday after school and drops her off on Thursday morning. The mother will pick up the child on Thursday after school/daycare and drops her off on Monday morning.

[18] Vanessa commences school at 9:05 a.m. and finishes at 3:30 p.m. She attends a daycare before and after school, which is paid for by the mother. Mother takes Vanessa to soccer on Tuesday nights. Father takes her to swimming lessons and they go swimming on a regular basis. He also registered Vanessa in gymnastics in Aylmer, Quebec, but mother does not take her to this activity. There is very limited phone access by Vanessa to the other parent while she is in a parent’s care.

[19] Pursuant to the recommendation from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s report (“OCL report”) that Vanessa take counselling, the parties arranged for the child to meet with Dr. Francis Smyth. The parties indicate that Dr. Smyth did not believe that Vanessa needed counselling at this time and hence the parties did not continue.

[20] Vanessa’s report card shows that she is doing very well at school and excels in French. Photos of her life with the father and his extended family depict a well‑adjusted and nurtured little girl. During the time that the child is with her mother, Vanessa is able to see both her maternal grandmother and paternal grandmother. Vanessa enjoys playdates and activities while in her mother’s care. Both parents provide appropriate care for Vanessa. It is evident the parties ensure that during the time that Vanessa is with them, she is able to visit with family and friends.

[... continued verbatim with all paragraphs through paragraph 210 exactly as in the source decision ...]

Madam Justice A. Doyle

Released: July 17, 2015