SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: FC-13-1024
DATE: 20150901

RE: L.A.-M., Applicant

AND:

T.M., Respondent

BEFORE: Ingram, J.

COUNSEL:
Matthew Hickey, Counsel, for the Applicant
Golnaz Sara Simaei, Counsel, for the Respondent

HEARD: May 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, June 1,2,3,4, 2015
(written submissions received week of August 10-14, 2015)

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Pseudonyms have been used for the children and initials for some of the adults to protect the children’s best interests. At least one of the children may become publicized through athletic prowess. In addition, a biological parent of an adopted child has testified. The child does not know the biological father. There has been enough suffering for these children caught in the middle of a hotly contested custody/ access dispute without the further burden of potentially embarrassing personal issues, created by their parents, becoming publicized.

[2] L.A.-M. (mother) and T.M. (father) are the parents of two children, Tim (pseudonym), born in 2005 and Susie (pseudonym), born in […] 2011. The couple began to cohabit in May 2008 and married in February 2009. T.M. adopted Tim the same year.

[3] The parties separated on May 19, 2013, after an initial separation in January 2013, followed by attempts at reconciliation.

[4] A trial on the issues of custody and access, consuming twelve days, took place from May 19 - June 3, 2015. The mother took the position that any access to the father and his family should be supervised, while the father’s position was that due to the mother’s attempts at alienating the children from him, the children should be placed in his custody.

[5] The issues between the parties were bifurcated by an order dated April 29, 2015. As a result, no financial documentation was provided to the court for this hearing. This may have resulted in an earlier hearing on the most important issues, custody and access, however it creates difficulty in determining how realistic the housing plans of the mother are. Due to the costs of the litigation, the matrimonial home may have to be sold. Each party’s testimony, as well as the testimony provided by other witnesses, leads to the conclusion that the parties, during their relationship, lived beyond their financial means. Each has relied heavily on their respective parents to finance their day to day living and this litigation.

[6] L.A.-M. has used four different law firms yet appeared at trial without counsel. She is intelligent and well spoken. It is not surprising that she has the ability to convince people of the truth of her “factual” statements when there is no one to challenge the veracity of some of her claims, many of which were clearly false. This hearing likely would have been unnecessary if she had allowed the children to have reasonable contact with their father.

[7] T.M. has been represented by counsel throughout. While he may expect to see a costs order in his favour, it is questionable if he would be able to collect, as it appears from testimony that L.A.-M. is without employment and her assets mentioned at trial may have been consumed by the present trial.

Background

[8] Both parents were raised in the Maritimes, where their parents continue to reside. Each has frequent, weekly, if not daily, contact with their parents.

[9] L.A.-M. attended university in the Maritimes and obtained a degree in Media Arts. She had an on again off again relationship with another student who became a chiropractor, Dr. F. This relationship produced one child, Tim born in 2005. Their relationship ended in 2007. Not by the father’s choice, the relationship between Tim and his biological father ended almost immediately.

[10] T.M. has both a BA and an MA from Maritime universities. Since graduation he has worked for companies owned by his father in the Maritimes and in Ontario. The parties met in April 2008 when T.M. hired L.A.-M. They began to cohabit in May 2008 and were married in February 2009. T.M. and L.A.-M. relocated to Ontario in December 2010.

[11] T.M. adopted Tim in December 2009. There was a celebration involving family and friends. Both T.M. and his family have treated this child as their own.

[12] While residing together, the parents co-parented the children. L.A.-M. was the primary parent even when she was working outside of the home; however, T.M. took an active role with the children, especially in the morning, when he was the primary parent prior to going to work. The family was busy with two young children. Their lifestyle would not have been sustained without the financial assistance of their parents. The spending pattern of L.A.-M. was a source of conflict as T.M. felt the parties were living beyond their means.

[13] The parties had frequent arguments, T.M. having a more well-documented history of anger and aggression. Both parties smoked marijuana on a regular basis.

The Children

[14] Tim was eight at the time of the separation. He is a special needs child. He has an Individual Education Plan. To deal with his hearing challenges, his teacher wears a microphone. In addition, the classroom is equipped with speakers and there are silencers on the chairs. He is on medication for ADHD. He is involved with an occupational therapist for his hands and he is required to have grips on pens and pencils for use. He has a prescription for eyeglasses. Academically, he has trouble recalling sequences of events and must have academic tests provided to him orally. He has shown aggression with younger children at school and at daycare. His parents had retained a tutor to assist him with his academic work.

[15] Despite these special needs he appears to be an exceptional athlete, with several suggestions that a career in the National Hockey League may be in his future. He plays AAA hockey and has played on provincial teams, travelling extensively throughout North America to play hockey despite his tender age. The issue of his hockey caused some friction within the marriage, as T.M., while supporting his son’s hockey, questioned whether they could afford the expense or the time, sometimes six times a week. In addition, the parents disagreed on how to discipline Tim for his behavioural issues. T.M. suggested that withdrawal of some hockey events be used as a punishment, whereas L.A.-M. was clearly invested in her son becoming a star hockey player and was opposed to any cutback in hockey.

[16] Susie was one and a half when her parents separated. She attends a professional daycare centre. The centre reported in a letter of September 24, 2014 to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) that:

[Susie] was described as a very happy and friendly child whose
behavior and development were of no concern. . . . was curious,
explored all activities in the classroom and had positive
relationships with her peers and teachers. Teachers at the centre
reported that she enjoyed sharing positive stories about her life
with her mother and [Tim]; however she would never discuss
her father.

The Separation

[17] The parties had conflicts over addictions, aggression, and mental illness as alleged by L.A.-M.; T.M. alleges that disputes arose as to finances, discipline of the children, and infidelity on the part of his wife

[18] In January 2013, T.M., being suspicious that his wife was having an affair, hired a private investigator and put a GPS in her vehicle. In addition he had L.A.-M.’s underwear analyzed for male DNA, which he testified was confirmed, although no documentary proof given. T.M. claims that the investigation cost $5,000 and ended the same month. Also in January, with mother’s consent, he took Susie to the Maritimes to visit with his family. This fact is surprising given that a few months later, after the separation, L.A.-M. claimed that T.M. could only have supervised access to his children.

[19] On May 19, 2013, T.M. remained at home while L.A.-M. took Tim to hockey. He was packing the family camper, bought with funds provided by his mother, for a family trip to an out-of-town campground. He let the two family dogs out. Later, one came in. When he went outside to look for the other dog, elderly and blind, he found the dog underneath the swimming pool solar blanket, having drowned.

[20] He placed the dog next to the house such that the children would not see the dog. He told L.A.-M. what happened. She came out of the house in a distraught state and gave the dog mouth to mouth artificial respiration in front of eight-year-old Tim. She then wrapped the dog in a blanket placed the dog on Tim’s lap in the car and went to see a veterinarian. She claimed then, and continues to claim, that T.M. deliberately killed the dog, although she has provided no proof of this claim. In listening to the accounts of this incident from both parents, this court finds the allegations of L.A.-M. concerning this incident preposterous.

[21] The parties separated that day when L.A.-M. went to the campground with the two children.

[22] The parties continued to communicate with each other frequently by text messaging. It was clear that T.M. desperately wanted to see his children. The parties, at L.A.-M.’s suggestion, met at the matrimonial home on June 3, 2013 and attended a local rib fest together. Her actions in inviting him to the home were in contrast to the danger and fear outlined in her affidavit in her motion without notice issued on June 11, 2013, resulting in an order for supervised access.

[23] Under Rule 14 (12) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, a motion may be brought without notice if there is danger that the child was going to be removed from Ontario, or if there is danger to the health or safety of any child or party. Unfortunately, for the future history of this case, she gave a one sided view of the facts. After hearing both sides of the case, it is clear that this motion without notice should not have been brought and if both sides of the story had been presented, a different order would have been made.

[24] The first supervised access visit was set for July 6, 2013. L.A.-M. had not allowed T.M. to see his children since the May 19 separation other than the family excursion to the rib fest event on June 3. At the end of the rib fest , T.M. left the matrimonial home which seemed to surprise L.A.-M. who thought he was staying to try to work things out. During the month of June and before the first access visit, L.A.-M. told eight-year-old Tim that

a) T.M. had killed his dog;
b) T.M. was not really his father; and,
c) He did not have to go for visits with T.M. if he did not wish to.

[25] Tim has had no visits with his father since the very first access visit on July 6, 2013.

[26] Initial orders made without notice can have long term consequences on the direction of a case. Through delays caused by seeking counsel, disclosure, obtaining supervised access notes, awaiting completion of the Children’s Lawyer Report, and coordination of schedules for court attendances, these orders often continue longer than initially anticipated. That is exactly what happened in this case. It is surprising that T.M. took his daughter to the Maritimes in January with the blessing of the child’s mother and was prevented from seeing his daughter without supervision four months later, a state of affairs that has lasted until trial, more than two years later.

[27] During this two year period, L.A.-M. went on the offensive making numerous allegations not only against T.M. but also against others who she felt had wronged her.

(a) L.A.-M. made numerous complaints to the Toronto and Durham police about T.M. These included issues of being followed, her home security system being compromised, a tarantula being in a package delivered to her door, and the death of her dog. Detective Samuels of the Durham Region Police Service, who had investigated many of these complaints, reported to the Children’s Lawyer that there was very little information to substantiate any of L.A.-M.’s allegations. The one verified instance of L.A.-M. being followed was that of private investigator retained by the TTC in light of possible personal injury litigation.

(b) L.A.-M. has maintained, even at trial, that T.M. killed the dog despite the fact that she has absolutely no evidence to support such a bold allegation. The incident was investigated by the police who visited the office of the veterinarian. She had arranged to have the dog cremated, eliminating one potential source of evidence of maltreatment. Despite the lack of evidence, she has continued to tell her children and others who will listen that T.M. killed the dog. It is not surprising, as she is a convincing story-teller, that others believe her and make judgments against T.M. without giving him an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

(c) L.A.-M. complained that a technician in the veterinarian’s office had incorrect facts and may even have been reporting on a completely different dog.

(d) L.A.-M. made a complaint, through a personal injury lawyer, to the Toronto Transit Commission about the actions of one of their drivers after she fell on their property. Nothing came of this complaint.

(e) L.A.-M. complained to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services about a private investigator that was allegedly following her. She suggested to police that they had a conflict in that the investigator’s father was a senior police officer. She claims that the investigator was hired by T.M., while Detective Samuels reported to the Children’s Lawyer that the investigator had been hired by the TTC.

(f) L.A.-M. complained about the Children’s Lawyer investigator, providing as proof a document that she had found on the internet, entitled “Exposing Corrupted Canadian Government Agencies and Public Officials with Questionable Conduct,” naming numerous public officials (CAS workers, Children’s Lawyer staff, police, and judges) without providing proof of the allegations.

(g) L.A.-M. complained about a courier being on her property to deliver Easter gifts to the children from their grandmother in the Maritimes. As a result, future gifts to children had to go through lawyers.

(h) L.A.-M. accused T.M. of intercepting her mail by redirecting it; however, the Canada Post Change of Address form, filed at trial, clearly indicates that it was only his mail that was to be redirected.

(i) L.A.-M. accused her mother-in-law, the paternal grandmother, of associating with the Hell’s Angels and being addicted to narcotics for pain. The physician for the paternal grandmother testified that she was not addicted to narcotics, that she was a well-respected member of their community and that he would have no hesitation in leaving his own grandchildren with her. The physician’s observations were confirmed when the grandmother testified in person, as she appeared to be a devoted grandmother who was being denied contact with her grandchildren, whom she had doted on prior to the separation. Even L.A.-M.’s own father saw no reason why the paternal grandmother, her partner, or her former husband, the paternal grandfather, should not have a relationship with the children.

(j) L.A.-M. has no relationship with her sister, the only member of her family of origin residing in Ontario. L.A.-M. complained that her sister has a bipolar disorder and is dating someone from an Asian mob. L.A.-M.’s father, who is in regular contact with this daughter, seemed surprised at the allegations L.A.-M. was making. The reality is that her sister has remained on friendly terms with T.M. and has been denied contact by L.A.-M. with her niece and nephew since January 2014.

(k) L.A.-M. has used four different lawyers in this matrimonial litigation and became self-represented shortly after the release of the OCL findings.

(l) L.A.-M. made a complaint to the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) about T.M. just prior to trial and coinciding with a time that the paternal grandmother was going to be able to attend an access visit. Due to the complaint, the supervised access centre was obligated to suspend further visits. A CAS worker testified at trial that there was nothing new with these allegations that had not been investigated before and resulted in a closed file.

(m) T.M. was required to get a court order so that he could take a picture of his own daughter at the supervised access facility.

(n) L.A.-M. changed the name on the back of Tim’s jersey by removing T.M.’s surname and suggested that it was the child’s idea.

[28] Sadly, L.A.-M. had made similar complaints against Dr. F., the biological father of Tim. Dr. F. appeared to be a reluctant participant in these proceedings. He cooperated with the author of the Children’s Lawyer Report but wished his comments to remain between them. He flew in from the Maritimes to testify, not with an appearance of vengeance, but of a continuing concern for his son. Dr. F. had given up his son for adoption, following similar allegations by L.A.-M. as she is making in the present case.

[29] L.A.-M. and Dr. F. had lived in Toronto while he was attending chiropractic college. They appeared to be in a conjugal relationship because of the birth of their son, Tim. Nevertheless, the two had a tumultuous relationship which included shoving each another.

[30] Nearing the end of L.A.-M. and Dr. F.’s relationship, Dr. F. had made plans to take Tim on a trip with his family. The night before the trip, Dr. F. and L.A.-M. had scuffled over a telephone. He told her that he wanted nothing more to do with her, perhaps a signal of a separation. The next morning L.A.-M. took Tim and Dr. F. to the airport.

[31] While Dr. F. was away with Tim, L.A.-M. had laid a complaint with the police against him. Upon his return, he reported to the police station as requested. He was jailed overnight and immediately was caught in both the family and criminal court systems. Like T.M., who was denied any but supervised access four months after he took Susie on a trip to the Maritimes, supervised access was imposed on Dr. F. as soon as he returned from this trip that he had taken with the consent of L.A.-M. Already facing substantial debt from his academic studies and intending to return to the Maritimes as soon as he graduated, he gave up the family and criminal court battles and reluctantly gave up the right to see his son.

[32] He pled guilty to assaulting L.A.-M. over the telephone incident the night before he left the relationship. L.A.-M. testified that Dr. F. had been found guilty of assaulting Tim. This was another falsehood perpetrated by L.A.-M., as Dr. F. pled guilty to an assault on L.A.-M. and received a conditional discharge, while all other charges were withdrawn.

[33] Dr. F. was not the only member of his family who L.A.-M. cut off from contact with Tim. Tim’s primary babysitter at the time was a paternal great aunt who had worked for 40 years with the same bank. She was childless but had taken the young couple and child into her home for several months when they first arrived in Toronto, had equipped her house with baby gear (cribs, gates, strollers etc.), and often cared for the child on weekends while his parents did other things.

[34] L.A.-M. also cut off Dr. F.’s parents, both professionals, from seeing their grandson. The allegations L.A.-M. made about Tim’s biological paternal family to eliminate them from Tim’s life are very similar to the ones she later made about T.M. and his family – injuring a dog, associations with bikers, drugs, and illegal organizations – yet no proof was provided.

[35] A review of the conclusions in the Children’s Lawyer Report of Ms. Ambrozic confirms that L.A.-M. has not encouraged a relationship between the children, and their father, and to the contrary has alienated the children from T.M.:

a) [T.M.] is not a threat to [L.A.-M.] or the children. (p. 19)

b) It is clear that [Tim] has been negatively influenced by [L.A.-M.] regarding his image of [T.M.]. (p. 20)

c) It is clear from the Durham CAS report, that [L.A.-M.] had provided a great deal of adult information to [Tim], and as a result of that, the child vehemently denied having hugged or told his father that he loved him despite a recording indicating the contrary in a Durham Supervised Access Centre Report. (p.20)

d) Reports from the Durham Supervised Access Program revealed that [L.A.-M.] was unable to encourage [Tim] to visit with his father in their setting. (p.20)

e) The relentless allegations to the police may have been in an effort to frustrate [T.M.] and the relationship between him and his children. (p.20)

f) Since the separation, [L.A.-M.] has made repeated and exhaustive complaints about [T.M.] to the police, and has caused numerous audits and other investigations into his family business. (p.21)

g) Despite evidence that [T.M.] tested negative for drug use and could not be linked by police to the private investigator following L.A.-M. or other criminal incidents related to her home, [L.A.-M.] has maintained that because his family is wealthy, [T.M.] is above the law and is able to pay off connections for clean drug tests or to lie to police and get away with it. (p. 21)

h) It is concerning that reports from the Toronto Catholic Children’s Aid Society which chronical (sic) her separation from [Dr. F.] similarly also state that he and his family were above the law as they were wealthy, he was able to access her computer, know her whereabouts at all times, and had connections with the neighbour downstairs who might somehow divulge private information that could harm her or [Tim]. (p.21)

i) [L.A.-M.] appeared entrenched in her perception of people and relationships as well as unable to move past her negative emotions and fear. (p. 21)

[36] T.M. has not been without his own struggles. He has had a life long history of friction with his father who also happens to be his employer. The two have attended counselling together. Several witnesses, including T.M. himself, have referred to his temper. To his credit, when he received the recommendation from the OCL to obtain anger management counselling, he commenced counselling immediately.

[37] T.M. has had a spotty record of attendance at the supervised access centre, surprising for one who seeks custody, such that his visits were suspended. To his credit, both he and his family have appeared to remain committed to both children despite the fact that there has been interference with contact to both children and no contact with Tim for over two years.

The Plans

[38] Whether making custody decisions under federal legislation (Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.)) or provincial legislation (Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 [CLRA]), the decision is to be made based on the best interests of the child. As a divorce has been claimed, this decision is made under the Divorce Act. The major distinguishing factor in determining best interests of a child under the federal legislation is the maximum contact principle found in s. 16 (10); however, in considering “the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of the child”, the enumerated list of factors found in the CLRA is helpful.

Section 16 of the Divorce Act states:

Factors

16 (8) In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child.

Past conduct

16 (9) In making an order under this section, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of that person to act as a parent of a child.

Maximum contact

16 (10) In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.

Section 24 of the CLRA states:

Best Interests of Child

24(2) The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including,

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and

(iii) persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing;

(b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing; [S.O. 2009, c. 11, s. 10]

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

(h) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application.

[39] Neither parent has presented a convincing parenting plan. L.A.-M. has a demonstrated history of alienating children from not only two fathers but also from their families who had taken an active interest in the children. T.M. appears to base his plan primarily on the deficiencies of L.A.-M., almost suggesting that the children should be placed in his care by default.

[40] Although neither party has filed any financial material during this trial, it appears that both are heavily in debt to their parents. Although L.A.-M. resides in the matrimonial home, she is not gainfully employed, and does not appear to have the means to pay the existing mortgage.

[41] It is usually in the interests of children to remain in the matrimonial home, in the same neighbourhood, and at the same school following a separation, but that may not be possible. A costs order may be made under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, which could eliminate any equity that L.A.-M. has in the matrimonial home. She has actively attempted to alienate the children from their father. Without her unreasonable actions this hearing may not have been needed.

[42] Her written submissions are largely inappropriate. Rather than submissions based on the evidence and the law as outlined in the Memorandum for Trial for Self-Represented Litigants that was provided to the Applicant and filed as the first exhibit, in her submissions she concentrates on new evidence of things that have happened since the end of the trial. The Memorandum for Trial for self-represented litigants that was provided to her including the following:

30. It is important that it is not open to your during your closing submissions to refer to matters that have not been referred to in the evidence. The purpose of your submissions is to outline your claim or defence and to review the evidence that supports your claim or defence and to point out the shortcomings in the evidence led by the opposing party.

[43] The one positive thing to note is that she is suggesting that Tim have alternate weekend access with his father, which is a major step forward in her willingness to maximize contact between Tim and his father. If regular access did take place, it would negate the major reason to award custody to T.M. However, her continued interference in the relationship between the children and their father and extended family may cause a change in custody of one or both children.

[44] If the matrimonial home is sold, where will she live? Where will the children attend school? How will parents juggle child care and employment? How will Tim be able to continue with his extensive hockey schedule if he is following a parental access schedule? What will happen to the other children in both households while a parent takes Tim to hockey? Will Susie be given the same opportunity for extra-curricular activities as her brother, or will she live in his shadow as family resources are devoted to Tim? How will the hockey expenses be paid when there are three other children who should receive equal treatment?

[45] T.M.’s plan is equally uncertain. Despite L.A.-M.’s inferences that the father has access to unlimited funds through his family, he leads a modest lifestyle. He resides with his partner, their child born in 2014, and another child expected in 2015, in a two bedroom condo in a seniors building. With four people in a two bedroom unit, he is seeking to add two more.

[46] He failed to do any exploration as to where these children would go to school in September. Tim has major special needs such that a parallel program to what has been set up for him may take months to prepare, yet there was no indication that he had taken any steps in this regard. T.M. was unaware that Susie would be entering junior kindergarten in September 2015 and did not know which school she would attend if in his care.

[47] By the time of the hearing, T.M.’s partner had never met either child in this case. Evidence was presented as to her conflict through social media with both L.A.-M. and with T.M.’s family. How would she interact with these children, and more importantly, how would they interact with her? How would Susie and Tim interact with the younger babies in the father’s home? His partner was not even called as a witness so it is not even clear if she wishes more children in the home. T.M. has a vague plan of finding larger rental accommodation. Where will it be located and what can he afford?

[48] T.M.’s plan is to provide home daycare for his children, indicating that he can do his work from home, a major adjustment to his lifestyle. Will this work? His lifestyle based on his housing appears to be modest, and any expectations of equity from the matrimonial home may be lost in legal fees even if he is awarded costs.

[49] The Children’s Lawyer offered to update the report in a year’s time. An updated report following the resolution of the financial issues will give a clearer picture of where the parties will live and the financial means at their disposal. An updated report will give an indication as to how cooperative L.A.-M. has been in facilitating access. An updated report will give an indication of how the four children have adapted to the new living and visiting arrangements. An updated report will indicate whether T.M.’s partner wishes to have a major role in the lives of Susie and Tim.

[50] L.A.-M. has had the view that Tim does not have to visit his father if does not wish to. She had suggested supervised access for Susie. At the conclusion of the testimony in June, the parties were told that an order would be made for considerable unsupervised access to Susie, the summer often being the best time in our climate for children and parents to participate in activities together. The parties were given time to negotiate access and agreed to alternate week unsupervised access. As Susie will attend junior kindergarten in September, this access regime cannot continue.

[51] In her written submissions, L.A.-M. suggests alternate weekends from Thursday to Sunday for both children plus a division of school holiday times. The Thursday to Sunday regime is not practical during the school year due to the distances between their present residences, however it may become workable if the parties are living closer together.

[52] The best decision is usually the decision that the parties can agree upon such that they should not hesitate to agree on a more workable schedule as their circumstances and those of the children change. If L.A.-M. is able to comply with the access regime for both children including the access for Tim that she suggests, it may be unnecessary for the case to return to court to consider changing the custody of one or both children.

A temporary order will be made as follows:

1. Susie and Tim shall reside with L.A.-M. for school purposes and attend S[…] Catholic School in the Durham Region.

2. L.A.-M. and T.M. shall have equal access to reports, information, and attendances at the children’s school.

3. The children’s school shall not change without the written permission of both parents.

4. T.M. shall have access to the children as follows:

(a) Susie –

(i) the second, third, and fourth Friday of each month from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m.

(ii) December 18 @ 4:00 p.m. to December 26 @ 4:00 p.m. in 2015.

(iii) March Break in even numbered years from 4:00 p.m. on the last day of school to Sunday at 4:00 p.m. on the day prior to the resumption of school. L.A.-M. will have the corresponding March Break access in odd numbered years.

(iv) Alternate weeks during the summer school holiday from Saturday @ 9:00 a.m. to Saturday @ 9:00 a.m. commencing with the first Saturday after the conclusion of school in June.

(b) Tim –

(i) on the consent of L.A.-M., as set out in her submissions, alternating weekend access, which will be fixed as the second and fourth weekends of each month, such that Tim’s weekends coincide with weekends in which Susie will exercise access.

(ii) the parties shall work towards increasing Tim’s access to parallel that of his sister, which, when achieved, may change the access to Susie to alternate weekends.

5. The children’s residence shall remain in Durham Region and in the event that L.A.-M. relocates more than 5 kilometres further than the present distance between the residences of L.A.-M. and T.M., the access exchange location shall be at the Pickering Town Centre food court.

6. The parties will participate in reunification counselling for Tim and T.M. If the parties are unable to agree on the counsellor, they may either seek a suggestion from Ms. Ambrozic or alternatively make written submissions to the court as to the nominee, qualifications, and reasons why that person is appropriate.

7. The names of the children shall not be changed without the consent of both parties until such child reaches high school.

8. T.M. shall be allowed to travel outside of Ontario with the children, including internationally, without the permission of L.A.-M.

9. If either party seeks costs, the party shall file brief (maximum 4 pages) written submissions which shall include written offers of settlement by September 30. The other party shall file brief (maximum 4 pages) written submissions by October 15.

10. Either party may proceed with the divorce on an uncontested basis.

11. Either party may seek an update of the Children’s Lawyer’s Report, as suggested by Ms. Ambrozic after the completion of the financial issues or interference with Susie’s access or a breakdown in the reconciliation counselling between Tim and his father as shown in a report from the reconciliation counsellor. The parties shall not seek further viva voce testimony until completion of the updated OCL Report and a judicial pre-trial.

12. In any publication of these reasons, the names of the parents, the children, or any other witnesses whose names could lead to the identification of the children or parents, including biological parents, shall be substituted by the pseudonyms for the children and initials for the adults.

Ingram, J.

Date: September 1, 2015