Ene v. Ene, 2015 ONSC 867

NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC 15-047412

DATE: 20150205

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Laura Minodora Ene

Applicant

– and –

George Tiberiu Ene

Respondent

D. A. Newman, for the Applicant

V. Luchko, for the Respondent

HEARD: January 28, 2015

DECISION ON MOTION

McGee J.:

[1] This is Ms. Ene’s amended notice of motion dated January 13, 2015. Her request to file an amended, amended notice of motion served the morning of the hearing of this motion on January 28, 2015 was dismissed.

[2] The amended motion seeks the following substantive orders:

a) That the respondent father be restrained from contact with the mother and their almost five year old daughter, T. born April 6, 2010;

b) That the mother be granted sole custody of T.;

c) That T’s primary residence be with the mother;

d) That the father have supervised access to T. on alternate Saturdays for several hours;

e) That there be reasonable telephone access by each parent to each of their two children, T and C. born April 17, 1999 (C. resides with the father.);

f) That each parent have the right to release of health, daycare and education information;

g) That the police be directed to enforce all custody and access orders; and

h) That the OCL be requested to provide assistance

[3] The parties were married on March 19, 1990 and are the parents of two daughters with birthdays in April: C. who will shortly turn sixteen, and T., who will turn five. Despite the age difference, or perhaps because of it, the sisters share a strong bond.

[4] The family lives in Markham. Both parties allege that the other is an abusive spouse. It is not contested that the home environment has been difficult for some time. Counselling supports have been accessed. C. has a youth therapist.

[5] The applicant mother is a software quality assurance analyst employed by a major bank, and earns $89,000 per annum. The father is a self-employed software consultant. The mother states in her materials that he earned over $100,000 in 2014.

[6] The mother states that the parties separated on December 23, 2014. Her Application was served January 9, 2015. This motion was brought before the close of pleadings. The father’s Answer is not yet due.

[7] The mother’s counsel brought this motion before the court on Wednesday, January 14th, three weeks after the date of separation, five days after she served the father with an Application in response to his counsel’s request for normalized weekend access, two days after she caused an urgent case conference to proceed, and one day after she served the motion materials.

[8] The father understandably asked for an adjournment in order to prepare a response. It was agreed that the motion with respect to access met the criteria in Rule 14 (4.2) as the father had not seen his four year old daughter since December 23rd. He had not even known where she was for the initial period after separation.

[9] The new date of January 28th was granted with a specific timetable for the delivery of materials. Additionally, the court also attempted to organize the motion for its return. The mother’s relief as drafted was repetitive, and wildly overreaching for a one hour motion heard only three weeks after the date of separation. By end of day, the parties were able to bring some order to the dispute and entered into terms for a temporary order as follows:

1. An order allowing the mother to amend her application;

2. A mutual and specific Section 46 restraining order between the spouses;

3. An order that T.’s primary residence would be with the mother;

4. An order that the father have access from Friday January 16, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday January 18, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. to be supervised by either the paternal aunt, or one of two paternal nieces;

5. An order that the father would have access to T. on Saturday January 24 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. with terms for transportation and others being present;

6. A temporary order for telephone and electronic communication;

7. A request for the appointment of the OCL for their older daughter as well as the younger daughter (such order being made on January 12th, 2015 at the case conference); and

8. Each party would pay their own costs for the Consent agreement.

[10] The endorsement of January 14, 2015 incorporates the consent as a term of the adjournment and specifically reads that, “Counsels are reminded that the motion is scheduled for one hour only.”

[11] It was anticipated by the court that the agreed access summarized in paragraphs 4 and 5 above might move the parties forward in a positive manner and that at the return of the motion on January 28th, the parents could focus on a go forward parenting plan.

[12] Quite a different presentation greeted the court on the morning of the 28th. Counsel for the mother sought to further amend her motion, file additional materials and then stay her own motion until the York Region Child and Family Services (the Society) concluded an investigation that the mother believed would automatically result from her call to the Society the prior evening.

[13] Counsel for the mother urged the court to “leave the status quo until such time as the Society could fully investigate the father’s abuse.” Counsel for the mother understood the status quo to be a situation in which the father would have no unsupervised access to their youngest daughter, whom the mother had surreptitiously removed from the home on December 25th, 2014. She asked for a decision that is “respectful of T.’s safety.”

[14] At absolutely no time did counsel for the mother, or the mother within her three affidavits make any mention of the sisters having time with one another, or the effect on them of the forced separation.

[15] The presentation of the mother’s case was so atypical and so concerning, that the court reserved these reasons for a full assessment of the voluminous materials that she has filed. A letter has also been requested from the Society. The extra time spent on this initial step is hoped - in the long run - to shorten what appears in its initial stages to be the most precarious form of family law dispute.

[16] A letter from the Society dated February 2, 2015 has now been forwarded to me by mother’s counsel. The letter confirms that the mother reported child protection concerns on January 27, 2015 (the day before the return of the motion) and that the Society has allotted 30 days for an investigation. No other statement is made.

Relevant Chronology

[17] On December 20, 2014 the mother attempted to access files on the father’s work computer hard drive. He objected, as they contained confidential client information. The police were called to the home after the dispute escalated. It was upsetting and distressing for both parties. No charges were laid.

[18] In the ordinary course following on a police attendance there has been a Society visit to the home. The attending family service worker did not open a file.

[19] On December 23, 2014 the father sent the mother an email. In her January 9, 2015 affidavit the mother describes this email as “a derogatory Separation Notice.” In submissions, her counsel relies on receipt of that email as creating a fearful, defining event that alerted her client to the seriousness of her situation and justified her subsequent actions. A copy of that email is attached to her January 9, 2015 affidavit.

[20] A review of the December 23, 2014 email shows a polite, heartfelt and completely appropriate communication from the father. It concludes as follows:

I invite you to participate and respectively join me in finding the common ground for a safe, nurturing and loving framework of living that will ensure a positive development for our daughters, C. and T. Let’s work together to draft a settlement agreement that will reflect this framework for our children and create a good foundation for us to move on.

[21] On Christmas Day, the father expressed an intention to take the girls to their paternal uncle’s home that evening after dinner. At some point later in the day, Ms. Ene surreptitiously took T. and left the home. She has not been back. She sent the father a short email of the same date. It states that she considers the marriage over and that her lawyer would be soon in touch. She did not state where she or T had gone.

[22] For the next four days the father went out of his mind with worry. He had no idea where T had been taken.

[23] On December 29th, 2014 the father received an email from Ms. Newman, counsel for the mother. The email attached a simple letter advising of her retainer and inviting Mr. Ene to retain counsel to address issues arising from the separation. Mr. Ene retained counsel on January 6th, 2015.

[24] By letter dated January 7th, 2015 Ms. Newman proposed telephone access and an access visit at the Promenade Mall for the coming Saturday from 2:30 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. The letter states that the mother, her sister and her brother-in-law would all be present at the mall during the visit. The mother also requests to see C.

[25] Counsel for the father replied January 8, 2015. He describes the proposal as unwarranted. He sets out his client’s concerns regarding a telephone call of the previous evening in which it sounded as if four year old T. was being monitored and coached. He questioned why T. had been kept out of school since January 5th: the return from holidays.

[26] Father’s counsel proposed that T be returned to school, that the father pick her up after school on Friday, have her for the weekend and return her to school Monday, January 12th.

[27] On Friday January 9th Ms. Newman wrote to father’s counsel as follows:

Since the demands of George Ene, as set out in your January 8, 2015 letter are contrary to the best interest and safety of T., Laura Ene has provided instructions to initiate court proceedings.

[28] That same day, Friday January 9, 2015, Ms. Ene issued and served on the father an Application with a notice for an urgent case conference scheduled for Monday, January 12th. Also served was a Notice of Motion seeking immediate orders copied from the Application. The proposed visit for Saturday was withdrawn. There were no further offers for telephone access.

[29] Attached to the Application was a Form 35.1 Parenting Affidavit sworn January 9, 2014. It states at paragraph 8[^1] that the respondent has been “verbally abusive and physically hurtful towards her in the presence of the children.” There is no statement of any harm to the children.

[30] In the mother’s supporting affidavit she sets out at some length her role as the primary parent to both children, and that there had been “intense conflict and threatening behaviour by the respondent.”

[31] She goes on to detail her experiences, most of which were historical in nature, dating back to 1995. She deposes at paragraph 10 that during the marriage the father “was physically violent towards me and at times towards the children.” She concludes at paragraph 34 that she has “an imminent fear of harm particularly with respect to the safety of T., and myself.”

[32] The parties attended court on Monday, January 12th. Mr. Ene served an affidavit dated that day in response to the mother’s motion. The court did not hear the motion, and conducted the urgent case conference. Views were expressed on normalizing access and the OCL was invited to represent T.

Mother’s Motion

[33] The next day, Tuesday, January 13th Ms. Ene’s amended her motion and set a return date for Wednesday, January 14th. In support of the amended affidavit and in response to the father’s affidavit she filed:

a) A new affidavit deposed January 13, 2015;

b) The affidavit of Mirela Turner (her sister) dated January 12, 2015; and

c) The affidavit of Marsha Berniker (her therapist) dated January 13, 2015.

[34] Ms. Ene’s second affidavit escalates the allegations of physical abuse to an extent so extreme that they lack the ring of truth. The allegations are overgeneralized, and expansive. They could not credibly have been unknown to her five days previously when she deposed her January 9th affidavit and Form 35.1 affidavit.

[35] Ms.Ene’s second affidavit ties the engagement of C.’s therapist to the father’s conduct. The court cannot draw that conclusion at this early stage. C having a therapist is equally consistent with the father’s evidence that C. is struggling with issues with her mother.

[36] The affidavit of Ms. Ene’s sister is unequivocally supportive, and just as extreme and expansive in the allegations of abuse. She states that she has witnessed such abuse. She wants her former brother-in-law to have only supervised access.

[37] Neither the mother, nor her sister’s affidavit displays any concern for preserving T.’s relationship with her father or her older sister. Both extoll the virtues of the mother, and the villainy of the father.

[38] Marsha Berniker attaches by schedule to an affidavit sworn January 13th an undated letter, “To Whom it May Concern” which relates information given by the mother, and the resulting referral for C. to have therapy. The letter states that C. having therapy was agreed to by both parents. Inserted into the last paragraph is a statement that the mother has expressed concerns with the father having unsupervised access.

[39] The motion came before the court on Wednesday, January 14th. As above, the father succeeded in obtaining an adjournment in order to prepare materials.

Father’s Response

[40] Mr. Ene’s responding affidavit is dated January 20, 2015. He correctly observes that there were no specific allegations of his harming his daughters in any of Ms. Ene’s original materials. He states that it was only after receiving the views of the case conference judge on Monday, January 12th, that the mother’s allegations of abuse towards the girls materialized.

[41] Mr. Ene deposess that the allegations of abuse are complete fabrications intended to secure custody of T. and exclude, or control his relationship with her and with T. He deposes that he has never been contacted by police or a child protection authority on any allegation of abuse prior to the mother’s motion. He acknowledges that he installed cameras in the home, and states that he did so, on advice, to protect himself from false allegations.

[42] Mr. Ene claims, and has deposed in his parenting affidavit that it is the mother who is abusive, manipulative and prone to angry outbursts. He states that the mother’s controlling nature lies at the root of her poor, if not troubled relationship with their fifteen year old daughter.

[43] The father sets out his various caregiving roles in the family, his understanding of the events leading to the separation and his efforts to keep the peace over the years of difficult family dynamics.

[44] In his affidavit he relates the events of Friday, January 16th until Sunday, January 18th. He describes both transfers of T. at the Food Court at the local mall as most distressing. On each occasion T. was accompanied by her maternal aunt and uncle. By January 16th he had not seen T. since December 25th and he describes T. as clinging to him and her older sister throughout the weekend. He states that T. “was not herself.”

[45] The father describes the trauma and devastation being experienced by each sister. He is concerned with the effects of the forced separation.

[46] During the return exchange at the Food Court on Sunday, Mr. Ene was advised that despite the agreement for access on January 24th he would not see T. again until after the motion scheduled for January 28th. Based on the materials filed, that threat was made good.

[47] Included in the father’s responding materials are affidavits from each of his brother, and sister-in-law as well as that of two family friends: Ms. Rugina and Ms. Platica. Also included is a supportive affidavit from the girls’ twenty year old cousin.

Mother’s Reply materials

[48] The mother’s reply materials were served on the last date permitted within the January 14th endorsement: Monday, January 26th. Ten affidavits in all, and Ms. Newman sought to file even further materials on the morning of the 28th.

[49] Only a fraction of the reply materials were proper reply materials, in that they responded to allegations raised for the first time within the father’s materials. Rather, the reply materials contained much that is wholly irrelevant to the issue of the father’s parenting time, peppered with further escalating allegations – to which the father has no ability to respond within the timetable ordered on January 14th.

[50] Below is a listing of the date of each of the ten affidavits, the deponent and the essence of the deponent’s sworn statement.

a) January 23, 2015 Dr. Maze

Dr. Maze attaches a letter dated January 23, 2015 in which she confirms only that she is the children’s paediatrician, and that Ms. Ene is the main caregiver for T., and was the main caregiver for C. until December 25, 2014.

b) January 23, 2015 Marie Mousa,

Principal of the girls’ school confirms that Ms. Ene is a good mother and that tuition fees are paid on time.

c) January 23, 2015 Lily Cheung

The administrative assistant at the girls’ school states that Ms. Ene is a gentle person who loves her daughters.

d) January 25, 2015 Karen Galler

A former counsellor for the mother who provided services from June 2010 to September 2011, Ms. Galler states that she assisted the mother in developing coping strategies to deal with stress relating to abuse from her husband, a new born baby and “normal mother daughter relationship issues.” Ms. Galler states that she has full confidence in Ms. Ene’s ability to be an excellent mother.

e) January 25, 2015 Mirela Turner

This second affidavit from the mother’s sister reinforces at some length that the father is a wholly unworthy individual in every respect; and that her sister is longsuffering, an excellent mother and entirely without fault.

f) January 25, 2015 Michael Turner

This second affidavit by the mother’s brother- in- law is shorter, and focusses on Ms. Ene’s excellent caregiving skills, T.’s contentedness living in his home, and the transfer at the mall on January 16, 2015.

g) January 25, 2015 Rhellyjean Alborough

Ms. Alborough is the family’s housekeeper. She deposes an affidavit form to which a lengthy Schedule is attached. The Schedule is drafted in the same manner and voice as all ten of the affidavits.

Ms. Alborough’s Schedule relates historical events and suggests that Mr. Ene posed a relationship with her in 2011, and that she observed inappropriate behaviour between Mr. Ene and C. in November 2014. She describes the tension in the house on December 24th and the upsetting effect of having cameras in the home. She states that she found a gun in the home. She is concerned about the safety of the children.

h) January 25, 2015 Mihaela Butaru

Ms. Butaru is a friend of Ms. Ene who believes that she is a good mother, and who repeats in her statement what has been told to her by Ms. Ene.

i) January 25, 2015 Nancy Bakuska

Ms. Bakuska is a friend and work colleague who thinks that Ms. Ene is quite extraordinary.

j) January 26, 2015 Laura Ene

In her third affidavit, Ms. Ene takes the opportunity to explain why she left the girls in their father’s care for two weeks in April of 2014, that he is a terrible cook, an even worse housekeeper, and that he does not practise meditation – as she does. She reinforces that she and C. have experienced first-hand Mr. Ene’s physical punishment and that he continually mocks her.

She also states that Mr. Ene arranges for the girls’ extracurricular activities, although she casts this also in a negative light. The affidavit then carries on to some considerable extent with allegations of philandering and an admission of her own. Only in the last paragraph – 39 – does she mention C in passing, and her view that Mr. Ene is limiting her text, email and telephone access to fifteen year old C.

Hearing of the Motion

Mother

[51] The motion returned on January 28, 2015. As above, counsel for the mother advised the court that the mother had made a report to the Society the previous evening. She urged the court to leave the status quo until such time as the Society could fully investigate the father’s abuse.

[52] The status quo is understood by Ms. Newman as being a state in which T. is in the primary care of her mother, without any access to the father, but for perhaps supervised access. When pressed for the proposed terms of such access, Ms. Newman could only speak in generalities, as she had not investigated local services, waiting periods or costs. [^2] She proposed that access would be on alternate Saturdays “for a few hours” in the morning.

[53] When asked by the court whether T. was in any activities, the mother advised that T. is enrolled in music lessons on Saturday mornings – although she has not taken her since the separation, as that had always been the father’s activity with her. This information was not within her affidavit and somewhat confused counsel’s position on her proposal for supervised access.

[54] It was shocking to the court to learn - by the luck of asking the right question, - that the mother had removed T. from a weekly activity that both parents agree she loves.

[55] Since separation the mother has enrolled T. in skating on Fridays and Sundays. The father indicted that he would be delighted to take her skating.

[56] At no time did the mother suggest that she wants to see C. or that T. and C. ought to spend any time together, or that a relationship between T. and her father might carry any benefits. She does not want T. to see any of her father’s relations.

Father

[57] Father’s counsel states that he is amenable to joint parenting, and is frightened by the prospect of T. being alienated from him. He wants his daughter back home where she can sleep in her own room and play with her sister. He wants T. to have an excellent relationship with each of her parents and is afraid that T. will become fearful of him while under the influence of the mother and her sister.

[58] The father also wants C. to have a good relationship with each parent, but acknowledges that C. is able to form her own views, and is in counselling to support her through these difficult times.

[59] He is content with the mutual restraining order. He believes that having no direct contact with the mother may protect him from false allegations. He states that items have gone missing from his office and that the police advised him to place cameras in the home.

[60] Finally, the father is worried about the allegations of abuse. The housekeeper’s elicited statement that there is a gun in the house must be answered. His counsel states that only a BB gun is in the home, that its presence has always been known to both parents and that there is no associated risk.

[61] Neither counsel referenced any caselaw or statute.

Analysis

Preliminary Issue of the Letters from Ms. Berniker, Dr. Maze and Ms. Galler

[62] I will begin with a preliminary issue identified by the court to which neither counsel had put his or her mind: the admissibility, or relevance of the letters from Ms. Berniker, Dr. Maze and Ms. Galler.

[63] I find that the latter two letters are not relevant, and so I will dealt with each in a cursory manner. Dr. Maze’s letter states facts not germane to the question of the father’s parenting time. Ms. Galler’s letter speaks to a period over three years past, and moreover, does not assist the mother’s view that the father poses some form of current threat to young T.

[64] Ms. Berniker’s letter does draw the court’s attention. The form of the letter suggests that the last paragraph, which has a different indentation, represents the author’s opinion, even though it is phrased as a recitation of what the mother has told her.

[65] That letter cannot form part of the evidence to be relied upon by the court. Aside from the obvious oath helping, the letter and incorporating affidavit do not identify that Ms. Berniker appreciates the purpose to which the letter is being used, or her responsibility to provide neutral, independent evidence under Rule 20.1 of the Family Law Rules.

[66] Neither is it clear to the court whether the letter is simply tendered as proof that the mother made the statements to Ms. Berniker, or whether it is Ms. Berniker’s opinion that the statements are true. One cannot infuse evidence with increased probative value by having a professional person repeat what he or she has been told.

[67] Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2013 CarswellOnt 9059 (Ont. Div. Ct.), decided under Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure sets out an expert's duty to neutrally assist the court. If a treating physician is going to give evidence as an expert, he or she must comply strictly with the requirements of Rule 20.1 of the Family Law Rules:

Duty of Expert

20.1 (1) It is the duty of every expert who provides evidence in relation to a case under these rules,

(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;

(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and

(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue. O. Reg. 383/11, s. 6.

Duty Prevails

(2) In the case of an expert engaged by or on behalf of a party, the duty in subrule (1) prevails over any obligation owed by the expert to that party. O. Reg. 383/11, s. 6.

[68] In Westerhof (supra) the Divisional Court held that wherever a party seeks to adduce opinion evidence from a physician, he or she must comply with Rule 53.03, and by analogy Rule 20.1 of the Family Law Rules. The affidavit of Ms. Berniker which attaches her “To Whom it May Concern” letter clearly does not comply with Rule 20.1 and cannot be considered as opinion evidence. If it is proposed as fact evidence, then neither it, nor the letters of Ms. Gallant or Dr. Maze are helpful, as they simply restate what the mother has deposed, without adding any probative value.

Obligation on each Parent to foster and protect the child’s relationship with her other Parent

[69] Much can be said on the obligation of a parent to foster and protect a child’s relationship with the other parent. A custodial parent has a particular duty to do so as set out in section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act R.S.O. 1990, c.12. Section 16(10) of the Divorce Act promotes maximum contact between children and each of their parents.

[70] The end of a spousal relationship does not terminate the parent – child relationship. Nor does it terminate a child’s fundamental need for love, attachment and the support of each parent. A parent who intentionally removes the other parent from his or her child’s life commits an abuse upon the child.

[71] Ms. Ene’s actions since December 25, 2014 can only be interpreted as her personal, perhaps even panicked response to the breakdown of the marriage. At some point she formed a view that her interests were best protected by having T. in her primary care. It simply cannot be said that she has acted with a view to T.’s best interests. The prospect of a normalized relationship between father and daughter has not calmed her, but rather has escalated her fears, and the projection of those fears upon her young daughter.

[72] The rate and number of allies that Ms. Ene has launched into this action – before even the close of pleadings – does not bode well. The fact that she continued to escalate after the father agreed on January 14th that she would be the primary caregiver is concerning. She has left the court with a view that she will tolerate nothing short of a total exclusion of the father from her own life, and that of the daughter that she was able to take under her control on December 25th.

[73] Meanwhile, she takes no meaningful steps to pursue a relationship with her fifteen year old daughter, or to ensure that the sisters have time together. This is quite telling, and may ultimately prove to be the greatest harm caused to young T.

[74] In my view, immediate action is warranted. There could be no clearer pattern of conduct than that chronicled over the past six weeks. I make the following multidirectional temporary order. My order is intended to:

a) Balance the effects of the last period, and give T. a period to recover from the abrupt change to her life since December 25th;

b) Give the sisters significant time together;

c) Provide the Society an opportunity to directly observe the father’s parenting – rather than have only the parties’ views and statements; and

d) Provide each parent an opportunity to demonstrate that he or she is able to support the other’s role in T.’s life.

[75] The last point bears emphasis. This is a very early stage in which course corrections can still be made with minimal long term damage. The parents are separated. The marriage is over. T and C. will now have a residence with each parent. The future pattern of their time within each home, their parents’ ability to make decisions together, or the need to vest one parent with decision making authority has yet to be determined.

Order to go as Follows

1. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 (marked 7 on the original) of the consent order of January 14, 2015 are varied to provide that T. shall reside with her father from afterschool on Friday, February 6th until delivery to school on Tuesday, March 3rd;

2. For the first seven days, the father is not required to arrange for telephone or electronic communication between mother and daughter;

3. T. is to have with her on Friday, February 6th her backpack and a suitcase/bag with all school items, toys, electronics and any items personal to her. Additional items personal to her are to made available for the father to pick up from his counsel’s office – to which they are to be delivered by the mother, or through mother’s counsel;

4. Thereafter, the following schedule shall apply:

a) T. shall reside with her mother from after school on Tuesday, March the 3rd until delivery to school on Friday, March the 6th;

b) T. shall reside with her father from afterschool on Friday, March the 6th until return to school on Monday, March 9th;

c) T. shall reside with her mother from afterschool on Monday, March 9th until return to school on Wednesday, March 11th;

d) T. shall reside with her father from afterschool Wednesday, March 11th until return to school Friday, March 13th;

e) T. shall reside with her mother from afterschool on Friday, March 13th until return to school on Monday, March 16th; and

f) The schedule shall thereafter continue until further court order or agreement of the parties.

5. All pick up and drop offs shall be at the school. Only the parent picking up T. shall be present at the time of pick up or drop off, except in rare cases when a parent is not available. In that event one person shall be designated in advance, and communicated by email to the other parent as the person acting in the stead of a parent. Pick up may be from anytime between the end of the school day, to the end of the afterschool daycare program;

6. When a pickup or drop off is not available at the school, as it is a school holiday, it shall occur at a public place. On the first occasion on which a school transfer is not available, the father’s counsel shall choose the location. On the second occasion it shall be the mother’s counsel, and the choice shall continue to alternate;

7. Once T. has begun the regular schedule in 4 above, the parent from whose home she is departing is to pack her bag with all items that she will need at the other home;

8. The schedule is to continue through the March Break, P.A. Days and the Easter Weekend, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day until further court order, or unless otherwise agreed in writing;

9. The father shall purchase the software program: Our Family Wizard. Both parents shall use the program to communicate any items of importance concerning the care, welfare or items of interest concerning either child. They shall exchange specific information about music lessons and skating;

10. Both parents can directly access health, medical, dental and education information, subject to any privacy provision applicable to C.;

11. Both parents shall encourage C. to spend time with her mother, and to transition between their homes in accordance with the schedule in paragraph 3;

12. The parents will set up Facetime so that T. can have a short visit 10 minute visit with the non-residential parent (subject to paragraph 2 above) every evening before bed. Unless the parents agree otherwise, that time shall be 7:30. Parents are to be positive, curious about T’s day and pleasant. They are not to inquire about the activities of the residential parent;

13. Each parent is required to take T. to any activities for which she is presently enrolled: music lessons and skating. No new activities shall be scheduled without joint consent;

14. Neither parent may disparage, or allow others to disparage the other parent in any manner that might come to either T. or C.’s attention. Each parent shall assure T that the other parent loves her, and supports her; and

15. The mutual restraining order of January 14, 2015 shall continue. Counsel for the father is to issue and enter both this and the January 14th orders.

16. In the event that T. is not available at school for pick up on Friday, February 6th, I may be spoken to on an emergency basis.

Costs

[76] Costs submissions for the motion heard January 28 only (costs of January 14th being resolved on consent) are to be received from the father by February 27th and from the mother by March 27th. Submissions are limited to two pages, exclusive of any Offer to Settle or Bill of Costs.

Justice H. McGee

Released: February 5, 2015

[^1]: Which specifically requires the deponent to disclose any violence or abuse the court should consider under section 24(4) of the Children’s Law reform Act.

[^2]: Ms. Newman did suggest the maternal aunt and uncle as supervisors. Given that each has already filed two affidavits with the court as clear allies of the mother; neither is suitable as a neutral, independent supervisor.