CITATION: Mattingley v. Haley, 2016 ONSC 4087

COURT FILE NO.: FD1527/15 (London)

DATE: 20160622

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Christine Gail Mattingley, Applicant

AND:

David Michael Haley, Respondent

BEFORE: Carey J.

COUNSEL: Jelena Buac, present for

Malcolm Bennett, Counsel, for the Applicant

William R. Clayton, Counsel, for the Respondent

HEARD: May 11, 2016

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The applicant mother’s motion (Continuing Record, Volume 2, Tab 16) seeks interim custody and an interim parenting schedule.

[2] The respondent father’s cross-motion (Tab 19) opposes the mother’s request and, in the alternative, seeks a joint custody order for the two children on a temporary basis. The father proposes that the parenting schedule be in accordance with a schedule provided to the mother by the father on at least 14 days’ notice in accordance with his business schedule.

[3] As is often the case both sides have provided affidavit material upon which they rely, that is frequently contradicted by the other and has been untested at this stage in the proceedings by cross-examination.

[4] As always, the overriding principle applicable to the outcome of this motion is the best interest of the children. Children benefit from stability and predictability in their lives, especially when adjusting to the reality of life after their parents’ separation.

[5] The applicant mother has been the primary caregiver for the two children, Emmelia (d.o.b. April 29, 2011) and Ryerson (d.o.b. May 21, 2008), who are now five and eight. The father’s employment has much work related travel which he says is scheduled on a relatively short notice basis.

[6] The mother’s proposed schedule provides certainty as well as flexibility to accommodate the work travel schedule of the respondent father. If the father learns that he will not be able to accommodate a scheduled visit due to his schedule, it is appropriate that that visit be rescheduled to a time when the visit can be with him. The children are entitled, when seeing their father, to be the primary focus of his attention. The father is in a senior position in his company and it does not seem unreasonable given the modern reality of the average employee and the high incidence of marital breakdown that his employment schedule be flexible to accommodate his parental responsibilities. The father’s scheduling proposal sacrifices certainty and stability for the children to the work travel schedule of the father.

[7] For young children, these formative years are important to their positive development as they mature.

[8] It has been frequently said that no one usually dies regretting that they had not spent more time at work. Many, however, at the end of their lives, express their regret that they had not spent more time with their family. Not only the children benefit from the father having his time set out on a defined firm schedule these children will benefit from knowing that they are the first priority for both parents. They need time with their dad that is clearly set aside for the three of them so that they share their experiences and receive maximum exposure to his guidance.

[9] Order to go on a temporary basis in accordance with paragraph 2, 3(a) through (d) and 4(a) through (d) of the applicant’s motion.

[10] Costs to the applicant fixed at $2,000.

“original signed and released by Carey J.”

Thomas J. Carey

Justice

Date: June 22, 2016