Court File and Parties
Court File No.: 408/17 Date: 2019-06-26 Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between: P.J.T., Applicant – and – R.D.S., Respondent
Counsel: Mark S. Lafrance, for the Applicant Hugh A. Taylor, for the Respondent
Heard: June 21, 2019
Sanfilippo, J.
Endorsement
[1] The Applicant, P.J.T., and the Respondent, R.D.S., are the parents of a three-year-old daughter born 2016, whom I will refer to as the “Child”. The Applicant is the Child’s father, and the Respondent her mother, and I will refer to them in these terms where to do so adds clarity to this endorsement.
[2] In or about January 2017, the parties separated. Since separation, the Child has been in the care of her Mother. The Father initiated this Application on August 18, 2017 seeking, amongst other things, a parenting plan. The parties have been operating to this point without a parenting plan, such that the Child’s ability to interact with her Father and foster a relationship with him has been dependent on one-off agreements between the parties.
[3] The Father brought this Motion for two Orders: an Order for a parenting plan, and an Order that the Mother return the Child to the County of Frontenac, as she has re-located with the Child to a town in the adjacent County of Lennox and Addington.
[4] At the beginning of the hearing of this Motion, and again during closing submissions, the parties advised that they had agreed to terms regarding certain of the issues related to parenting of the Child. This endorsement will address my determination of the issues that remained in dispute.
I. This Motion
A. Relief Sought
[5] By endorsement dated October 24, 2018, the Father was granted leave by Engelking J. to “bring a motion regarding his parenting time, if necessary”. He filed a Notice of Motion returnable November 28, 2018 seeking an Order that would establish, on an interim basis, the Child’s parenting time with him. He proposed to begin with 7.5 hours of day-time visits on alternating Sundays, and to gradually expand to single overnight, sleep-over visits on alternating weekends, and then two-night sleep-over visits on alternating weekends. This stepped-up parenting plan was structured by the Father to gradually increase the Child’s time with him over the course of three months. The Father also sought to coordinate his parenting time with the Child with his parenting time with his six-year-old son from a previous relationship (the “Son”).
[6] When the Father first brought this Motion, the Child resided with her Mother in Kingston, Ontario, having moved from the parties’ residence in Sydenham, Ontario at the time of separation.
[7] On November 27, 2018, the Father withdrew his Motion. Three days earlier, on November 24, 2018, while with his Son, the Father was charged with driving while impaired by alcohol. The Applicant sought and obtained medical treatment, followed by an inpatient residential program to provide treatment and counselling which continued until February 4, 2019.
[8] On February 1, 2019, the Mother moved with the Child from Kingston to the town of Tamworth. This move increased the driving distance between the Child and her Father from approximately 25 kilometres, being the distance from the Father’s home in Sydenham to the Mother’s former apartment in Kingston, to approximately 50 kilometres, being the distance from the Father’s home in Sydenham to Tamworth.
[9] The Applicant renewed his Motion on March 3, 2019, amended on March 13, 2019, seeking two temporary Orders, as follows:
(a) An Order that the Child be returned to reside in the County of Frontenac;
(b) An Order establishing an interim parenting plan that has the following features:
(i) Where possible, the Applicant’s parenting time with the Child shall correspond with his parenting time with his Son;
(ii) The Mother shall be responsible for accompanying the Child to either the Father’s residence or the residence of the Father’s parents;
(iii) The Father shall not consume alcohol at any parenting time that he has with the Child, or during the 24-hour period prior to the parenting time;
(iv) The Father shall not operate any motor vehicle while the Child is in his care;
(v) The Father’s parenting time shall be supervised by his parents, being the Child’s paternal grandparents;
(vi) That the matter be remitted back to this Court in three months’ time in the absence of any necessity in the interim, or earlier if the Father has breached any of the terms pertaining to his supervised parenting time.
[10] The Mother delivered responding materials opposing the relief sought by the Father. However, on the return of the Motion, the parties advised that they had agreed on some terms regarding certain issues raised by the Motion.
B. Consent Terms
[11] The parties’ consent terms reflect a productive consensus on certain foundational principles pertaining to the parenting of the Child. Most importantly, they show that the parties share a common understanding of the overarching objective of achieving a parenting arrangement that is in the Child’s best interests. The Mother stated her agreement that it is in the Child’s best interests to have every opportunity to develop a meaningful and lasting relationship with her Father. In her Affidavit in Support of Claim for Custody or Access sworn May 1, 2019, the Mother swore that her parenting plan was for the Child to have regular contact with both parents and family members, including both the maternal and paternal extended families: para. 10(f).
[12] The Father stated his commitment to this objective, and proposed that his parenting time with the Child be supervised at this time, while he continues toward his goal of long-term abstinence from alcohol consumption. The Child’s paternal grandparents deposed that they are able and willing to supervise their son’s parenting time with the Child.
[13] The parties also agreed that the Child should have the benefit of her Father’s support and participation in her extra-curricular activities, and that consideration should be given to expanding the Child’s parenting time with him after this initial interim period.
[14] The terms agreed upon by the parties are as follows:
(a) The Applicant’s parenting time shall be supervised by the Child’s paternal grandparents, or such other supervisor agreed upon by the parties in writing;
(b) Each proposed supervisor shall be provided with a certified true copy of any Order of this Court regarding the parenting time that the Child has with her Father;
(c) The Applicant shall not consume alcohol during any parenting time that he has with the Child;
(d) The Applicant shall not operate any motor vehicle, inclusive of but not limited to trucks, bikes, automobiles, snowmobiles, boats, all-terrain vehicles, tractors and heavy equipment, whether powered by electricity or internal combustion engines while the Child is in his care. The Applicant is allowed to operate a motor vehicle limited to his duties associated with his business provided that should that need arise, the Child shall remain with one of the supervising paternal grandparents or otherwise agreed-upon supervisor;
(e) The issue of the parties’ parenting arrangements for the Child may be remitted back to this Court for further consideration no sooner than three months from the date of this Order, except in the case of breach of the terms of this Order, in which case this matter may be brought back sooner than three months.
[15] Identifying these consent terms allowed the parties to focus on the issues that remained in dispute.
C. Issues to be Determined on this Motion
[16] The following issues required determination on this Motion:
(a) How long should the Applicant be required to abstain from the consumption of any alcohol prior to his parenting time with the Child?
(b) Should the Respondent be ordered to return the residence of the Child to Frontenac County?
(c) What temporary parenting arrangements are in the Child’s best interests?
[17] These issues will be addressed in turn.
D. Analysis
Applicable Principles
[18] The Applicant and the Respondent were not married. As such, the applicable legislative provisions pertaining to custody and access of the Child are contained in Part III of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“CLRA”). Section 19 (a) states that one of the purposes of Part III is “to ensure that applications to the court in respect of custody of, incidents of custody of, access to and guardianship of children will be determined on the basis of the best interests of the children”. The lens through which issues of custody and access must be approached is not from the perspective of the parent claiming these entitlements, but rather from the standpoint of the child: MacGyver v. Richards (1995), 22 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.).
[19] The law is well-established that custody is to be decided only on what is in the best interests of the children, as stated by Gillese J.A. in D.D. v. H.D., 2015 ONCA 409, 62 R.F.L. (7th) 261 at para. 87: “First, the courts are to consider only the children’s best interests when making custody decisions.” The assessment is child-centric, in that the analysis of the child’s best interests must be conducted from the standpoint of the child, not the parent. “It is a mistake to look down at the child as a prize to be distributed, rather than from the child up to the parent as an adult to be accountable”: MacGyver at para. 38. Justice Abella stated, in MacGyver at para. 27, that the best interests analysis requires “an informed opinion made at a moment in the life of a child about what seems likely to prove to be in that child’s best interests.”
[20] The elements to be considered in assessing the best interests of the child are listed in section 24(2) of the CLRA. Also applicable is the principle that the child should have as much contact with both parents as is consistent with the child’s best interests. This principle is legislatively codified in the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 at sections 16(8) and (10). Although the maximum contact principle is not expressly articulated in the CLRA, which is applicable to this case, it is nonetheless a fundamental component of a best interests analysis: Bjornson v. Creighton (2002), 62 O.R. (3d) 236 (C.A.), leave to appeal to the S.C.C. dismissed, 2003 CarswellOnt 1387 (S.C.C.) at para. 34.
[21] The maximum contact principle is based on the premise that the objectives of stability, care, continued attachment and parental bonding are best achieved through continued meaningful contact by the child with each parent: Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; Basley v. Basley, 2016 ONSC 5877.
Issue #1: Period of Time for Pre-Parenting Abstinence from Alcohol
[22] The Child is a vulnerable three-year-old who requires the care of an adult fully attentive to her needs. The parties agreed that because of the challenges resulting from alcohol consumption by the Father, it is in the best interests of the Child that his parenting time be supervised, at present, and that he not consume any alcohol or operate any motor vehicle while with the Child. The parties also agreed that the Father will not consume any alcohol prior to his parenting time, but disagreed on the period of required abstinence.
[23] The Father submitted that the best interests of the Child are adequately addressed by an agreement on his part not to consume alcohol during the 24-hour period prior to his parenting time. The Mother disagreed, and contended that the Father’s parenting time ought to be conditional on his abstinence for 48 hours prior to his parenting time.
[24] The Father provided sworn testimony that he has not consumed alcohol since November 28, 2018 except for a one-time slip on January 2, 2019 and is determined to achieve life-long abstinence. In this context, it is unclear why any Court time was used on this Motion in argument of whether an appropriate period of abstinence prior to the Applicant’s parenting time is 24 or 48 hours.
[25] In assessing this issue, I have taken into consideration the Applicant’s history of lapses in judgment when under the influence of alcohol, that a longer period of pre-parenting abstinence is consistent with the Applicant’s own objectives and beneficial for the Child. I have determined that it is in the best interests of the Child that the Applicant’s parenting time with the Child is conditional on the Applicant not consuming alcohol during the 48-hour period prior to his parenting time.
Issue #2: Should the Respondent be ordered to return the residence of the Child to Frontenac County?
[26] Until the date of separation, January 15, 2017, the Child resided with both parents in Sydenham, Ontario. After separation, the Respondent relocated with the Child from Sydenham to Kingston, Ontario. I have no evidence of any complaint by the Applicant about the Mother’s relocation of the Child from Sydenham to Kingston. On February 1, 2019, the Mother moved with the Child to Tamworth. The Father complained that the Mother re-located the Child without informing him and thereby denied him an opportunity to be involved in the decision. The Mother stated that she was unaware of the Father’s whereabouts or circumstances at the time that she re-located with the Child.
[27] In his Application, the Father sought an Order that “neither the Father nor the Mother shall move the Child’s … residence beyond the County of Frontenac, Ontario, without the written consent in advance of the other party, or pursuant to a Court Order permitting said move”: para. 33. However, to date no Order has been issued by this Court pertaining to the residence of the Child. In this Motion, the Father seeks an Order that the Child be returned to reside in the County of Frontenac.
[28] Even in the absence of a Court Order requiring the Mother to communicate with the Father concerning any re-location of the Child, and even with the challenges faced by the Mother in contacting the Father in late-January to early-February 2019, I do not condone the Mother re-locating the Child without first raising this with the Father, and providing him an opportunity for involvement and input. This step ought not to have occurred without prior communication with the Father, and highlights that lack of communication between the parents is not in the Child’s best interests. Based on the Mother’s submissions, however, I do not expect that any such lapse in communication on a Child-related matter will recur.
[29] My assessment must be based on the arrangements now in place for the Child, recognizing that for the last four months the Child has had a new routine in a new location, but with consistency of primary care by the Respondent.
[30] The Applicant contends that the Child’s opportunity to have a meaningful relationship with him depends on her being proximate to him. This is an important factor, but only one factor of several. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the best interests of the Child necessitate her return to Frontenac County. There is no evidence in the record that the Father’s ability to access the Child has been affected by distance or complications in travel. Indeed, the hardship of the longer commute to exchange the Child with the Father will be willingly shared by the Respondent, and has been entirely borne by her in certain exchanges in the weeks before the hearing of this Motion. The Child is not yet school age, but the evidence shows that she travels with her Mother from Tamworth to Kingston to attend the same daycare that she attended prior to the move to Tamworth.
[31] The evidence contained in the Respondent’s second affidavit shows that the driving distance from the Applicant’s home in Sydenham to the Respondent’s residence in Tamworth is 50.45 kilometres. The driving distance from the Applicant’s home in Sydenham to Kingston is approximately one-half this amount. As such, the Child’s new residence in Tamworth is approximately 25 kilometres further from her Father than her former residence in Kingston.
[32] Tamworth is in the County of Lennox and Addington, while Sydenham is in the adjacent County of Frontenac. However, if the Applicant seeks to ensure proximity to his daughter, I question whether this can be accomplished by using the county boundaries as limitations, as opposed to using driving distance. The County of Frontenac is large, and contains some towns that are much more distant from Sydenham than Tamworth. By way of illustration, the Town of Ompah is in the County of Frontenac but is over 100 kilometres from the Applicant’s residence in Sydenham. Under the term of the Order sought by the Applicant, the Respondent could permissibly relocate with the Child more than twice the distance of her current residence in Tamworth. As such, I do not see any purpose to be served by an Order restricting the Respondent to reside in Frontenac County.
[33] To further the objective of providing the Child with every opportunity to develop and foster a relationship with her Father, I impose a temporary term that restricts the distance that the Mother may relocate the Child from the Father’s residence in Sydenham by reference to driving distance as opposed to county boundaries. The parties each made alternative submissions that showed concurrence with a term that the Child not be relocated further than her current distance from the Father’s residence, 50 kilometres, without prior written agreement of the parties or a further Order of this Court. I accept that such a term is in the best interests of the Child.
[34] I thereby dismiss the Applicant’s motion for an Order that the Respondent return the Child to reside in the County of Frontenac. I order that the Respondent Mother not re-locate the Child more than 50 kilometers from the Applicant’s residence in Sydenham, Ontario, without prior written agreement of the parties or a further Order of this Court.
Issue #3: What temporary Parenting Arrangements are in the Child’s Best Interests?
[35] The parties agree that the Child shall continue to reside primarily with her Mother, and requires a fixed schedule for her parenting time with her Father. The Child has not had a regular routine for time with her Father this year. In 2019, she has been with her Father for a total of four day-time visits: Saturday, April 20, 2019, from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm; Sunday, May 5, 2019, from 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm; Sunday, May 19, 2019, from 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm; and Sunday, June 16, 2019 (Father’s Day) from 12:00 pm to 5:00 pm. On certain of the occasions when the Child had time with the Father, the Mother drove the Child to the Father’s residence in Sydenham, and the exchange occurred there. On others, the Mother exchanged the Child with the Father and his supervisor at an agreed-upon location in Odessa, Ontario.
[36] Each side blames the other for the scarcity of the Child’s time with her Father. The Respondent contended that the Applicant was unavailable and disinterested and that she has lost trust in his ability to parent. The Applicant contended that the Respondent has been unreasonably over-protective and unresponsive to his requests for time with the Child.
[37] While both parties agreed that it is in the best interests of the Child that a parenting schedule be implemented, they could not agree on the parenting arrangements.
(a) The Father’s Position on Parenting Time
[38] The Father submitted that it is in the best interests of the Child that he have parenting time with her on a schedule that matches his current parenting arrangements with his Son. On March 12, 2019, Hurley J. rendered a temporary Order in the matrimonial litigation between the Father and his previous wife, whereby the Father has parenting time with his Son on alternating weekends, each time for two day-time visits: Saturday and Sunday from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm, conditional on the following:
The Father’s parenting time must be supervised by the Son’s paternal grandparents or such other supervisor agreed upon by the parties in writing;
The Father must not consume any alcohol during this parenting time or during the 24 hour period before the parenting time;
The Father shall not operate any motor vehicle, inclusive of but not limited to trucks, bikes, automobiles, snowmobiles, boats, all-terrain vehicles, tractors, and heavy equipment, while his son is in his care;
The exchanges shall take place at an agreed-upon location in Odessa.
[39] The Father submitted that his parenting time with the Child should mirror his parenting time with his Son, so that the children can have time with each other and with him, together. The Father also asserted two practical considerations. The Father explained that he works at his business on the alternating weekends when he does not have parenting time with his Son, such that a “one weekend on, one weekend off” arrangement works best for him. Also, the Father contended that this schedule is less onerous on his supervisors as they are only committed to supervision on alternate weekends.
(b) The Mother’s Position on Parenting Time
[40] The Mother contended that a “one weekend on, one weekend off” schedule is not in the Child’s best interests, and that it would be best for the Child to have scheduled parenting time with her Father for one day-time visit each weekend. She took this position for two reasons.
[41] First, the Mother submitted that a two-week interval between visits is simply too long for this three-year-old or, alternatively, less desirable than weekly parenting time in developing a parental relationship. Second, the Mother submitted that the Child’s parenting time with her Father did not necessarily have to be synchronized with the Father’s parenting of his Son, as the Child would benefit from some one-on-one time with her Father. The Mother disagreed with the Father having parenting time for two days on alternating weekends, and no time with the Child in between, stating that more regular visits of shorter duration would be more beneficial for the Child.
(c) Analysis – Parenting Arrangements
[42] The Mother did not make any allegation that the Child was unsafe or uncared for when with her Father, supported by one of his supervisors. The evidentiary record established that the Child has benefitted from parenting time with her Father and with his family members.
[43] It is clearly in the Child’s best interests that a regular, organized schedule be implemented for parenting time with her Father. I accept the Father’s submission that some of this time ought to overlap with his parenting time with her brother, so that the Child can have time with them as a family. I also accept the Mother’s submission that more regular visits by the Child with her Father are beneficial to her development of a healthy relationship with him.
[44] The Father’s proposed parenting arrangement would result in the Child being driven 50 kilometres on Saturday morning and then again Saturday evening, and 50 kilometres on Sunday morning and then again Sunday evening, on alternate weekends. This is considerable commuting in a weekend for a three-year old, with little waking time with her Mother. The Child would benefit from some day-time weekend time with her Mother apart from the commute to the Father’s residence. The Mother’s proposed parenting plan would involve the Child commuting one day each weekend, with the remaining weekend day free.
[45] I recognize that accepting the Mother’s parenting arrangements will provide the Father with parenting time on a weekend day on which he currently has a work commitment, as he is currently scheduled to work every other weekend. The Father is self-employed and operates his own business. While it may be complex for the Father to seek to re-align his work schedule, he is undoubtedly motivated to do so in order to implement a parenting arrangement in the best interests of his Child. In terms of the availability of the supervisors, I note from the affidavits filed by the parental grandparents that they are able and prepared to supervise the Father’s parenting time with the Child without limitation as to scope and timing.
(d) Conclusion – Parenting Arrangements
[46] All matters considered, I have concluded that it is in the Child’s best interests to have parenting time with each of her parents for one day each weekend, which will allow her to have some time with her brother. This will be achieved as follows:
(a) Commencing Saturday, July 13, 2019, being the first date proposed by the Applicant for parenting time due to availability of his supervisors, the Child shall have parenting time with the Father from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm. This will continue on alternating Saturdays, and is thereby synchronized with one of the two days of parenting time that the Father has with his Son on alternating weekends;
(b) Commencing Sunday, July 21, 2019, the Child shall have parenting time with her Father from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm. This will continue on alternating Sundays.
[47] I considered the Mother’s submissions that the parenting time on the weekend day when the Father is not with his Son should be modified to allow for a later start time and a later end time. I have decided to maintain the timing of 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on Sundays to keep the routine predictable. However, the parties may alter the timing of the Sunday visit by written agreement made 48 hours prior to the start of the visit, as they may agree in the Child’s best interests. I do not provide this flexibility in relation to the Saturday parenting time as the Saturday parenting time is coordinated with the Father’s time with his Son.
[48] The parties proposed that the Child be exchanged at an agreed-upon location in Odessa, Ontario, consistent with the mechanism for exchange implemented by the Order of Hurley J. for the Father’s parenting time with his Son. This exchange format shall be used here, as well, except that the Mother may choose to accompany the Child to the Applicant’s home, and retrieve her from that location, on prior notice to the Applicant.
[49] Last, the Father is able to have parenting time with the Child during the week at her extra-curricular activities after daycare. The Mother will notify him of the timing of these events, in accordance with a communication protocol that I will now address.
E. Additional Terms on Consent
[50] The evidentiary record shows that there has been an absence of meaningful communication between the parties about issues affecting the Child. The parties have been using a communication book, but this has not proven productive. The Mother stated that she is able and willing to notify the Father of the Child’s activities, needs and routines, but requires a means by which to do so. The Father complained that the Mother insists on text messaging instead of emails which, he says, does not allow for consistency of communication or archiving of messages.
[51] It is important that the parties establish a communication method that allows for productive coordination in the parenting of the Child. This will allow the Father to be notified of her extracurricular activities, giving him an opportunity for enhanced participation with her, and to know of her needs and requirements so that he is best prepared to receive her during his parenting time. If there is a development that affects the Child’s residence, her health, well-being or needs, there must be a mechanism that allows for its timely and effective communication between the parties.
[52] To improve their communications on Child-related matters, I raised with the parties the possibility of enrolling in Our Family Wizard. The parties agreed to a term whereby they will enroll in Our Family Wizard and endeavour to enhance their communications in this manner. A term will be issued on consent, in this regard.
[53] Further, there was evidence in the record that the Child had been exposed to conflict between the parties. The parties agreed that it was appropriate to implement a non-denigration term whereby the parties would not speak critically of each other or permit others to do so in the presence of the Child. A term will be issued on consent, in this regard.
F. Disposition
[54] For the reasons set out above, I order as follows:
Relocation of the Child
The Applicant’s motion for an Order that the Child be returned to reside in the County of Frontenac is dismissed.
On an interim basis, the Respondent shall not re-locate the Child more than 50 kilometres from the Applicant’s residence in Sydenham, Ontario, without the prior written agreement of the parties or a further Order of this Court.
Parenting
- The Applicant’s motion for parenting time is granted in part. On an interim basis, the Applicant shall have parenting time with the Child as follows:
(a) Alternating Saturdays from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm, commencing on Saturday July 13, 2019 and continuing on alternating Saturdays thereafter, being July 27, 2019; August 10, 2019; August 24, 2019; and continuing until further Order of this Court;
(b) Alternating Sundays from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm, commencing on Sunday, July 21, 2019 and continuing on alternating Sundays thereafter, being August 4, 2019, August 18, 2019; September 1, 2019; and continuing until further Order of this Court. The parties may, on 48 hours prior written agreement, modify the timing of the Sunday day-time visit as they consider in the Child’s best interests.
On an interim basis, the Applicant’s parenting time with the Child shall be supervised by either of the Child’s paternal grandparents, or such other supervisor agreed upon by the parties in writing.
The Applicant shall provide each supervisor with a certified true copy of any Order of this Court regarding the parenting time that the Child has with her Father;
The Applicant’s parenting time is conditional on the following:
(a) The Applicant shall not consume alcohol during the 48-hour period prior to his parenting time with the Child;
(b) The Applicant shall not consume alcohol during his parenting time with the Child; and
(c) The Applicant shall not operate any motor vehicle, inclusive of but not limited to trucks, bikes, automobiles, snowmobiles, boats, all-terrain vehicles, tractors and heavy equipment, whether powered by electricity or internal combustion engines while the Child is in his care. The Applicant is allowed to operate a motor vehicle limited to his duties associated with his business provided that should that need arise, the Child shall remain with one of the supervising paternal grandparents or otherwise agreed upon supervisor.
- The issue of the parties’ parenting arrangements for the Child may be remitted back to this Court for further consideration no sooner than three months from the date of this Order, except in the case of breach of the terms of this Order in which case this matter may be brought back sooner.
Exchanges
- The exchange of the Child from the Respondent to the Applicant and his supervisor, and then from the Applicant and his supervisor to the Respondent, shall take place at a location agreed upon in Odessa, Ontario, provided that the Respondent may, on prior notice to the Applicant and his supervisor, accompany the Child to the residence of the Applicant or the residence of his supervisor and later that day retrieve the Child therefrom.
Communication
- On consent, to foster consistency, predictability, stability and continuity for care of the Child, the Applicant and the Respondent shall enroll in and communicate in Child-related matters using Our Family Wizard (“OFW”). Each shall pay one-half of the annual enrollment fee. The communication and information exchanged through OFW shall be child-related information and shall include notification by the Respondent to the Applicant of the Child’s extra-curricular activities, so that the Applicant may participate and support, as well as the Child’s routines and specific needs, residence and day-to-day requirements, medical and health information, accomplishments and challenges.
Conduct
- On consent, neither party shall denigrate or be critical of the other parent or members of her or his extended family, either overtly or covertly, or use profane language in the presence of the Child, and shall not allow the Child to be exposed to such conduct or language by others while in the parent’s presence.
G. Costs
[55] I encourage the parties to discuss and agree on the issue of costs.
[56] If the parties are not able to agree on the issue of costs by July 5, 2019, the Applicant may serve on the Respondent and deliver to me by July 15, 2019, written submissions on costs of no more than three pages in length, plus his cost outline, any offer to settle and authorities relied on. The Respondent shall then serve on the Applicant and deliver to me, within 10 days of receipt of the Applicant’s cost submissions or by July 25, 2019, whichever is earlier, her written submissions of a similar length on the issue of costs.
[57] The written submission on costs shall be filed at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Family Court, 469 Montreal Street, Kingston.
[58] If neither party delivers written costs submissions by July 25, 2019, I will deem the issue of costs to have been settled.
Sanfilippo, J. Released: June 26, 2019