Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-FO000413-000 DATE: July 19, 2019 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Joshua Judd Anderson, Applicant AND: Susan Frances Haywood, Respondent

BEFORE: Honourable Justice Mary A. Fraser

COUNSEL: Diana Tomazin for the Applicant Natasha Pappin for the Respondent

HEARD: July 17, 2019

Endorsement

[1] This motion was initiated by the Respondent who is seeking an Order permitting her to move the residence of the child to Kingston, Ontario so that the Respondent can accept a teaching contract offered at Queen’s University. The contract position requires that the Respondent begin at the start of the school year and she proposes that she move on August 15, 2019.

[2] This matter has already had a settlement conference and a trial scheduling/trial management conference. It is scheduled to proceed to a trial in September 2019.

[3] I am advised that the Applicant now consents to this move. The Applicant should be commended for making this decision as it demonstrates an understanding of the need to acknowledge how the Respondent’s career advancement could positively benefit the child.

[4] The main issue which remains in dispute is how the Applicant’s access schedule should be adjusted given the present schedule is unworkable in light of the proposed move. Additionally, by the return of the motion, both parties had each filed an additional motion for various relief including a request to vary the interim child support payable in light of the anticipated increased travel cost which will be incurred by the father in order to facilitate his proposed access schedule. These “expenses” the Applicant might be put to are very much purely theoretical given he now hopes in response to the Respondent’s change of residence to move to Kingston as well prior to August 15, 2019. This would make it a non-issue.

[5] I am only prepared to address the issues which we know of necessity must be addressed as a result of the Respondent’s pending move given its time sensitive nature. I am not prepared to address the additional issues which have now been raised by the additional motions given they are speculative in their nature (ie. whether there should be a reduction in support payable due to travel costs to exercise access if the Applicant is not able to move as well) and raised at this late stage in the proceeding. As stated in Ikonikov v. Ikonikov, “Where the matter is ready to proceed to trial and there is no urgency, the courts may decline to decide interim motions on matters that will be considered at the trial since such motions result in duplication and unnecessary costs.” See Ikonikov v. Ikonikov, 2015 CarswellOnt 12075, 2015 ONSC 5019 (Ont. S.C.J.).

[6] I likewise approach the issue of access with the understanding that the trial of the outstanding issues is fast approaching. While my focus continues to be governed by the best interests of the child, giving due regard to the factors I am to consider pursuant under section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, I emphasize that my Order is intended to provide a temporary solution pending a trial with the knowledge that a trial is fast approaching.

[7] Therefore on consent, it is ordered that as of August 15, 2019, the Respondent may move the residence of the child to Kingston, Ontario.

[8] Until August 15, 2019 when this move happens, there is no reason to alter the existing temporary Order of Justice Selkirk and those terms are to continue.

[9] I further Order that once the Respondent moves to Kingston, and if, as he states his intention to be, the Applicant likewise moves to Kingston, then the Applicant’s access as ordered by Justice Selkirk shall remain the same except that the parties shall agree upon an alternate public location in Kingston for the pick-up and drop off of the child.

[10] Once the Respondent relocates to Kingston on August 15, 2019 and if the Applicant has not been able to likewise relocate to Kingston, then a more substantive adjustment to the temporary Order of Justice Selkirk needs to be made. In this respect, pending the trial, the Applicant shall have access in that event every second weekend commencing on August 17 and 18, 2019 from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on Saturday and from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. on Sunday in Pembroke. The Respondent shall transport the child to and from Pembroke for such access visits to take place.

[11] Every alternate weekend, the Applicant shall have additional access on the Saturday from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. in Kingston with pick up and drop off to occur at a mutually agreed upon public location in Kingston.

[12] The success of this motion has been divided such that it appears in all of the circumstances that the parties should each bear their own costs in this matter. If either of the parties wish to argue for a different result by making submissions on costs, they may do so by advising the other party on or before June 14, 2019 of their intention to make such submissions. In that event, the parties’ written submissions shall be no longer than two pages in length together with any offers to settle and bills of costs. The Respondent shall serve and file her submissions on or before July 29, 2019 and the Applicant shall submit his submissions on or before August 2, 2019. If no submissions are received by those dates, there will be no order as to costs.

Honourable Justice Mary A. Fraser Released: July 19, 2019