COURT FILE NO.: 1116/18

DATE: 2019-08-14

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Domenic Alampi, Applicant

AND:

Rana Eskander, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice L. C. Bale

COUNSEL: Ms. Patricia Novomestsky, Counsel, for the Applicant

Mr. John Olenski, Counsel, for the Respondent

HEARD: August 9, 2019

ENDORSEMENT

INTRODUCTION

[1] This matter comes before me on a regular Friday motions list. Each party is seeking various headings of relief.

[2] The Respondent mother’s motion, dated June 21, 2019, requests the following relief:

1. An Order striking the Application of the Applicant;

2. In the alternative, an Order to strike the Application of the Applicant if he fails to comply with the following requirements within 14 days:

   a. Serve upon the Respondent’s counsel and file an up to date Financial Statement in accordance with the Family Law Rules;

   b. Use his best efforts to obtain a letter from his family doctor confirming whether the Applicant is in use of non-medically prescribed drugs and stating the basis of the doctor’s conclusion;

   c. If the Applicant is unable to obtain a letter from his family doctor in accordance with paragraph 2(b), an Affidavit setting out whether and what best efforts he made to obtain such a letter.

   d. Provide to the Respondent’s counsel a letter from the Applicant’s employer providing details of the Applicant’s employment as follows:

   i. The commencement date of his employment;

   ii. Hourly rate of pay or salary and any changes since the commencement of employment;

   iii. Hours of work;

   iv. Whether additional hours are available, and if any such hours of employment have been declined by the Applicant, details of the hours declined;

   v. The Applicant’s year to date income and copies of his three most recent pay stubs.

3. If the Application of the Respondent is struck, an order that the Answer of the Respondent be adjourned to the timelines to continue on an uncontested basis;

4. An Order that temporary access by the Applicant to the child Isabella Stella Alampi, born May 10, 2018, should continue as set out in the order of the Lafrenière J. dated February 12, 2019 on condition that the Applicant shall not be present during exchanges which must be done by at least one of the supervisors Mary Alampi, Ross Alampi or Anthony Alampi without the Applicant’s participation;

5. An Order that the Applicant shall not communicate with the Respondent except in writing or through counsel and requiring him not to be within 100 meters of the Respondent;

6. Such further or other order as may be just; and

7. Costs of this motion.

[3] The Applicant father brought a cross-motion, dated July 18, 2019, seeking the following relief:

1. An Order that the Applicant father have unsupervised access to the child in accordance with the following schedule:

   a. Every Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.;

   b. On the weeks in which the Applicant does not have an access weekend with Isabella, he shall have access on Monday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.;

   c. Alternating weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 7:00 p.m.;

2. An Order that the parties shall diligently maintain the following communication materials, which shall be the primary form of communication respecting Isabella, and which they shall exchange at the time of access exchanges:

   a. A communication log which shall be used to provide and exchange all pertinent information related to Isabella, including but not limited to information regarding her health, activities, special events, routines, childcare strategies in each home, and any other issues relating to Isabella. The communication log shall not be used to write negative comments, or to raise issues that the parties can reasonably expect would create or exacerbate conflict between them.

   b. An appointments calendar in which each party shall diligently record all appointments for Isabella.

   c. A medical log in which each party shall diligently record in a timely fashion all medical information respecting Isabella, including but not limited to:

   i. The names and contact information of all medical professionals involved with Isabella;

   ii. Isabella’s current medications and the reasons why the medications have been prescribed;

   iii. The dosages for Isabella’s medications including full details about how the medication should be administered;

   iv. A detailed log of the date and time of day when the medications were taken and in what dosage; and

   v. A detailed log regarding any medical treatment or appointments which Isabella attended while in each party’s care;

3. The Applicant father and the Respondent mother shall share all section 7 expenses for Isabella in proportion to their respective incomes; and

4. Costs of this motion.

BACKGROUND

[4] The parties were married on November 23, 2017 and separated on June 12, 2018.

[5] They have one child of the marriage, namely Isabella Stella Alampi, born May 10, 2018. Isabella is currently 15 months old. She was only one month old at the time of the parties’ separation.

[6] Both parties allege physical violence at the hands of the other.

[7] Neither party has a criminal record or pending charges.

[8] The mother alleges that the father uses non-medically prescribed drugs and is mentally unstable. The father denies these allegations.

[9] The Temporary Order of Lafrenière J. was made pursuant to without prejudice Minutes of Settlement entered into between the parties on February 12, 2019. Pursuant to the terms of that Temporary Order the child resides primarily with the Respondent mother and the father has supervised access with the child every Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. and every Saturday from 11:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Access is supervised by either the parental grandmother, paternal grandfather, or paternal uncle. One of these parties is obligated to attend the access exchanges of the child, which take place in a Food Basics parking lot.

[10] The Order of Lafrenière J. also required the Applicant father to produce the following information:

a. An up-to-date Financial Statement;

b. A copy of every Record of Employment issued to him from and including April 2018 until the present time; and

c. Best efforts to obtain a letter from his family doctor confirming whether the Applicant is a user of non-medically prescribed drugs and stating the basis of the doctor’s conclusion.

[11] Case management of this matter was adjourned sine die.

ANALYSIS

[12] I will deal with each issue raised on this motion in the Order in which they appear above.

Issue #1: Striking the Applicant Father’s Pleadings

[13] The basis upon which the Respondent mother requests that the Respondent father’s pleadings be struck results from his failure to comply with the disclosure Order of Lafrenière J. dated February 12, 2019 in a timely manner.

[14] At the outset of the motion counsel for the mother conceded that the majority of the disclosure had been produced, subsequent to the initiation of this motion, and the Respondent was no longer pursuing this relief.

[15] As such, the Respondent’s request that the Applicant’s pleadings be struck, and that the matter be adjourned to the timelines and proceed on an uncontested basis is dismissed.

Issue #2: Production of Documents

[16] The Respondent mother’s notice of motion requests the following:

a. Sworn Financial Statement: The Applicant father has now served and filed a sworn Financial Statement, dated July 18, 2019, with attachments. I note that production of this document was not only required under the Family Law Rules, but was also pursuant to the Temporary Order of Lafrenière J. The father was not diligent in producing this mandatory information, but it has now been provided. No further order is necessary in this regard.

b. Letter from Family Doctor: The Applicant father has now produced the following medical information:

i. Correspondence from his Family Doctor, Dr. Gordon Clark, dated August 6, 2019, wherein Dr. Clark advises that to his knowledge the father is not using any non-medically prescribed drugs. The basis of his opinion is a urine drug test conducted at Dr. Clark’s office, and representations made by the father to Dr. Clark;

ii. A complete copy of the father’s medical records pertaining to his hospitalization in January 2018; and

iii. Public Health Ontario – Public Health Laboratory records, prepared for Dr. Clark dated July 12, 2019 citing negative test results for all non-prescription drugs except Cannabinoids. The Applicant father stated a willingness to attend continued drug testing in similar form.

Counsel for the Respondent mother argues that the medical documentation provided does not satisfy the Order made by Lafrenière J. I disagree. The materials provided exceed the scope of the court-ordered medical disclosure. There will be no further order at this time requiring production of further medical information, save and except that, pending further Order of the Court, the father will attend every 60 days for an updated drug test in the same form as the test dated July 12, 2019 and will provide a copy of the results to the Respondent mother through her counsel. The Applicant father advised the court that he was prepared to continue to provide drug test results at this time in an effort to address the mother’s concerns on an ongoing basis.

c. Employment Records: The Respondent’s counsel requests a letter from the Applicant’s employer providing details of his employment, as outlined in the introduction above, and copies of his three most recent pay stubs. I note that the Applicant father has produced the following:

i. Correspondence from MGR Construction Services (his former employer) dated April 18, 2019 confirming the father’s start date, position, rate of pay, and contact information for further information requests;

ii. Pay statements from the father’s former employer dated March 22, 2019, March 29, 2019, April 12, 2019, and April 19, 2019. The statements all contain year-to-date calculations;

iii. Pay statements from the father’s current employer dated June 28, 2019, and July 12, 2019. Both statements also contain year-to-date calculations.

[17] I find that the father has provided satisfactory evidence of his employment situation save and except as follows:

a. It does not appear that the father is yet in compliance with paragraph 4 of the Temporary Order of Lafrenière J. requiring him to produce all copies of his Record of Employment issued to him from April 2018 to present. Although I note that there is no prescribed time period for production of same, the father should have made efforts to produce this information by this time. I will grant the father 45 days to collect and produce this information to counsel for the Respondent mother;

b. To satisfy the Respondent mother’s questions pertaining to the Applicant father’s chain of employment he shall provide a written chronology of all positions held, and relevant details pertaining thereto, from October 2018 to present. He shall provide this information in Affidavit form to the Respondent’s counsel within 45 days.

Issue #3: Access Exchanges

[18] The Respondent mother requests an Order that the father not attend at access exchanges. Access exchanges are presently taking place in the Food Basics parking lot located at the corner of Rymal Road East and Upper Wentworth Street as per the Temporary Order of Lafrenière J. The Respondent mother’s counsel argues that this prohibition is inherent in the Temporary Order of Lafrenière J. I disagree. The Order of Lafrenière J. requires one of the father’s prescribed supervisors to attend at access with him. It does not prohibit him from attending and this should not be read-in to the meaning of the term.

[19] It is the opinion of this Court that exchanges in a Food Basics parking lot, sometimes at night, and presumably at times during inclement weather, are not a long-term child-friendly solution for this young child. While the Court agrees that restrictions are needed to reduce the level of tension and acrimony that the child is exposed to by her parents, the mother’s solution does not adequately address all of the factors at play.

[20] One difficulty which arises is that the paternal grandmother is the third-party supervisor who is currently most willing and available to facilitate the access exchanges. She does not have a driver’s licence and regularly relies upon the father for transportation to the exchange location. Without reliance upon the Applicant for this transportation, access transitions would primarily require the grandmother and young child to travel by public bus. This is an unnecessary imposition on the grandmother and the child. The mother, despite having the maternal grandparents and five siblings living in the Hamilton jurisdiction, does not offer to have her family assist with facilitating access as an alternative. I find this unreasonable. Both parties have an obligation to contribute to child-friendly access exchanges and transitions.

[21] It is appropriate that the access exchanges be moved to a more child-friendly location. In the absence of submissions on this point the Court has chosen a McDonalds in close proximity to the current exchange location. The exchanges can take place indoors, at a neutral location, and the parties will be separated from contact and communication by the specific terms I have imposed below. The solution imposed by this Court places a joint obligation on both parents to contribute to the child’s stress-free and successful transitions between their respective homes. It is hoped that the parties themselves will in future be able to negotiate more relaxed conditions pertaining to access exchanges as Isabella will benefit from the observation of her parents conducting themselves towards one another in a more civilized and respectful manner.

Issue #4: Communication

[22] The mother requests that there be no communication between the parties except in writing or through counsel. She further requests that the Applicant shall not communicate with the Respondent except in writing or through counsel and requiring him not to be within 100 meters of the Respondent.

[23] The father does not oppose a non-communication order and proposes that the parties communicate via only a communication journal which shall be exchanged at access transitions.

[24] The mother alleges that the father is rude and belligerent to her, and attaches messages which confirm this allegation. The father likewise has included in his materials a copy of a text message in which the mother references the paternal grandmother in shameful terms. Both parties’ communications are derogatory, hurtful, and far from child-focused. It is clear on the Affidavit materials filed that the behavior and communications of both parties are exacerbating this negative situation. As such, it is appropriate that there be no contact or communication between the parties save and except written communications contained within a communication journal, through counsel, or in the event of a child-related emergency or time-sensitive issue relating to the child.

[25] I decline to impose a specified distance on the permitted proximity between the parties as requested; a request which in this court’s view is akin to a restraining order. A non-contact/communication order will suffice in the circumstances as the facts of this case do not otherwise rise to the level requisite to make a restraining Order against one party under s. 35 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, or s. 46 of the Family Law Act. As this Order is only temporary in nature, both parties can be certain that inappropriate behavior will not go unnoticed by the Court in the final disposition of this matter and are warned to govern themselves accordingly.

Issue #5: Expansion of Access

[26] Paragraph 2 of the Temporary Order of Lafrenière J., made February 12, 2019, is the governing term with respect to the parties’ time-share arrangement with Isabella. The arrangement was made on a without prejudice basis by way of Temporary Minutes of Settlement entered into at the Case Conference. The father has had supervised access with Isabella since that time from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Wednesdays, and from 11:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The paternal grandmother, Mary Alampi, the paternal grandfather, Ross Alampi, and paternal uncle, Anthony Alampi, are approved supervisors in this matter, one of whom must be present at all times during all access between the father and child, and at access exchanges.

[27] The father seeks an expansion of his access time. His requests can be broken down into two parts:

a. that the condition that his time with the child be supervised be removed, and

b. that the quantity and duration of his time with Isabella be increased.

A. Access Generally

[28] Section 16 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 governs the issue of custody and access between married parents and provides that the only factor that the Court is to consider is the best interests of the child. In determining best interests, the Court is to give effect to the principle that a child should have the maximum contact with the other parent as is in her best interests. Conduct is only to be considered where relevant to the ability to parent.

[29] Section 16 reads in part as follows:

16. ORDER FOR CUSTODY AND ACCESS – (1) A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an Order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody of and access to, any or all of the children of the marriage.

(2) INTERIM ORDER FOR CUSTODY – Where an application is made under subsection (1), the court may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an interim order respecting the custody of or the access to, any or all children of the marriage pending determination of the application under subsection (1).

(6) TERMS AND CONDITIONS – The court may make an order under this section for a definite or indefinite period or until the happening of a specified event and may impose such other terms, conditions or restrictions in connection therewith as it thinks fit and just.

(8) FACTORS – 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 conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of the child.

(9) PAST CONDUCT – 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.

(10) MAXIMUM CONTACT – 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.

[30] Section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 outlines the best interests test, and provides further elaboration on the consideration of domestic violence in assessing a child’s best interests:

(4) PAST CONDUCT -- In assessing a person’s ability to act as a parent, the court shall consider whether the person has at any time committed violence or abuse against,

(a) his or her spouse;

(b) a parent of the child to whom the application relates;

(c) a member of the person’s household; or

(d) any child.

(5) SAME -- For the purposes of subsection (4), anything done in self-defence or to protect another person shall not be considered violence or abuse.

B. Supervision of Access

[31] The basis upon which the mother asserts that the father’s time must be supervised can be summarized as follows:

a. The mother alleges that the father was physically abusive to her, commencing at the end of February 2018 (after his release from hospital after treatment for an infection, at which time his personality underwent a significant change) until separation in June 2018. She asserts that in June 2018 the Applicant attempted to choke her and she feared for her life. She thereafter left the relationship;

b. The mother alleges that the father was using non-medically prescribed drugs including cocaine and ecstasy and is concerned that he may still be using same. She relies upon phone calls and text messages received from the father late at night and into the early morning to support her assertion that he continues to be under the influence of illegal substances, as otherwise he would be sleeping by 11:00 p.m. The Respondent mother surmises that a recent car accident involving the father on his way to work was caused as a result of his restless nights, another indicator to her that he remains under the influence of drugs;

c. The mother alleges that the father is rude, belligerent and aggressive to her, using foul and intemperate language, and has provided evidence same by way of transcription of voice messages from the father of this nature.

[32] The onus is on the person seeking to limit access by way of supervision order to prove that the requested access restrictions are in the best interests of the child.

[33] With respect to the mother’s allegations of domestic violence, the Respondent father denies same and offers a different perspective. He asserts that it was the Respondent mother who was physically abusive towards him. Specifically, he has provided photographic evidence which depicts multiple bruises and scratches to his upper body which he alleges were caused by the Respondent mother during the same time period. The mother’s response to this evidence is questionable. Her sole response is “the claims that I have assaulted him are lies. He has shown pictures of his injured neck from surgery at the hospital”. Her counsel suggested that the Court could draw a reasonable inference that the injuries to the father were defensive wounds. This does not conform with the mother’s sworn evidence, and no such inference will be drawn.

[34] While it is difficult to assess credibility on Affidavit materials alone, it is the opinion of the Court that neither party in this action is wholly innocent, and both have contributed to their past conflict. Regardless, all allegations of domestic violence between the parties that are alleged to have occurred are episodic in nature, in proximity to the date of separation, with no similar allegations made within the past one year since separation. There are no allegations made by either party as to violence towards the child or towards any other person. I have considered the allegations of past conduct made by each parent and I am not satisfied that these allegations are a reflection on the ability of either party to parent Isabella.

[35] There is no evidence before the court suggesting that the child has come to any form of harm while in the care of the Applicant father. However, all of his post-separation time with the child to date has taken place during daytime hours.

[36] The Respondent mother is concerned that the father may have in past, and may at present be abusing non-prescription drugs. She is concerned that he is demonstrating a restlessness at night that, in her opinion, is a reflection of ongoing drug use. The father has attempted to negate these concerns by way of production of medical documentation and drug testing. He has suggested a willingness to submit himself to further drug testing, and if this Court deems necessary, to have his overnight visits with Isabella take place in the home of the paternal grandparents. I am satisfied that the mother’s concerns pertaining to drug use on the part of the father can be managed at this time by way of additional terms and conditions which include ongoing drug testing, strict prohibition on the use of non-prescription drugs, and the overnight supervision of access.

[37] The Applicant father, through his counsel, volunteered to have overnight access at home of paternal grandparents. While the Court recognizes that the father is making concessions which in his view will increase the likelihood of an order for overnight access, it is the opinion of this Court that his proposal may be unduly restrictive. One of the objectives of this temporary order is to permit the child to commence acclimatization to a regular routine in her father’s home, including bedtime. This Court is hopeful that by not restricting the location of the overnight access, the third party supervisor(s) may from time to time be available to supervise overnight access in the father’s home. Further, if special occasions should present themselves in which the Respondent father and a supervisor wish to engage in brief weekend travel with the child during the father’s court-ordered time, they should not be precluded from doing so under the terms of this order. It is the expectation of the Court that both parents would communicate to the other, by way of the communication book to be utilized by the parties, as to any overnight out-of town travel with the child.

[38] To be clear, the supervision of the father’s overnight time with Isabella is intended to be transitional in nature. It is not a long-term solution, but rather is intended to minimize risk of harm, provide the mother with an additional sense of security in a situation where little to no trust exists between the parties, and provide additional comfort to the child during the transition to overnights by the presence of other familiar individuals.

[39] The issue of aggressive communications between the parties, as described under the communication section above, is best managed by a non-contact/communication Order as previously discussed.

C. Increase in Time

[40] The father asserts that the mother has been unduly restrictive in his time with the child. She has previously indicated to the father that Isabella “is my baby, not yours.” Requests for additional time with her are met with refusal.

[41] The principle of maximum contact is not about parental rights. It is designed to ensure that the best interests of the child are nurtured and promoted. Maximum contact by a child with capable and loving parents is generally considered to be in a child’s best interests. There is little on the record before this Court which suggests that either parent is incapable of meeting Isabella’s needs.

[42] Both parties are gainfully employed and both voluntarily contribute financially to the needs of the child. Neither party appears to have any past involvement with child protection agencies or local police services. Both appear to have loving and supportive extended families who also wish to spend time with Isabella.

[43] It appears on the record before me that the Respondent mother has not made sufficient effort to foster and promote a positive relationship between Isabella and her father. An obvious example of this is her failure to permit Isabella to have any time with the Applicant on Father’s Day 2019. Despite receipt of medical documentation and negative drug test results, the Applicant appears unwilling to expand access in any meaningful way without being ordered to do so by the Court.

[44] I find that, to date, Isabella has not been granted sufficient opportunity to develop and strengthen her bonds with the paternal side of her family. She is young and requires frequent, meaningful contact with the Applicant if their relationship is to flourish. The frequency and duration of her time with the Applicant father (and by extension her paternal grandmother, grandfather, and uncle) must be increased at this critical time for child development and bonding, however, I am also mindful of the need to phase-in the increase Isabella’s time with her father. He has not yet had opportunity to be a full time caregiver to the child (the parties separated when the child was an infant) and his parenting has been quite limited since that time. As such, the increase in access requested by the father will be granted, but pursuant to a graduated schedule as prescribed below.

[45] The new timeshare arrangement will take effect on Monday August 18, 2019 and access prescribed by Lafrenière J. will continue until that time to permit the parties to adjust their schedules for next week accordingly.

[46] It is expected that the parties will schedule further case management of this action after having had sufficient opportunity to assess the new parenting schedule as ordered herein.

Issue #6: Section 7 Expenses

[47] Counsel for the Applicant father agree that there was no evidence before the Court in relation to this issue and advised that the father was not pursuing this relief.

ORDER

[48] The Temporary, without prejudice, Order of Lafrenière J. dated February 12, 2019 shall be varied as follows:

Timesharing

1. The child, Isabella Stella Alampi, born May 10, 2018 shall reside primarily with the Respondent mother, Rana Eskander, and the Applicant father, Domenic Alampi, shall share time with the child as follows:

a. Commencing Monday August 18, 2019:

Week one:

(a) Monday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.;

(b) Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and

(c) Saturday from 11:00 a.m. until Sunday at 8:00 p.m.; and

Week two:

(a) Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and

(b) Saturday from 11:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.; and

alternating Week one and Week two thereafter.

b. Commencing Monday October 28, 2019:

Week one:

(a) Monday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.;

(b) Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.;

(c) Friday from 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 8:00 p.m.; and

Week two:

(a) Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., and

alternating Week one and Week two thereafter.

2. The Applicant father’s overnight time (between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.) shall be supervised by the paternal grandmother, Mary Alampi, the paternal grandfather, Ross Alampi, or the paternal uncle, Anthony Alampi, such that one supervisor shall be present in the same residence where the child is sleeping, pending further Order of the Court. The balance of the father’s time with the child need not be supervised.

3. The Applicant father shall not engage in the use of non-prescription drugs while in a caregiving role to the child, or within 48 hours preceding his prescribed time with child.

4. The Applicant father shall submit himself to ongoing drug testing, every 60 days, through his Family Physician and will promptly provide the written results of same to the Respondent mother through her counsel.

Access exchanges

5. Pending further Order of the Court, and unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parties in advance, access exchanges shall take place inside the McDonalds restaurant located at 20 Rymal Rd. East, City of Hamilton as follows:

(a) The parent who is returning the child into the care of the other parent shall attend personally with the child inside the McDonalds at the appointed time. This party is not prohibited from relying upon the assistance of third-parties to effect the exchange;

(b) The parent who is retrieving the child shall arrange to have a trusted third party (e.g. friend or family in their own discretion) attend inside the McDonalds to retrieve the child at the appointed time;

(c) The parent who is retrieving the child shall not enter the McDonalds, and shall remain within his or her vehicle during the access exchange, if present;

(d) The parent who is returning the child shall not approach the other parent’s vehicle;

(e) There shall be no contact or communication between the parties at the access exchanges.

Communication

6. There shall be no contact or communication between the parties, save and except as follows:

(a) In writing, through family law counsel;

(b) In writing, through a communication journal, which shall be exchanged at access exchanges, as follows:

i. The communication journal shall be used to provide and exchange all pertinent information related to Isabella, including but not limited to information regarding her health, activities, special events, routines, childcare strategies in each home, and any other issues relating to Isabella;

ii. The communication log shall not be used to write negative comments, or to raise issues that the parties can reasonably expect would create or exacerbate conflict between them;

iii. The communication journal shall include up-to-date information, including but not limited to:

  a. The names and contact information of all medical professionals involved with Isabella;

  b. Upcoming medical appointments for Isabella;

  c. Isabella’s current medications and the reasons why the medications have been prescribed;

  d. The dosages for Isabella’s medications including full details about how the medication should be administered, and a details as to the date and time of day when the medications were taken and in what dosage; and

  e. Sufficient detail regarding the results of any medical treatment or appointments which Isabella attended while in each party’s care.

(c) By way of text communication only in the event of an emergency, or time-sensitive issue.

Financial

7. Within 45 days the Applicant father shall:

(a) produce to the Respondent, through counsel, copies of all Records of Employment (ROE’s) issued to him from April 2018 to present; and

(b) produce to the Respondent, through counsel, an Affidavit which details a written chronology of all employment positions held, including period of employment, rate of pay, approximate hours worked, and reason(s) for leaving the employment position.

8. If the parties cannot agree on costs, the party seeking costs shall serve and file cost submissions not exceeding two pages in length by September 16, 2019, and any responding submissions will be served and filed by September 30, 2019. If costs submissions are not received on or before September 16, 2019 the issue will be deemed to have been settled.

9. All other claims for temporary relief on this motion are dismissed.

Bale J.

Date: August 14, 2019