Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-8688-0000

DATE: 2019-10-22

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Munaza Chaudhry AND: Reza Meh

BEFORE: J.T. Akbarali J.

COUNSEL: Harold Niman and Vanessa Amyot for the Applicant William Abbott for the Respondent

HEARD: October 15, 2019

ENDORSEMENT

Overview

[1] The parties to this matrimonial litigation married on July 31, 2005 and separated on October 30, 2017. They have one daughter, S, who is currently 11 years old. Since separation, the parties have been living separate and apart in the matrimonial home.

[2] The parties agree that the current arrangement is no longer tenable. Both parties have brought motions before me. The applicant mother, Ms. Chaudhry, seeks an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and provisions for child and spousal support. The respondent father, Mr. Meh, seeks an order for a temporary, week-about nesting arrangement. Alternatively, if Ms. Chaudhry’s motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home is granted, he seeks an order for temporary, week-about parenting of S. In response to Mr. Meh’s motion, Ms. Chaudhry proposes a parenting schedule whereby S would be with Mr. Meh six days out of fourteen.

Procedural Background to the Motion

[3] Ms. Chaudhry’s motion was brought on the regular list, although it was a long motion. It first came before me on September 26, 2019, on a date when Mr. Meh’s counsel was unavailable and responding material had not yet been filed. At that time, I expressed concern that the motion may be a long motion, but I agreed to adjourn it to the regular list on October 15, 2019, because I was also concerned that there may have been issues that needed to be dealt with immediately. Since that endorsement, Mr. Meh filed his notice of motion, thus expanding the issues before me.

[4] I advised the parties that I was prepared to deal only with the parenting issues on October 15, 2019, and I adjourned the financial issues raised on the motion to November 21, 2019. The parties reached a consent on interim financial arrangements pending the return of the motion. Those terms include a one-time without prejudice payment to Ms. Chaudhry from Mr. Meh of $25,000, and Mr. Meh’s agreement to continue to pay the costs of the matrimonial home until the return of the motion.

[5] In addition, the parties agreed on an assessor (subject to her availability) to complete the s. 30 assessment that had already been ordered on consent by Nakonechny J. on April 29, 2019.

Issues

[6] At this juncture, I address the following issues:

a. Should Ms. Chaudhry be granted an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, or should Mr. Meh be granted a temporary nesting order?

b. If an order for exclusive possession is granted, what interim parenting time schedule should be put in place?

[7] I turn to the analysis of these questions.

Exclusive Possession to Ms. Chaudhry or a Nesting Order?

[8] Section 24(1)(b) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, provides that a court may direct that one spouse be given exclusive possession of the matrimonial home or part of it for the period that the court directs. Section 24(2) provides that such an order may be made on an interim basis on motion. Both parties rely on this section in support of the orders they seek.

[9] Section 24(3) identifies the criteria a court shall consider when determining whether to make an order for exclusive possession. These are:

a. The best interests of the children affected;

b. Any existing orders under part I (Family Property) and any existing support orders or other enforceable support obligations;

c. The financial position of both spouses;

d. Any written agreement between the parties;

e. The availability of other suitable and affordable accommodation; and

f. Any violence committed by a spouse against the other spouse or the children.

[10] The paramount consideration in determining exclusive possession of the matrimonial home where there is a child involved is that child’s best interests. Where the parties’ financial means allow for the maintenance of two households, a child’s interests should outweigh the proprietary interests of the spouses in possession of the matrimonial home: Liao v. Liao, 2003 CanLII 2167 (ON SC), [2003] O.J. No. 5063 at para. 25.

[11] A nesting order may be in a child’s best interest where it keeps the child in the matrimonial home, while rotating the parents in and out, to maintain continuity of the parents’ involvement while minimizing the disruption to the child. However, nesting orders have been rejected where they create opportunities for conflict or perpetuate conflict between the parents. Where the parties have lived in the same home with little interaction and little conflict, a nesting order may be appropriate: Grandy v. Grandy¸ 2012 NSSC 316 at paras. 33, 35.

[12] I will review each of the factors set out in the legislation in turn.

S’s Best Interests

[13] An assessment of S’s best interests requires that I understand the current circumstances of this family. Accordingly, I begin by reviewing those.

[14] I have already noted that S is 11 years old. She is an only child. At the moment, both parents have the ability to be home and available to her most of the time.

[15] In August 2018, Ms. Chaudhry was diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer. She has since undergone two surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation. She is on long term disability from work. She currently plans a gradual return to work beginning in November 2019.

[16] Mr. Meh’s employment history includes a position with RBC at which he earned approximately $125,000 per year. However, in 2013 he inherited significant wealth from his father, and he currently spends his time managing his investments at either the matrimonial home or his mother’s residence, where he is a regular visitor. He thus has a great deal of flexibility in his day.

[17] S has been living with her parents in the same house for her entire life.

[18] Ms. Chaudhry deposes that she and S, but not Mr. Meh, are well-integrated in their local community, which is warm and supportive. She includes an affidavit from a neighbour that confirms her evidence. The neighbour deposes that the neighbourhood came together according to a schedule to provide Ms. Chaudhry and S with meals during Ms. Chaudhry’s cancer treatment. Because Ms. Chaudhry’s family lives out-of-province, the support of her local community has been particularly important during Ms. Chaudhry’s treatment. Ms. Chaudhry states that Mr. Meh has not been supportive or understanding of her health issues. The neighbour states that Mr. Meh did not participate in preparing meals for Ms. Chaudhry or S during Ms. Chaudhry’s treatment.

[19] Mr. Meh deposes that he was as involved in supporting Ms. Chaudhry during her treatment as she would allow him to be. He states that Ms. Chaudhry tries to control S and isolate her from him, making it difficult for him to form connections with, for example, the parents of S’s friends.

[20] S has her own bedroom on the third floor of the home. Currently, Ms. Chaudhry is occupying the master bedroom on the second floor. The spare bedroom on the second floor is Ms. Chaudhry’s office space. Mr. Meh is sleeping in an open plan attic space through which S must pass to enter or exit her bedroom. Mr. Meh states that he has been unable to occupy the spare bedroom because Ms. Chaudhry uses it for her office. Ms. Chaudhry states the opposite: that she would prefer him to be in the spare bedroom, but he chooses to be in the open plan space.

[21] According to Mr. Meh, Ms. Chaudhry spends most of her time in the master bedroom, while he occupies the main floor of the home.

[22] There has been conflict between the parties over the master bedroom. Ms. Chaudhry states that Mr. Meh invades her privacy by entering the bedroom, including times when she is not home. Mr. Meh states he only enters the bedroom if S is there with Ms. Chaudhry, because Ms. Chaudhry tries to keep S in the bedroom to deny him parenting time with her.

[23] The tension in the home and the parties’ sleeping arrangements are impacting S’s social interactions. A parent of S’s friend and classmate swore an affidavit indicating that when her daughter and S play together, they prefer to do it the friend’s home, because there is so much tension at S’s home. She also indicated that she is no longer comfortable allowing her daughter to sleep over at S’s home, because Mr. Meh’s sleeping area is adjacent to S’s sleeping area, requiring the girls to walk through Mr. Meh’s sleeping area to get to S’s.

[24] Both parties describe an incident on June 11, 2019. According to Ms. Chaudhry, on that day she learned that Mr. Meh had frozen their joint line of credit which she required to fund her expenses. She states that he ignored her when she tried to raise the issue, and as a result, she threatened to smash his laptop. She states that he responded by trying to wrestle the laptop out of her hands. She threatened to call the police, and he then stormed out of the house, breaking a lock on his way out. She states she was concerned for her safety and called the police. She also states that S overheard the argument and was very upset by it. She deposes that the police chose not to lay any charges, but suggested she take S to stay at a woman’s shelter, which Ms. Chaudhry did not do, concluding it would not be in S’s best interests to do so.

[25] Mr. Meh’s description of the incident is quite different. He suggests that he froze the joint line of credit because Ms. Chaudhry had been using it unreasonably. When Ms. Chaudhry discovered what he had done, he deposes she became “hysterical, rude, aggressive and abusive”. She then took his expensive computer and vowed to destroy it. He states that she called the police and made false accusations of assault against him. He states the police did not charge him, but rather noted there was a “struggle” between the parties. Mr. Meh states that he voluntarily went elsewhere for the night to avoid further conflict. He states that S slept through the entire incident.

[26] The next day, June 12, 2019, Mr. Meh states that Ms. Chaudhry took S from the home and disappeared for three days, only returning after Mr. Meh served emergency materials for a motion requiring S to reside in the matrimonial home and seeking a week-about parenting schedule. Ms. Chaudhry states that she and S were just staying with a neighbour, and then S had a sleepover with a friend. She states Mr. Meh was in contact with S by email throughout this period. At the same time, on June 13, 2019, Ms. Chaudhry brought an ex parte motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, which she was instructed to return on notice. Ms. Chaudhry’s motion was eventually returned before me. Mr. Meh’s motion was settled, with the parties agreeing to a summer schedule. Ms. Chaudhry states that the summer schedule included a nesting arrangement, which was not successfully implemented.

[27] While the parties’ depictions of the current situation are at odds in material respects, both parties’ versions of the facts support the conclusion that there is a great deal of tension and conflict in the home.

[28] There are aspects to the current situation that I find very troubling. For example, Mr. Meh admits to carrying a camera with him to make video recordings. He states he has been “forced’ to wear a body camera to protect himself after what he characterizes as Ms. Chaudhry’s false report to police and other threats she has made to involve police. I have grave concerns about the effect on S of being recorded on a regular basis. For that reason, in my endorsement of September 26, 2019, I ordered that neither party record S, or record each other in S’s presence. Mr. Meh does not appreciate the harm his conduct can cause S.

[29] Moreover, both parties agree that S is beginning to show signs she is suffering. Ms. Chaudhry deposes that S recently had what she believes to be a panic attack during a drive with Mr. Meh. She believes the conflict between the parties is wearing on S. Mr. Meh agrees that S gets anxious, but he blames Ms. Chaudhry’s parenting for causing unnecessary stress and tension to S. There is also evidence in the record that S is getting headaches, which may be stress-related.

[30] I have already noted the evidence of S’s friend’s parent, that S and her friend prefer to play at the friend’s house so as to avoid the tension in S’s home. The conflict between the parties is interfering with S’s daily life.

[31] In my view, S’s best interests require a physical separation of her parents. She is currently living in an atmosphere of conflict, with Mr. Meh “protecting himself” by wearing a body camera, where friends are hesitant to come over to play, and with police involvement. Each parent is contributing to maintaining the conflict, leaving S trapped in the middle, such as when her parents gather in or around the master bedroom jockeying for S’s time. It is in S’s best interests for her to have a regular parenting schedule with time with each of her parents. She also needs to remain connected in a significant way to her home and community.

Any Existing Orders under part I (Family Property) and any existing support orders or other enforceable support obligations

[32] Currently there are no orders respecting support apart from the temporary consent order the parties entered into pending the return of the financial issues on this motion in November 2019.

The Financial Position of Both Spouses

[33] I have already described Ms. Chaudhry’s current circumstances; she is on leave from work with a gradual return to work to begin, hopefully, in November 2019. Ms. Chaudhry completed her PhD in 2015 and re-entered the workforce after an absence in April 2016. Her annual income at present consists of her disability insurance payments. According to her Financial Statement, she is earning $54,394.68 per year. On her return to full-time work, her income is expected to go up. Prior to her diagnosis and disability leave, she was earning approximately $120,000. However, since separation her debts have increased. Her savings are limited to an RRSP of about $115,000 and her half interest in the matrimonial home. As I noted, Mr. Meh has agreed to provide her with a without prejudice payment of $25,000.

[34] Mr. Meh’s annual income from his investments, according to his income tax return, is $205,000. On the return of the motion, I understand that Ms. Chaudhry will argue that I should impute a higher income to Mr. Meh. According to his Financial Statement, he holds investments worth over $8.7 million. He owns a condominium, which is currently rented, in addition to his interest in the matrimonial home.

[35] Mr. Meh is in a superior financial position to that of Ms. Chaudhry.

Any Written Agreement Between the Parties

[36] There is no written agreement between the parties.

The Availability of Other and Affordable Accommodation

[37] I have already concluded that Mr. Meh is in a superior financial position to that of Ms. Chaudhry. He is in a financial position to easily obtain other accommodation.

[38] Ms. Chaudhry’s financial position is more precarious. She may be in a position to obtain other affordable accommodation nearby with the $25,000 Mr. Meh has agreed to provide, but that amount is fixed, and the duration of the litigation between the parties is uncertain. I will be addressing the question of support on the return of the motion in November 2019, but the support payments Ms. Chaudhry will be entitled to, if any, is currently unknown.

[39] I note that Mr. Meh has indicated he is prepared to fund, on a short-term basis, an AirBnB or other short-term accommodation that the parties can share should I grant his motion for a nesting arrangement. This proposal would have the parties sharing both the matrimonial home and a secondary accommodation. While such an arrangement would alleviate the financial pressures on Ms. Chaudhry, I note that there are allegations that Mr. Meh does not respect Ms. Chaudhry’s privacy. I am concerned about the possibility of ongoing stress and conflict if the parties are sharing two residences.

[40] I have another concern about the availability of other accommodation. Ms. Chaudhry is still recovering from her cancer and cancer treatments. She deposes that she tires easily. She does not feel physically capable of moving. On Mr. Meh’s nesting proposal, Ms. Chaudhry would, in effect, be forced into a mini-move weekly. Thus, even if alternative accommodation is secured and funded by Mr. Meh, I am concerned that the physical demands of relocating weekly are too much for Ms. Chaudhry at this time.

Any Violence Committed by a Spouse against the Other Spouse

[41] I accept that the violence contemplated by s. 24(3) (f) of the Family Law Act is not limited to physical abuse, but can include words and actions that constitute a “psychological assault upon the sensibilities of the other spouse to a degree which renders continued sharing of the matrimonial dwelling impractical”, or “psychological warfare”, intimidation and emotional abuse: Hill v. Hill, [1987] O.J. No. 2297 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), at paras. 25-28; Kutlesa v. Kutlesa, [2008] O.J. No. 1157 (S.C.) at para. 31.

[42] I have already described the incident of June 11, 2019. However, I place no weight on that incident in my analysis of this criterion. Both parties’ affidavits relate very different versions of events. Mr. Meh has some support for his version through an affidavit filed by his counsellor who deposes she was on the telephone with Mr. Meh during the incident. However, I am not prepared to draw any conclusions about what occurred on June 11, 2019 on the basis of the paper record in front of me, especially in view of the allegations Ms. Chaudhry makes that Mr. Meh’s counsellor is inappropriately involved in the parties’ dispute.

[43] Nor am I prepared to conclude that either’s party’s words or deeds rises to the level of violence towards the other that is contemplated by s. 24(3)(f). I cannot reach such a conclusion on a paper record when the affidavit evidence filed is completely at odds.

[44] Accordingly, I place no weight on the parties’ respective allegations of abusive behaviour and violence.

Conclusion

[45] It is clear, and the parties agree, that they must be physically separated. As a practical matter, I must choose between a nesting order or an order granting Ms. Chaudhry exclusive possession of the matrimonial home; those are the orders the parties before me seek.

[46] I conclude that Ms. Chaudhry shall have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

[47] In reaching my conclusion, I have taken into account the factors I review above. I have placed great weight on (i) the potential for ongoing conflict, which will not be in S’s best interests, if the parties continue to share the matrimonial home and a second short-term accommodation; (ii) Mr. Meh’s superior financial position that will allow him to obtain and maintain, over a longer term, suitable alternative accommodation in which he can appropriately parent S and facilitate her ongoing involvement in her school and local community. This will minimize the disruption to S from her parents’ physical separation; (iii) the current state of Ms. Chaudhry’s health and the burden it would place on her physically to relocate weekly if a nesting arrangement were ordered.

[48] Mr. Meh argued that a nesting arrangement would be appropriate in view of the s. 30 assessment because it would provide a level playing field for the parties during the assessment process, and that if either party failed to make the nesting arrangement work, the particulars of that failure would be available to the assessor and the court. I disagree that a nesting order is necessary for a level playing field during the s. 30 assessment, because Mr. Meh can afford suitable, alternative accommodations in which to parent S.

[49] Mr. Meh also argued that the nesting arrangement would last only a few months until the s. 30 assessment is complete. At this point, the parties have yet to engage the s. 30 assessor. I think it is optimistic to think the process will be concluded and an agreement will be reached on final parenting arrangements within a few months.

[50] Moreover, the disruption to S of having to move between her parents’ homes is inevitable. Even were I to order a nesting arrangement, it would only be temporary. S can begin to adjust to a new reality whereby she moves between two homes, and the s. 30 assessor can prepare her report having regard to the reality of the parties’ situation, where S moves between her parents’ homes and the parties must co-parent her from their own households.

[51] In the circumstances, it is appropriate to provide Mr. Meh with some time to arrange suitable alternative accommodation. I thus order that Ms. Chaudhry shall be entitled to exclusive possession of the matrimonial home beginning thirty days from the release of these reasons, and that she shall have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home until the parties agree otherwise or until further order of the court.

[52] Next, I turn to the question of the appropriate parenting schedule for S once Mr. Meh moves out of the matrimonial home.

Parenting Time with S

[53] Ms. Chaudhry proposes a parenting schedule that provides for parenting time for Mr. Meh with S six of fourteen days. Mr. Meh seeks a week-about parenting schedule. The difference between the schedules is thus minor.

[54] Ms. Chaudhry argues that a 6/14 arrangement is appropriate to allow S to maintain her primary residence in the matrimonial home. Mr. Meh argues that an equal sharing is appropriate because it is consistent with the principle of maximum contact, and both parties are capable and loving parents.

[55] The court has jurisdiction to make an order for custody or access to a child of the marriage under s. 16(1) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.). By s. 16(2), the court may make an interim order for custody or access.

[56] Section 16(10) of the Divorce Act codifies the principle of maximum contact. It requires the court to “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”.

[57] Section 16(8) of the Divorce Act directs the court to take into consideration only the best interests of the child when making determinations of custody and access. In considering the best interests of the child, the court will generally have regard to s. 24(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, which assists in identifying factors relevant to children’s needs and circumstances. It provides that an application for custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child. It then describes factors that must be investigated in determining the child’s best interests in s. 24(2):

The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including,

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person, including a parent or grandparent, entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and

(iii) persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing;

(b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

(h) any familial relationship between the child and each person who is a party to the application.

[58] Accordingly, in determining the parenting time plan that is in S’s best interests, I will consider the relevant factors identified in s. 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The Love, Affection and Emotional Ties between S and her Parents

[59] According to Ms. Chaudhry, she has always been S’s primary parent. Ms. Chaudhry’s record includes affidavits from friends and neighbours that support her evidence that she is an involved and loving parent.

[60] Mr. Meh deposes that he also has a close and loving relationship with S, although he argues that Ms. Chaudhry has been attempting to minimize his role in S’s life. Mr. Meh’s record includes affidavits from his friends and family members that support his contention that he is an involved and loving father.

[61] I accept that S has a close and loving relationship with both parents.

S’s Views and Preferences

[62] On this interim motion, I have no reliable evidence of S’s views and preferences. From the evidence before me, I can infer that S wants the tension in her home to end and to no longer be in the middle of her parents’ dispute.

The Length of Time S has Lived in a Stable Home Environment

[63] S has been the recipient of her parents’ love and attention throughout her life. However, their conflict, at least since separation, has introduced uncertainty and stress into her life. In my view, her home environment will become more stable once the parties have physically separated.

The Ability and Willingness of Each Person to Provide S with Guidance, Education, and the Necessaries of Life and the Ability of Each Person to Act as a Parent

[64] Ms. Chaudhry argues that she is the more capable parent. She states that Mr. Meh left the country for lengthy periods of time during which she solely parented S. She deposes that Mr. Meh’s regular routine includes frequent absences from the home during which she is left to care for S. Around the time of her surgeries, she states that her family members came to stay with her from out of province, and friends pitched in to help, because even then Mr. Meh could not be relied upon to be a consistent presence for S. She describes a father who does not know how to prepare a meal for the child, and who cannot handle the child when she is sick.

[65] According to Mr. Meh, he has always been a loving and engaged father. He denies having been away from S for lengthy periods of time. He states that, at all times, he and Ms. Chaudhry equally shared the parenting and household duties with each other. Ms. Chaudhry would regularly call on him to accommodate changes to her schedule by picking up S from school or taking S to her activities. Mr. Meh deposes that Ms. Chaudhry is attempting to minimize his role in S’s life, and she is not prepared to co-parent with him, though he welcomes the opportunity to co-parent with her. He states that Ms. Chaudhry is attempting to draw S into an alliance with her against Mr. Meh, and that she encourages S to withhold information from Mr. Meh or lie to him, to fill her calendar with activities that exclude Mr. Meh, and that Ms. Chaudhry monitors and dictates S’s interactions with him. Mr. Meh also alleges that Ms. Chaudhry inappropriately allows S to self-administer an herbal remedy and anti-histamines. Ms. Chaudhry denies allowing the child to self-medicate.

[66] In my view, in considering the ability and willingness of each parent to provide S with all she needs, I must look to the future. S’s time with each of her parents is her right; it is not a reward to a parent for having cooked more meals in the past. Past behaviour is relevant as a predictor of the future, but it is not the end of the enquiry.

[67] The parties relate radically different descriptions of Mr. Meh’s involvement in S’s life. Ms. Chaudhry’s supporting affidavits suggest she was more involved in certain aspects of S’s life, such as coordinating play dates, but they also support Mr. Meh’s increasing involvement in those activities. Moreover, neighbours and other parents are not in a position to know all of the parties’ contributions to their household and S’s life.

[68] Whatever Mr. Meh’s contributions in the past – and on this paper record, I make no findings as to how involved he was or was not – I am satisfied that he is prepared to meet S’s needs going forward. Ms. Chaudhry appears willing to accept his capability as a parent for at least six of fourteen nights. If she was concerned about his ability and willingness to parent, I have no doubt she would not propose a nearly equal sharing of parenting time. Similarly, Mr. Meh proposes equal parenting time, thus demonstrating that he has no significant concerns about Ms. Chaudhry’s ability as a parent.

[69] The record supports the conclusion that both parents have the ability to parent and to provide S with guidance and education, and the necessaries of life.

[70] However, I have some concern that the conflict between the parents may impact how they treat the other parent, and how they support the child’s relationship with the other parent. For this reason, I think it is important that S have significant time with both parents, so both can occupy a meaningful role in her life.

The Plan Proposed by Each Party for S

[71] Neither party has proposed a specific plan for S, but the implication in the materials is that S’s status quo will continue as much as possible. That is, she will remain in her school and connected to her local community, with significant time with both parents. This is an appropriate plan for S.

The Permanence of the Family Unit with which it is Proposed S will Live

[72] Both parents have been a steady presence in S’s life and there is no reason to think they will not continue to be so.

Conclusion

[73] Taking into account the factors discussed above, I conclude that, on a without prejudice, interim basis, a shared parenting regime is in S’s best interests. A shared parenting regime will allow S maximum contact with each parent, each of whom is a loving and capable parent, and it will ensure that neither parent is relegated to a marginalized role in S’s life.

[74] In my view, a week-about parenting regime with a mid-week dinner visit for the non-resident parent is appropriate. This will allow consistency in S’s schedule with regular points of contact with both parents. Changeovers shall occur on Friday pick up after school. Dinner visits shall occur on Tuesdays, from after school pick up to drop off at the residential parent’s home by 8:30 p.m. This schedule shall commence on the first Friday after Mr. Meh leaves the matrimonial home, and the first week of the schedule shall be with Ms. Chaudhry as the residential parent.

[75] In addition, I direct that neither party shall disparage the other, nor allow third parties to do so, in the presence of S.

[76] I also direct that neither party shall make any recording of the other at any time, or of S in the presence of the other.

[77] Neither party made any request for telephone access with S during the other parent’s parenting time. I would hope that the parties can cooperate on this issue, but if further submissions need to be made, I will hear brief submissions about telephone access at the hearing of the motion in November 2019.

Costs

[78] The parties agree that costs of this portion of the motion be reserved until after the disposition of the financial aspects of Ms. Chaudhry’s motion, which I am to hear in November 2019.

J.T. Akbarali J.

Date: October 22, 2019