COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-FO-518

DATE: 2019-12-11

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

LINDSAY LONSBURY

Applicant / Mother

– and –

DARRICK ANDERSON

Respondent / Father

Jean LeDrew Metcalfe, Counsel for the Applicant / Mother

Anna Towlson, Counsel for the Respondent / Father

HEARD: September 16-19, 2019

THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE D. PICCOLI

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

[1] The parties started dating in August 2013 after having met on a dating website. On March 15, 2014, they moved in together at a property located on Linden Drive in Cambridge, Ontario. In June 2014, the parties learned the applicant (the “mother”) was pregnant.

[2] The parties separated between September and November 2014. While the date of separation is in dispute, it is unnecessary for me to make a determination on the issue for the purposes of this application. Upon separation, the applicant moved back into her parents’ home in Kitchener, Ontario, where she continues to reside today. At the time of trial, the father also lived in Kitchener, Ontario.

[3] The child, Peyton Lonsbury, (the “child”) was born on January 27, 2015. The mother commenced this application on June 22, 2015 when the child was approximately 6 months old. At the time of trial, the child was approximately 4 years and 8 months of age, the mother was 28 years old and the respondent (the “father”) was 37 years old.

[4] The following issues were raised in these proceedings and each will each be addressed in turn:

i. joint or sole decision making with respect to the child (joint or sole custody);

ii. the parenting schedule/ time sharing with respect to the child;

iii. the incorporation of the respondent’s surname into the name of the child;

iv. child support (ongoing and retroactive); and

v. costs.

[5] During the trial, the parties agreed to incorporate the father’s surname into the name of the child and that is reflected in the orders made below.

[6] With respect to child support, the father agreed to pay guideline support if the schedule that was in place at the time of trial continued throughout the school year, and if the child were in his care 50% of the time during the summer and on holidays.

Historical Parenting Schedule

[7] For the first three months of the child’s life, the father exercised access at the mother’s home and/or a McDonald’s restaurant. At either location, the mother was present and supervised the access.

[8] For the next three months—as a result of a dispute between the parties—the father had no access to the child. The father states that it was because the mother told him to stop contacting her. The mother states that he misunderstood her; she advised him to stop contacting her about their personal relationship but not about seeing the child. Access then resumed at the McDonald’s for approximately one hour per week.

[9] From the commencement of these proceedings to the time of trial, the father’s periods of care with the child expanded from supervised access to unsupervised access, as follows: During week one, he would have the child from Wednesday at 4:00 p.m. to Thursday at 4:00 p.m. and again from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 4:00 p.m. In the event of a holiday, his weekend would be extended by one full day to include the holiday, unless it was dealt with in the holiday access schedule. During week two, he would have the child from Wednesday at 4:00 p.m. to Friday at 4:00 p.m.

Summary of Prior Court Orders

[10] It is undisputed that the father was required to bring several motions to increase his parenting time. All but one of the motions were resolved on consent.

[11] The orders are summarized as follows:

1. The Order of Rogers J. dated April 6, 2016 – on consent and on an interim without prejudice basis, the father’s care was expanded to every Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and every Wednesday from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The exchange location was at a Tim Horton’s.

2. The Order of Rogers J. dated December 8, 2016 – on consent dealt with Christmas 2016 periods of care. In addition, there was an expansion of access commencing January 14, 2017, as follows: During week one, from Saturday at 4:00 p.m. (and later 8:00 a.m.) to Sunday at 4:00 p.m. During week two, Wednesdays and Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. There were restrictions on access regarding cigarette smoking and non-prescription drug use, and the mandatory production of a drug screen.

3. The Order of Carr J. dated February 7, 2017 – Not on consent – the father’s alternate weekend access was further extended from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 4:00 p.m. The Wednesday access became overnight, namely from Wednesday at 4:00 p.m. until Thursday at 4:00 p.m. The father was prohibited from being under the influence of, or consuming, non-prescription drugs.

4. The Order of Nevins J. dated April 5, 2017 – on consent and on an interim without prejudice basis, the father’s periods of care were confirmed to be every other Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 4:00 p.m., each Wednesday from 4:00 p.m. to Thursday at 4:00 p.m. and on the weeks the father did not have his alternate weekend, the drop off would be Friday at 4:00 p.m. In the event of a holiday, his weekend would be extended by one full day to include the holiday, unless it was dealt with in the holiday access schedule, which was attached to the Order. The conditions regarding smoking and non-prescription drug use continued, and other terms were added.

In addition, this Order awarded the parties joint custody of the child and the child’s primary residence was noted to be with the mother. If, after meaningful discussion and consultation with each other, the parties could not agree, they were to engage a parenting coordinator or agreeable third party to assist them in resolving the issue. This Order continues to date.

6. The Order of Neill J. dated October 5, 2017 – on consent dealt with Thanksgiving and Christmas 2017 periods of care. This Order continues to govern the schedule for these holidays.

[12] I was advised each parent has the child in his or her care for two non-consecutive weeks in the summer months otherwise the schedule remained as it was during the school year. During the school year, I was advised that the father brings the child to the mother’s next door neighbour’s home to catch the school bus. As neither parent has a driver’s license, the father gets the child there on the city bus.

Mother’s Position

[13] It is the mother’s position that subject to the current access schedule, she should have sole custody of, and provide primary residence to, the child. In support of her position, she relies on the following:

i. she has been the child’s primary caregiver since birth;

ii. the father’s life is unstable and full of drama;

iii. the father does not exercise good judgment or good decision making;

iv. the father’s relationship with Amanda Ross demonstrates his lack of judgment;

v. between the city bus and school bus, the child’s trip to school takes one hour when she is in the father’s care. The mother submits that is too long and is happening too frequently under the current access schedule;

vi. the parents do not communicate well;

vii. the father did not appropriately respond to pre-school issues/questions; and

viii. the father has never paid child support.

Father’s Position

[14] The father seeks joint custody and equal parenting time for the following reasons:

i. the mother relies heavily on her family to parent the child;

ii. the mother does not cooperate with respect to access and parenting time and he has had to fight tooth and nail to get reasonable time with the child. Court intervention has often been necessary;

iii. the mother has intentionally restricted his access to establish the status quo;

iv. the mother marginalizes the father and does not respect him. Her conduct raises concerns of parental alienation. He requires a custody order to ensure he is not shut out of the child’s life;

v. he is a good father to both of his children, Liam, age 13 and Peyton, who is the subject of these proceedings;

vi. he has always wanted and continues to want equal time with his daughter; and

vii. the parents have not disagreed regarding decisions and they have never had to engage the assistance of a parenting coordinator.

[15] The father’s position is that although he is not the most sophisticated of people, Peyton is one of his highest priorities and he is a very capable and loving father to her. The child deserves to have two loving parents looking after her interests and making decisions on her behalf. He states that the parties have not disagreed on parenting issues related to the child. He suggests the evidence shows that they are capable of co-parenting. They accompany each other for parent teacher nights and attend appointments for the child together. He states that he currently has the child 36% of the time (or more if one looked at the holidays) and now seeks an equal division of parenting time.

Sole Versus Joint Custody

[16] In Jackson v. Jackson, 2017 ONSC 1566, [2017] O.J. No. 1997, Chappel J. summarized the law with respect to custody. At para. 65, Her Honour held the decision as to whether an order for sole custody or joint custody is in a child’s best interests is ultimately a matter of judicial discretion. However, several general principles have emerged from the jurisprudence to assist the court in the decision-making process. These can be summarized as follows:

i. There is no default position in favour of joint custody. Each case is fact-based and discretion-driven.

ii. Joint custody should only be considered as an option if both parents are fit parents and able to meet the general needs of the children. This is a threshold issue before the court considers the question of whether the parties are able to effectively communicate on issues relating to the children.

iii. The quality of past parenting and decision-making, both during the parties' relationship and post-separation, is a critical factor in determining whether joint custody is appropriate.

iv. However, the mere fact that both parents acknowledge that the other is a “fit” parent does not mean that it is in the best interests of the child for a joint custody order to issue. The decision regarding the appropriate decision-making arrangement must take into consideration all factors relevant to the child’s best interests.

v. Although some measure of communication and cooperation between the parties is necessary to support a joint custody order, the court is not required to apply a standard of perfection in assessing the parents’ ability to work together.

vi. The fact that one party insists that the parties are unable to communicate with each other is not in and of itself sufficient to rule out the possibility of a joint custody order. The question to be determined is whether a reasonable measure of communication and cooperation is in place, and is achievable in the future, so that the best interests of the child can be ensured on an ongoing basis.

vii. There must be a clear evidentiary basis for believing that joint custody would be feasible.

viii. In cases involving very young children, the court must take into consideration the fact that the child is unable to easily communicate their physical, emotional, developmental and other needs. Accordingly, the need for effective communication between the parties in a joint custodial arrangement will be particularly pressing in such circumstances.

ix. The wishes of the child will also be relevant to the decision respecting the appropriate custodial disposition in cases involving older children.

x. Evidence as to how an interim custody and access order has worked, and in particular, whether the parties have been able to set aside their personal differences and work together in the best interests of the child, will be highly relevant to the ultimate decision regarding the appropriate custodial regime.

xi. In analyzing the ability of the parties to communicate, the court must delve below the surface and consider the source of the conflict. The Ontario Court of Appeal has clearly stated that one parent cannot create conflict and problems with the other parent by engaging in unreasonable conduct, impeding access, marginalizing the other parent, or by any other means and then justify a claim for sole custody in their favour on the basis of lack of cooperation and communication.

xii. There has been an increasing willingness in recent years to order joint custody rather than sole custody where such an order is considered necessary to preserve the balance of power between the parties, particularly in cases where both parties are caring and competent parents but one party has been primarily responsible for the conflict between the parties.

[17] I find that both parents are fit and able to meet the general needs of the child.

[18] The relationship between the parties has been tempestuous. I accept the mother attempted to include the father with the birth and the parenting thereafter. However, the father’s inability to accept the parties’ breakup—exemplified by the father insisting the mother accept a gift in the delivery room and the father’s numerous text messages—contributed to the acrimony that ensued. The father’s comment that he might not be the father of the child also did not lend itself to a positive relationship.

[19] This acrimony continued such that the parents developed negative feelings for each other. The posts on social media denigrating women and the parties’ relationship (whether created by the father or by a hack on the father’s Facebook page) created further acrimony and mistrust. A lot of time was spent on the Facebook posts at trial. The father admitted certain posts and denied others saying he was hacked. Eventually, during the trial, the parents reached an agreement regarding social media and the child, which is reflected in the orders below.

[20] As I said to the father during the trial, regardless of whether he posted all of the posts or he was hacked, it is his Facebook page and he has a duty to ensure that his page is free of any information regarding this litigation, or posts that could be construed to be negative to the mother. This is particularly the case when his son Liam is his “friend” on Facebook. The father’s evidence as to the hacking was not credible. He would have the court believe that most of the negative posts were created by hackers and that the neutral or positive posts were generated by him.

[21] It is clear that following their separation, the relationship between the parties deteriorated, trust eroded, and the mother did not willingly encourage a relationship between the father and child. However, the parents have exercised joint custody since April 2017, and I find that they have generally been able to communicate and co-operate about the child (e.g. both attend medical appointments and school events together).

[22] In terms of medical decision-making, although the mother takes the lead by making the appointments and filling the prescriptions, there is no reason why the parents could not jointly decide. The father is encouraged to put aside his feelings of mistrust and accept that the mother has, and will continue to, make good decisions regarding the child’s medical needs as he should have done with the issue of the head lice. However, that does not mean that she should be the sole decision maker.

[23] In terms of educational decision-making, the mother was very involved with the child’s preschool and continues to be involved with the child’s schooling. The parents have attended school meetings together. The emails exchanged by the parties regarding preschool demonstrated the father’s mistrust of the mother as it pertained to the duty parent requirements. I am also concerned about the father’s naïve belief that the child will not have homework. The sheer volume of correspondence and the difficulty had by the parties in arranging preschool, leads me to the conclusion that the mother, after genuine consultation with the father, should make decisions regarding the child’s schooling. This is the only area in which I order the mother to have the final say.

[24] I agree with the father that to allow the mother sole decision-making authority would risk her marginalizing him and that would not be in the child’s best interests. This is evidenced by the number of motions the father had to bring to increase his parenting time and by the mother’s refusal to allow the father any additional time that was not court ordered (e.g. Family Day 2016, Christmas 2016, Christmas Parade 2016, CP Holiday Train). Decision making authority assists in ensuring that a parent’s relationship with his or her child is not marginalized: see Rigillo v. Rigillo, 2019 ONCA 548 at para. 12.

[25] This child will benefit from the involvement of both parents in the decision-making on all issues except schooling.

Parenting Time

[26] There was no dispute that the mother has been the child’s primary caregiver since birth. The father’s position that the mother created a status quo is not accepted. She is the one who commenced the litigation and although she has not provided the father with any time that is not court ordered, I do not accept that her actions were motivated by her intention to create a status quo of primary parenting.

[27] Section 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 requires the court to consider all of the children’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.

(a) Love, Affection and Emotional Ties

[28] The parties agree that the child loves, has affection for and is emotionally tied to both of her parents.

[29] It was clear to me from the testimony of both grandmothers and the paternal grandfather that she is also bonded to and loves her grandparents. The maternal grandmother with whom the child lives is a large part of the child’s life.

(b) View and Preferences of the Child

[30] The parties agree that the child’s views and preferences are not before the court and that she is too young for these views and preferences to be given any weight even if they were.

(c) Length of Time the Child has Lived in a Stable Home Environment

[31] There is no dispute that the child has lived primarily with her mother since her birth. Although the father raised some concern about the mother and child continuing to live with the maternal grandparents, and the assistance they provide, I do not find this to be concerning. It is clear that the child is closely bonded with her mother and her maternal grandmother. Although the maternal grandfather was not called as a witness, the evidence shows that he too is involved in the child’s life and that the child is bonded with him. This is the life the child has known since birth and I make no negative findings in relation to the mother continuing to live with her parents now or in the future.

[32] The father’s living situation is more concerning. At the end of his examination in chief, he admitted that he was likely going to be moving again. If his partner moves out, he will be unable to afford his current residence and will have to move. His monthly income is such that any rental that exceeds $750 per month will be difficult to manage. Although he denies the Facebook post of September 6, 2019, that indicates he may be moving to Cambridge, the evidence of his current partner confirms that this is one of the issues the two of them were grappling with at the time of the trial. In addition, the father chose or was forced out of subsidized housing and would now have to wait 4 to 6 years to secure subsidized housing in the future, should he desire. On balance, I find that the mother has a more 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 necessities of life and any special needs of the child

[33] The child does not have special needs. The mother has been the parent to primarily provide the child with the necessities of life. She is diligent in terms of ensuring the child meets her milestones. She takes the lead on schooling, medical issues and day-to-day care. She makes the child’s lunch each day, regardless of whose care the child is in. She is a concerned and loving parent.

[34] The father can meet the child’s needs but has played a lesser role in doing so. He blames the mother for this, but it is up to him to take the initiative. While I note that he took initiative with the car seat, he can afford to do more; whether it be preparing lunches, making contact with the dance studio or ensuring that issues such as head lice are appropriately addressed. He has also exercised some poor judgement in the past (i.e. social media posts, frequent moves and a number of relationships). The father has a learning disability which is such that he has difficulty reading. When asked how he would assist the child with homework his answer was that she would not have any homework. When pressed on this issue he indicated that he could obtain the assistance of his father, step-mother or partner. The mother and her family put a greater emphasis on schooling and are better able to support the child during the school year.

(e) The plan proposed by each parent for the child’s care and upbringing

[35] Each parent has proposed that he and she is able to care for the child and has put forward his or her plan regarding parenting.

[36] The mother’s plan is rooted in the status quo. Examples include:

i. she will continue to reside with her parents in their home;

ii. she has enrolled the child in dance lessons, and she will continue to pay for those lessons and ensure the child attends;

iii. she will continue to make all school lunches;

iv. she has a plan for school clubs;

v. she plans to obtain employment that allows her to be home before and after school and, if necessary, she will use the neighbour Donna for before and after school care.

vi. Although the mother has had a partner since she and the father separated, she has chosen not to introduce him as such to the child.

[37] The father’s plan is more fluid. He has not always made good choices (e.g. Amanda) and although the choices have not directly involved the child, they have affected her (nude bathtub pictures). I have no doubt that the father can make the school lunches or follow instructions on issues such as head lice, but he has failed to do so. While it may be unintentional, I find that the father does not always put the child’s needs first. This is evidenced by his retraction of the initial agreement that the child attend school, and the large amount of texts/emails that were exchanged on this issue.

[38] The child has a close relationship with the father’s son Liam. Initially, the father had Liam in his care on an equal basis. Now that Liam is a teenager, Liam sees his father (and therefore the child that is the subject matter of these proceedings) on an ad hoc basis.

(f) Permanency and stability of the family unit in which each parent proposes the child live

[39] The mother’s life has been stable, but the father’s life has not.

Reasoning Applied to the Law

[40] In allocating parenting time, I give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child. In this particular situation— and given the facts as they pertain to the schooling/ preschool issue—it is in the child’s best interests that the schedule which has been in place since April 2017 continue during the school year. The mother is better able to deal with and meet the child’s schooling needs. However, there is no reason that in summer time the parents cannot share parenting time with the child.

[41] In arriving at this decision, I have expressly referred to the maximum contact principle and reviewed the following Court of Appeal decisions: Rigillo, Kagan v. Brown, 2019 ONCA 495, and Doncaster v. Field, 2019 NSCA 61[OS(1] . Although these three decisions deal with the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), there is a similar provision in the Children’s Law Reform Act, namely s. 20. Section 20 states that both parents are equally entitled to custody of a child.

[42] In this case, joint custody has been in place since the Order of Nevins J. dated April 5, 2017. That order also provides for a parenting coordinator as a default provision. Neither party has used the parenting coordinator since the order and neither party seeks that the condition continue.

[43] The maximum contact principle is not absolute. The legislation obliges the judge to respect it to the extent that such contact is consistent with the child’s best interests. If other factors show that it would not be in the child’s best interests, the court can and should restrict contact: see Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3 at pp. 117-118.

Child Support

[44] The mother is in receipt of Ontario Works and the father is in receipt of Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) benefits.

[45] It was not until January 2019 that the father’s income met the threshold for the payment of child support. For January, February, March and April 2019 he received $1,255 per month and should have paid support based on an income of $15,060. In May 2019, the father started to receive $1,366 per month or $16,392 per annum. Accordingly, he should pay $80 per month for the months of January, February, March and April 2019 and $106 a month commencing April 1, 2019 and on the first of each month thereafter.

[46] As set out above, I find the father’s total obligation for child support for the period from January 2019 to and including December 2019 is $1,274.00 (i.e. $80.00 multiplied by 4 and $106.00 multiplied by 9). Having regard to the fact that the father’s income is restricted to ODSP benefits, I order that he is to pay the arrears at the rate of $50.00 per month until paid in full.

Summary

[47] As a result of the foregoing, I make the following orders on a final basis:

1. The mother, Lindsay Lonsbury, and the father, Darrick Anderson, shall have joint custody of the child, Peyton Lonsbury (the “child”), born January 25, 2015. They shall make all major decisions with respect to the child jointly, save and except as it pertains to her education.

2. With respect to the education of the child, the parties shall have meaningful consultation with each other. If, after meaningful consultation, the parties do not agree on a decision with respect to the education of the child, the mother, Lindsay Lonsbury, shall have the right to make a final decision.

3. The child’s primary residence shall be the residence of the mother.

4. The father, Darrick Anderson, shall have the child in his care as follows:

(a) Alternate weekends from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 4:00 p.m. or Monday at 4:00 p.m., if Monday is a statutory holiday or a PD day.

Each Wednesday from 4:00 p.m. to Thursday at 4:00 p.m. and on the weeks when the father does not have weekend access, the drop off shall be on Friday at 4:00 p.m.

(b) Such further and other access as the parties may agree.

Holiday Periods of Care

5. This holiday schedule shall override the residential schedule in paragraph 4 above:

(a) The child shall be in the care of the mother, Lindsay Lonsbury, every Mother’s Day from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

(b) The child shall be in the care of the father, Darrick Anderson, every Father’s Day from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

(c) On consent, the Easter and Thanksgiving holidays shall be shared equally.

(d) On consent, the child shall be in the mother’s care every Christmas Eve from 4:00 p.m. through to Christmas Day at 4:00 p.m. and in the father’s care every Christmas Day from 4:00 p.m. to Boxing Day at 7:00 p.m. The remainder of the child’s Christmas school holidays shall be shared equally.

(e) The child will reside with the parents equally during the summer school holidays starting with the first Friday of the father’s regular weekend care in July. The schedule shall be a week about with the exchange of the child to occur on Friday afternoons at a time agreed to by the parties, taking into account the child’s activity schedule. The non-residential parent shall have a Wednesday evening visit with the child from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., unless the other parent is traveling with the child outside of the Region of Waterloo. A parent may travel with the child up to two non-consecutive weeks over the course of the summer school holidays. The Mother shall choose her weeks first in even-numbered years and the Father shall choose his weeks first in odd-numbered years. The parties shall advise each other by May 1 of the respective year of his or her choice of summer holiday and the parent who does not have the first choice shall advise of his or her choice by June 1 of the respective year.

Other matters relating to parenting

6. The father, Darrick Anderson, shall pick up and drop off the child at school or the child’s school bus pick up location, if applicable, on days when the child is in his care.

7. The parties shall ensure the child arrives to school on time.

8. Neither parent shall smoke in their home when the child is present, nor permit the child to be exposed to second hand smoke.

9. Both parties shall have direct access to all medical, dental, counselling and school records of the child. Both parties may make inquiries and be given information from the child’s teachers, doctors, dentists and others involved with the child.

10. Both parties shall keep each other informed of the third-party service providers involved with the child.

11. Both parties shall be able to attend and participate in the child’s extracurricular and school events.

12. Should either parent need to make an emergency medical decision concerning the child, that parent shall inform the other parent of the decision immediately. In an emergency situation, either parent may contact the extended family of the other parent if the parent they are attempting to contact is unavailable.

13. Both parents shall ensure that the child is permitted to contact the other parent by telephone, if the child requests, and shall facilitate reasonable telephone, Facetime or Skype access at such times as can be agreed upon.

14. The parties shall keep each other advised of any changes to their address, telephone number and email and shall promptly provide the new information.

15. Neither parent shall move the child’s residence outside of Kitchener or Waterloo without the other party’s written consent or a court order obtained in advance of the move.

16. Neither parent shall travel outside the Province of Ontario without the written consent of the non-travelling parent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. If consent is withheld, reasons must be provided in writing. The traveling parent shall provide to the non-traveling parent a detailed itinerary of the travel plans, including destinations, flight carriers if applicable, departure and return dates and contact information. The traveling parent shall be responsible for ensuring the child has a valid passport and for obtaining and paying for any travel consents necessary to facilitate travel, which must be provided at least seven days prior to departure.

17. The father shall sign whatever documents are necessary in order to allow the Mother to obtain a passport for the child. The mother shall hold the child’s passport except for those times when the father is traveling outside the country with the child.

18. The mother shall hold the child’s health card and other government documentation and shall provide to the father certified copies of those documents within 30 days of the date of this judgment.

19. The parties shall communicate with one another in a child focused, polite and respectful manner. Communications shall be reasonable and necessary in frequency.

20. Neither parent shall disparage the other or the other’s extended family or a new partner in the presence of, or in earshot of the child, nor shall either party allow any other person to do so.

Benefit Coverage

21. The parties shall cooperate to maximize coverage available to the child through any respective benefit plans they may have. Should a party obtain employment, each shall obtain and maintain benefits coverage for the child through their respective income/employment sources. Claims shall be submitted promptly, and reimbursements distributed without delay to the appropriate person. Particulars of any coverage available to the child will be disclosed to both parents. If a service is going to generate an out-of-pocket expense for the parties, it shall be agreed upon in advance, if a party is going to seek contribution from the other for the out-of-pocket expense. Consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any agreed out-of-pocket expense shall be shared by the parties in proportion to their respective incomes. Reimbursement shall be made within 30 days of receiving or receipt providing the agreed upon expenses have been incurred.

Child Support

22. Arrears of child support payable by Darrick Anderson to Lindsay Lonsbury for the child, accumulated to December 31, 2019 are fixed in the amount of $1,274.

23. The net amount of arrears of support shall be paid at the rate of $50 monthly commencing January 1, 2020 and payable on the first day of each month thereafter until paid in full.

24. Effective January 1, 2020, and on the first of each and every month thereafter Darrick Anderson shall pay $106 per month for the support of the child, based on an annual income of $16,391.

25. The parties shall share any agreed upon (which agreement is not to be unreasonably withheld) net special and extraordinary expenses in proportion to their incomes.

26. The parties shall notify each other within 10 days of any material changes in his or her income.

27. Commencing June 1, 2020, the parties shall provide to one another by June 1 of each year, a full and complete copy of his or her income tax return, with all schedules and attachments and shall further provide a full and complete copy of any notice of assessment or reassessment received from the Canada Revenue Agency forthwith upon receipt.

Change of Name

28. On consent, the parties agree that the child’s legal name shall be changed as follows:

First Name: Peyton

Middle Names: Joy Anderson

Surname: Lonsbury

Social Media

29. On consent, neither party shall post any pictures of the child on any social media site, whether public or private. Neither party shall mention or reference the other party on any social media site, whether public or private. Both parties shall be vigilant in ensuring the child is not exposed to adult content posts, via social media.

Costs

[48] If counsel cannot agree, each shall provide costs submissions not to exceed four pages in length plus Bills of Costs (and Offers to Settle, if applicable) to be appended thereto. The Mother may file within 21 days and the Father 14 days thereafter.

D. Piccoli J

Released: December 11, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-FO-518

DATE: 2019-12-11

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

LINDSAY LONSBURY

Applicant / Mother

– and –

DARRICK ANDERSON

Respondent / Father

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

D. Piccoli J.

Released: December 11, 2019

[OS(1]This is a guess.