COURT FILE NO.: 447/18

DATE: 2020-05-21

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

SARAH BAZINET, Applicant

• and -

DAVID BAZINET, Respondent

COUNSEL: Colin Thurston, for the Applicant Taryn Simionati and B. Thompson, for the Respondent

HEARD: January 21, 22, 23, 24 and 27, 2020

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Justice C. Petersen

INTRODUCTION

[1] This proceeding was commenced by an Application under the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.). The parties came to an agreement to settle all property and financial issues between them. The outstanding issues at trial were custody, access, mobility and prospective child support.

[2] There is one minor child of the marriage, a daughter whom I will refer to as "MA". The child support issue is straightforward and will be addressed at the end of this judgment. The custody issue is not very contentious. The issues that consumed most of the time at trial were the parenting schedule and the mobility dispute.

[3] Ms. Bazinet wishes to relocate her residence with MA from Aberfoyle, in the Township of Puslinch, to the Town of Ajax, a distance of approximately 110 km. Mr. Bazinet, who lives in the City of Guelph (adjacent to the Township of Puslinch), opposes the move. He is seeking an order for an equal shared parenting arrangement, which would not be feasible if Ms. Bazinet's desired relocation were permitted to take place. Regardless of whether the move is permitted, Ms. Bazinet seeks an order that MA will reside principally with her and will have visits with her father on alternating weekends, plus some additional time during the Christmas, March and summer school breaks. If the move is not permitted, then she proposes that Mr. Bazinet would have one additional Thursday evening visit with MA mid-week on alternating weeks.

BACKGROUND FACTS

[4] The parties both grew up in Guelph. Their parents and siblings still live in Guelph.

[5] They met and started dating while in high school. They began living together in 2004 and married on September 30, 2006. They co-own a house in Guelph, where they resided during the marriage. Their daughter, MA, was born in 2010 and was almost 10 years old at the date of trial.

[6] Ms. Bazinet is a Registered Nurse who works full-time as a Case Manager at the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN). She has been employed in this role since May 2012, but not always at the same location. She began as a contract employee and obtained a permanent position in May 2018. Currently, she works remotely from home and out of an office in the south end of Guelph, not far from her residence in Aberfoyle. Her hours of work are Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM.

[7] Mr. Bazinet works full-time as a Supervisor for an architectural firm in Guelph. He has been employed there for over 20 years. He started as a Junior Draftsman and has held various positions of increasing responsibility. He has held his current position for almost 10 years. His hours of work are Monday to Friday, from about 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, with occasional overtime. His office is approximately a seven-minute drive from his residence.

[8] The parties separated on October 7, 2015 but continued to reside under the same roof in the matrimonial home for several months. On or about March 1, 2016, Ms. Bazinet moved to a rental apartment in the basement of a house in Aberfoyle. MA was six years old at the time. Mr. Bazinet remained in the matrimonial home in Guelph. The parties have stayed in the same residences for the past four years. They have agreed that Mr. Bazinet will purchase Ms. Bazinet's interest in the matrimonial home.

[9] Despite being in different municipalities, the parties' residences are only a 15- to 20-minute drive apart. MA lives primarily with Ms. Bazinet but continues to attend the same school in which she was enrolled prior to the parties' separation, namely École Guelph Lake, a French immersion public school. The school is a two- to three-minute walk from the matrimonial home.

[10] The separation agreement between the parties does not address the issues of custody, access or mobility. There have been no temporary custody or access orders made in this proceeding. The parties have been operating under a de facto joint custody arrangement since they separated, although Mr. Bazinet's input into decision-making regarding MA has gradually decreased over time. MA has principally resided with her mother in Aberfoyle since March 1, 2016, but she sees her father daily on school mornings. She spends alternate weekends, alternate Thursday evenings and two weeks every summer with her father.

[11] The parties have both developed new romantic relationships, which created some awkwardness between them but not acrimony. They have respected each other's liberty to move on with their lives, while maintaining ties for MA's sake. Ms. Bazinet's partner, James Sparrow, resides in Ajax. He has shared custody of his two sons with his ex-spouse. Ms. Bazinet intends to live with them if she and MA are permitted to relocate there. Mr. Bazinet has no immediate plans to move in with his partner, Kelsey McLaren, but he envisages cohabiting with her in the future.

[12] MA is fortunate to have two intelligent, financially stable, loving and fully engaged parents, who are both able to meet her physical, emotional, psychological and economic needs. They are not perfect. Like all parents, they have made mistakes. They have human flaws and frailties, but they are committed to providing what is best for their daughter, even though they do not always agree on what that entails.

[13] Despite some disagreements, the parties have co-parented effectively since their separation. The record shows that they have maintained regular communication about their daughter, have generally been respectful of each other in their communications, have appropriately shielded MA from any conflict between them, and have shown commendable cooperation. When they argue, they wisely step back and take a break so that cooler heads prevail. Their relationship is not without tensions, but it is refreshingly amicable, especially in contrast to the hostility and bitterness that so often characterize the relationships of parties involved in family law proceedings.

[14] Mr. and Ms. Bazinet have demonstrated their mutual desire and ability to work together to promote MA's best interests. Apart from the parenting schedule and mobility issue in this case, which they have not been able to resolve without resort to litigation, the only area of serious disagreement between them is whether MA should continue to be enrolled in French immersion schooling – an issue that is not before me. They have otherwise overcome their differences and have made major parenting decisions jointly for the past four years.

[15] The parties both deserve credit for their successful co-parenting, but it should be noted (and will be discussed in greater detail below) that the facility and quality of evenness with which joint decisions have been made are largely attributable to Mr. Bazinet's flexibility and passivity. His willingness to compromise and desire to avoid conflict have been key ingredients in their recipe for success.

[16] Mr. Bazinet's readiness to compromise is not, however, boundless. He is not prepared to abandon his claim for an equal shared parenting arrangement, nor is he willing to consent to MA moving to Ajax with Ms. Bazinet. He is also not prepared to cede final decision-making authority to Ms. Bazinet on important matters affecting MA. These custody, access and relocation issues must therefore be decided by this court, in accordance with the legal principles set out in the governing statutes and binding jurisprudence.

THE LAW

[17] The parties submitted extensive case briefs with relevant authorities, excerpts from An Act to Amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act to make consequential amendments to another Act (Bill C-78), and legislative backgrounders explaining the pending Bill C-78 amendments to the Divorce Act. Bill C-78 received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019 but has not yet come into force. The amendments were scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2020, but the date of proclamation has been postponed due to circumstances arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Best Interests of the Child

[18] It is a trite principle of law that the "superordinate consideration" – indeed, the only consideration – that must govern the court's decision in any custody, access or mobility dispute is the best interests of the child in the particular circumstances of the case: Divorce Act, s. 16(8); Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at pp. 38, 120; Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, at para. 49(5); Berry v. Berry, 2011 ONCA 705, 343 D.L.R. (4th) 501, at para. 10; and Porter v. Bryan, 2017 ONCA 677, at para. 10. The rights and interests of the parents are irrelevant, except to the extent that they impact on the best interests of the child: Gordon, at para. 37.

[19] The best interests of the child encompass not only the child's physical and economic well-being but also their emotional, psychological, intellectual and moral well-being: Elliott v. Elliott, 2008 CarswellOnt 3225 (S.C.) at para. 49, aff'd 2009 ONCA 240.

Custody and Access

[20] The current terminology of the Divorce Act (which will be changed when the Bill C-78 amendments come into effect) includes "custody" and "access" orders. The chief feature of a custody order is that it confers parental decision-making authority on the person who is granted custody. In the case of a sole custody order, that authority is vested in one parent to the exclusion of the other. In a joint custody order, both parents are given decision-making authority in all areas affecting the child and are required to make major parenting decisions together. Courts also have the discretion to make customized custody orders that confer on each parent parallel decision-making authority in different areas of the child's life (e.g. religious upbringing, education, or medical treatment).

[21] It is important to remember that the decision-making authority of a custodial parent is not an independent "right" granted by the courts for the benefit of the parent. The purpose of a custody order is to enable the custodial parent to discharge her or his responsibilities and obligations to the child. A custody order therefore reflects "the child's right to a parent who will look after her or his best interests": Young, at pp. 37-38, 51, per L'Heureux-Dubé J., dissenting in the result.

[22] Similarly, an access order does not confer a parental right. Access reflects the right of a child, after the breakdown of their family unit, to maintain a meaningful, healthy and supportive relationship with a non-custodial parent or other person of significance in their life: Young, at pp. 59-60, per L'Heureux-Dubé J., dissenting in the result. Access orders typically designate specific times that the child will spend with persons other than the custodial parent. The orders may be subject to a variety of conditions and restrictions in furtherance of the child's best interests.

[23] Regardless of the custody arrangement in any given case (i.e., the allocation of parental decision-making authority), the court may be called upon to order a parenting schedule that sets out where and with whom the child will reside as well as when and for how long the child will spend time with each parent. Such orders are commonly referred to as "access" orders even in cases where the parents have joint custody and there is no "access parent" per se. These types of access orders reflect the right of a child to have the most suitable living arrangements possible in the circumstances for their care and upbringing.

[24] Section 16 of the Divorce Act governs applications for custody and access orders. It includes the following provisions:

(8) … the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child.

(9) … 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 of a child.

(10) … 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.

[25] The Divorce Act is the governing legislation for parenting issues raised in the context of divorce proceedings, but courts will often also consider provincial and territorial family law statutes when determining what custody and access orders are in a child's best interests: Jackson v. Jackson, 2017 ONSC 1566, at para. 60. In Ontario, s. 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 ("CLRA") provides the following helpful guidance:

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.

[26] There are additional subparagraphs in s. 24 of the CLRA that deal with family violence, but they are not applicable in the circumstances of this case.

[27] Currently, the Divorce Act does not include a list of criteria for courts to consider in applying the "best interests of the child" test, apart from the general requirement to refer to "the condition, means, needs and other circumstances" of the child and to give effect to the principle of maximum contact with both parents. The absence of specific criteria in the Divorce Act explains why this court frequently looks to the factors listed in s. 24 of the CLRA in divorce cases.

[28] One of the amendments to the Divorce Act that will be introduced by Bill C-78 is the following non-exhaustive list of criteria for the court to consider when applying the "best interests of the child" test in parenting disputes:

(a) the child's needs, given the child's age and stage of development, such as the child's need for stability;

(b) the nature and strength of the child's relationship with each spouse, each of the child's siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child's life;

(c) each spouse's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other spouse;

(d) the history of care of the child;

(e) the child's views and preferences, giving due weight to the child's age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g) any plans for the child's care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

[29] Although Bill C-78 is not yet in effect, this list of criteria enacted by Parliament is nevertheless relevant and useful in deciding the issues before me because the criteria are drawn from the jurisprudence. The list effectively summarizes the case-law to date. I will therefore take the Bill C-78 list of criteria into consideration.

[30] It is important to note that not every criterion listed in s. 24 of the CLRA or in Bill C-78 will be relevant in every case. Moreover, the lists are not exhaustive. There may be additional relevant criteria that should be considered, depending on the specific circumstances of each case.

[31] No single criterion should be given priority in determining a child's best interests. The weighing of each criterion when making parenting orders will always depend on the individual circumstances of the child.

Relocation

[32] The Divorce Act currently does not contain any specific provisions with respect to mobility disputes. With the enactment of Bill C-78, a new framework will be created to deal with relocation issues under the Divorce Act. Unlike the new list of criteria for assessing the best interests of the child when making parenting orders, the new relocation provisions do not simply mirror developments in the case law. They introduce notice requirements, establish burdens of proof and articulate new criteria to govern the determination of a child's best interests in the context of mobility cases. Since the amendments go beyond the principles articulated in the existing jurisprudence and since they are not yet in effect, it would not be appropriate or fair to the parties for me to rely on the new provisions in deciding the relocation issue in this case. I have therefore disregarded the pending Bill C-78 amendments on relocation.

[33] I am bound by the jurisprudence that has developed under the existing provisions of the Divorce Act. The 1996 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gordon remains the leading authority on the principles that must guide a court's determination of what is in a child's best interests when a contested relocation is at issue.

[34] The Gordon case involved a couple who separated when their daughter was very young. After a trial, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench awarded the mother custody of the child with generous access to the father. About a year later, the mother decided that she wanted to move to Australia to study orthodontics. When the father learned of her plans, he applied for a variation order granting him custody of their daughter, or alternatively, an order restraining the mother from removing the child from Saskatoon. The mother cross-applied for a variation order permitting her to move the child's residence to Australia. The mother's application succeeded, and the father's application was dismissed. The decision of the trial judge was upheld by both the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

[35] The Supreme Court provided the following summary of the law at paras. 49-50 of its decision in Gordon:

1. The parent applying for a change in the custody or access order must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in the circumstances affecting the child.

2. If the threshold is met, the judge on the application must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child's needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them.

3. This inquiry is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order and evidence of the new circumstances.

4. The inquiry does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the custodial parent, although the custodial parent's views are entitled to great respect.

5. Each case turns on its own unique circumstances. The only issue is the best interest of the child in the particular circumstances of the case.

6. The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests and rights of the parents.

7. More particularly the judge should consider, inter alia:

(a) the existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent;

(b) the existing access arrangement and the relationship between the child and the access parent;

(c) the desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents;

(d) the views of the child;

(e) the custodial parent's reason for moving, only in the exceptional case where it is relevant to that parent's ability to meet the needs of the child;

(f) disruption to the child of a change in custody;

(g) disruption to the child consequent on removal from family, schools, and the community he or she has come to know.

In the end, the importance of the child remaining with the parent to whose custody it has become accustomed in the new location must be weighed against the continuance of full contact with the child's access parent, its extended family and its community. The ultimate question in every case is this: what is in the best interests of the child in all the circumstances, old as well as new?

[36] In Gordon, the Supreme Court also held, at para. 48, that "the views of the custodial parent, who lives with the child and is charged with making decisions in its interest on a day-to-day basis, are entitled to great respect and the most serious consideration." The Court added, "The decision of the custodial parent to live and work where he or she chooses is likewise entitled to respect, barring an improper motive reflecting adversely on the custodial parent's parenting ability."

[37] The Gordon case dealt with a mobility dispute in the context of an application to vary a final court order on custody and access. In this case, there is no prior court order. The custody and access issues are being decided at the same time as the mobility issue is being determined by the court.

[38] The Court of Appeal for Ontario has ruled that the legal principles set out in Gordon apply, with appropriate modification, to a case like the one before me, where there is no prior custody or access order: Bjornson v. Creighton (2002), 62 O.R. (3d) 236 (C.A.), at paras. 18, 39, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, 29558 (April 17, 2003); Berry, at para. 9. Necessary modifications include: (1) there is no threshold requirement to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, (2) there are no findings of a prior trial judge that must be taken into consideration, and (3) the parties cannot be divided into the "custodial parent" and the "access parent". This does not, however, foreclose the possibility that one parent can be identified, for the purposes of the mobility dispute, as the primary caregiver for the child.

[39] In Porter, at para. 16, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled that a primary caregiver could be identified, for mobility purposes, in a case involving parents who had agreed to joint custody. Indeed, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge, who denied the mother's motion for an order permitting her to relocate the parties' five year-old son from Cochrane to Thunder Bay, "made an error in principle by not characterizing the mother as the primary caregiver of the child, which led to the further error that her reasons for moving were not entitled to the serious consideration required by Gordon v. Goertz".

[40] The same principles apply in the case before me, where there has been de facto joint custody without a court order or agreement. The Gordon principles apply equally to a primary caregiver who, while not holding a custody order, has principally lived with the child and has been responsible for making day-to-day decisions in the child's best interests.

[41] This does not mean that a primary caregiver must be identified in every mobility case. The court needs to examine the evidence to determine whether the parents have been equally engaged in caring for the child or whether one of them has been the primary caregiver. There is no presumption in favour of a primary caregiver's position with respect to the relocation issue, but the court is obligated to give the primary caregiver's views great respect and serious consideration, just as it would a sole custodial parent's views.

Sequence of Decisions within Judgment

[42] I must approach all three parenting issues in this case (i.e., custody, access and relocation) by determining what is in MA's best interests in all the circumstances. There is substantial overlap in the relevant criteria to consider when making these determinations. The issues are intertwined and cannot be considered in isolation from each other: Johannson v. Fletcher, 2018 ONSC 156, at para. 21.

[43] However, in terms of the sequence in which I decide the issues, I am bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Bjornson, at paras. 19, 39, which holds that deciding the mobility issue first would constitute an error of law. I will therefore decide the custody and access issues prior to deciding the mobility dispute, so that the custody and access orders can be factored into my decision regarding Ms. Bazinet's proposed relocation.

CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENTS

[44] Before turning to the first issue, I want to make some preliminary comments about my assessment of the witnesses' credibility. Both parties testified at trial. Ms. Bazinet also called her partner, James Sparrow, and her mother, Vada Driskell, as supporting witnesses. As his supporting witnesses, Mr. Bazinet called his partner, Kelsey McLaren; his mother, Dianne Bazinet; and a close family friend, Jean Stevens. It is undisputed that all the witnesses care deeply for MA.

[45] The supporting witnesses testified about their own relationships with MA and about their observations of the parties' parenting skills and relationships with MA. Mr. Sparrow and all of Mr. Bazinet's witnesses were candid and forthright in giving their evidence. They strived to be as objective as they could, despite their natural partiality toward one or the other parent's position. I found them to be credible and reliable.

[46] On the other hand, Ms. Driskell (Ms. Bazinet's mother) consistently downplayed facts that were unhelpful to Ms. Bazinet, made exaggerated statements that were unduly critical of Mr. Bazinet, and generally tailored her evidence to try to assist her daughter's case. Her testimony appeared scripted. I am not suggesting that she outright fabricated false evidence, but she spun facts to suit a narrative in support of her daughter's preferred parenting plan and desire to relocate to Ajax. I therefore found her credibility to be lacking. Consequently, I will rely on her evidence only to the extent that it is uncontested.

[47] I also have serious concerns about some aspects of Ms. Bazinet's credibility, which I will address below. In contrast, I found Mr. Bazinet's credibility to be unimpeachable, even under skillful cross-examination.

ISSUE 1: CUSTODY

Parties' Positions

[48] Both parties are seeking an order for joint custody, but Ms. Bazinet wants the court to grant her ultimate decision-making authority in the event the parties cannot agree. The rationale for her request is that MA's best interests will not be advanced if the parties reach an impasse on an important issue and are unable to arrive at a joint decision that affects her. Their dispute over MA's French immersion schooling is what prompted her request.

[49] The court is required to consider all possible decision-making frameworks, not simply those proposed by the parties: Jackson, at para. 62. I will therefore evaluate the evidence with all custody options in mind to determine what is in MA's best interests.

Review of Relevant Evidence

[50] It is clear from the evidence that the parties have different parenting styles. For example, Mr. Bazinet was tentative about introducing MA to his girlfriend, Ms. McLaren. He waited almost two years before even telling MA about her. He then let MA take the lead on whether and when she wanted to meet Ms. McLaren, which happened about four months later. He continues to be cautious about fully integrating Ms. McLaren into their lives and is doing so incrementally. He explained that he did not want someone to enter MA's life and then "disappear", so he waited until he felt that his relationship with Ms. McLaren was stable and serious before taking steps to introduce her to MA.

[51] Ms. Bazinet, in contrast, was not hesitant to introduce MA to people that she dated after the parties separated. She introduced MA to her current partner, Mr. Sparrow, about one month after they met. She started bringing MA to Ajax for weekend visits with Mr. Sparrow about two months later. Shortly thereafter, she introduced MA to Mr. Sparrow's children, and within six months, they all spent a week together at a cottage.

[52] To be clear, I am not criticizing either party's approach to handling these transitions. MA has seemingly responded well to both. I am simply observing the different choices the parties made and highlighting their contrasting parenting styles.

[53] Another example of their different approaches to parenting relates to their reactions on occasions when MA has suffered an illness or injury. The evidence shows that Ms. Bazinet has been more distressed and inclined to seek immediate medical intervention, whereas Mr. Bazinet has been calmer and less prone to resort to emergency medical care. Once again, I am not criticizing either party's approach. There is no question that both parties care deeply about MA's well-being. Moreover, there is no evidence that either party has done anything in the past to jeopardize or compromise her health. I reject outright Ms. Driskell's testimony that Mr. Bazinet "doesn't take enough initiative to do what needs to be done to help out MA if she needs health care". I find no basis in the evidence to support that statement. Both parties are fit parents, capable of fulfilling MA's needs.

[54] Fortunately, the differences in the parties' parenting styles have not impeded their ability to co-parent and make joint decisions affecting MA. They have found ways to compromise and reach a consensus on issues, such as how to divide their parenting time during the Christmas school break. In most cases, their different perspectives and approaches have complemented each other, resulting in balanced and sound decision-making.

[55] For example, in late May 2018, Ms. Bazinet obtained a permanent position with the LHIN in the south end of Guelph, close to where she lives in Aberfoyle. She messaged Mr. Bazinet to let him know and said she wanted to talk about changing MA's school to Aberfoyle public school that September. MA was struggling academically with English and Ms. Bazinet expressed the view that it would be better for her to withdraw from French immersion. Ms. Bazinet assured Mr. Bazinet that MA had friends who attended the Aberfoyle school, which would make the transition easier. She also let him know that she had confirmed the availability of an after-school childcare spot for MA the following year, but that it could only be held for a couple of days.

[56] The parties exchanged multiple text messages over the span of two hours that morning. Mr. Bazinet disagreed with the proposed change to MA's school. At one point, he accused Ms. Bazinet of "conflating MA's best interest with what's convenient for you at the moment", but that is the most charged comment that either of them made. Their messages were succinct, polite and respectful. They had a constructive dialogue, which is challenging to do by text message because of the heightened risk of misunderstanding that is inherent in that form of communication.

[57] Mr. Bazinet expressed his view that changing schools was not in MA's best interests "at this time". Among other things, he pointed out that Ms. Bazinet was involved in a new relationship with someone in Ajax and likely would not be living permanently in her rented apartment in Aberfoyle once their separation agreement was finalized. He expressed concern that, if MA changed to Aberfoyle school in September 2018, she might need to change schools again in the future. He stated that multiple changes would be unnecessarily disruptive and hard on MA. He did not foreclose the possibility of transferring MA to an English school board in the future but urged Ms. Bazinet to "slow down". He suggested that they revisit the issue "after the divorce". Ms. Bazinet agreed and dropped the subject. They ended the text exchange cordially by wishing each other a good day.

[58] The record contains other examples of the parties working through their differences and arriving at joint decisions regarding MA's welfare. Recently, however, Ms. Bazinet has begun to make some significant parenting decisions without consulting or involving Mr. Bazinet. There is evidence of this pattern emerging during the year leading up to trial. For example, early in 2019, Ms. Bazinet purchased eye glasses for MA (pursuant to the recommendation of MA's eye doctor) without discussing it with Mr. Bazinet. He was surprised that MA was wearing the glasses the next time he saw her because Ms. Bazinet had not even mentioned it to him.

[59] Another example of a significant parenting decision made unilaterally by Ms. Bazinet occurred in the spring of 2019. The parties had attended a parent-teacher meeting at MA's school in April to discuss MA's academic struggle with languages. MA was falling behind her grade level in both English and French. The meeting did not go well. The parties argued. Mr. Bazinet, whose heritage is French Canadian, did not agree with the school's recommendation to remove MA from French immersion. Ms. Bazinet had initially been supportive of French immersion education for MA but agreed with the recommendation because of MA's lack of progress.

[60] Prior to the school meeting, Ms. Bazinet had been researching tutoring options for MA. She did so without consulting Mr. Bazinet. After the meeting, she visited the Oxford Learning Centre to obtain information and concluded that it was "a good fit" for MA. She brought MA to the centre for an assessment of her English and French language skills. Then she registered MA for tutoring, which MA has been attending after school for one hour twice a week since May 2019. Ms. Bazinet did not mention any of this to Mr. Bazinet, who only found out about the tutoring when he read about it in materials that Ms. Bazinet later filed in court. Ms. Bazinet did not share with him any of the information that she received from the Oxford Learning Centre.

[61] I am not suggesting that the unilateral decisions made by Ms. Bazinet were unsound. Mr. Bazinet is not critical of the specific choices that she made. He is not suggesting that she acted contrary to MA's best interests. Indeed, the same decisions may have been reached if he had been involved. However, he is concerned about the erosion of his input into significant decisions that affect MA. He testified, for example, that they used to discuss the available summer camps for MA and select appropriate camps together, but this past summer, Ms. Bazinet chose the camps, registered MA and simply advised him of the cost after the fact. Ms. Bazinet acknowledged that she had done this.

[62] Ms. Bazinet admitted during her cross-examination that she should have consulted with Mr. Bazinet about the tutoring and should have included him in the communications with Oxford Learning Centre. Her explanation for excluding him was that "it was a contentious time" between them because of the conflict over French immersion education and her desire to relocate to Ajax, which she had communicated to Mr. Bazinet in October 2018.

[63] Ms. Bazinet testified that she intends to continue making joint decisions with Mr. Bazinet and wants the authority to make a final decision only in the event that they are unable to agree. Mr. Bazinet submits that, if Ms. Bazinet is given ultimate decision-making authority, they will have joint custody "in name only". He fears that Ms. Bazinet will, in practice, continue and expand her recent pattern of making unilateral parenting decisions without his input.

Conclusion on Custody

[64] Based on all the evidence and the submissions of the parties, I find that a joint custody order is in MA's best interests, with no allocation of final decision-making authority to either parent.

[65] Both parties are caring and competent parents. Continuing to have them both actively involved in important decisions affecting MA's upbringing will enhance the decision-making process and ensure that outcomes remain balanced and child-focused. A joint custody order will enable both parties to have meaningful parental influence in MA's life, which will ensure the promotion of her best interests on an ongoing basis.

[66] Apart from a few recent instances when Ms. Bazinet excluded Mr. Bazinet from parenting decisions, the parties have successfully co-parented to date. I am confident they will be able to continue to do so, despite their current stalemate on the issue of French immersion schooling. They both indicated that they are open to dispute resolution mechanisms like mediation, which could assist them to resolve any particularly conflictual disagreements.

[67] I see no need to give Ms. Bazinet ultimate decision-making authority. Furthermore, I share Mr. Bazinet's concern that, if such an order were made, he would likely become marginalized over time and his influence in parenting MA would diminish: Rigillo v. Rigillo, 2019 ONCA 548, at paras. 11, 12. That would not be in MA's best interests. MA will benefit from having both parents involved in all important decisions affecting her upbringing.

ISSUE 2: ACCESS

[68] The parties' positions on this issue have already been set out above at paragraph 3.

[69] There is considerable overlap in the criteria relevant to the determination of the parenting schedule that is in MA's best interests and the resolution of the relocation dispute in MA's best interests. I will therefore review the evidence relating to the applicable criteria in respect of both issues simultaneously, while remaining cognizant of my obligation ultimately to determine the access issue first before deciding the relocation issue (see paragraph 43 above).

MA's Views and Preferences

[70] The parties have wisely refrained from soliciting MA's views on the issues before the court. MA is only ten years old. She loves both of her parents very much. She should not be put in the uncomfortable and stressful position of being asked to take sides in the access and mobility disputes between them.

[71] The Office of the Children's Lawyer declined to act in this case and Mr. Bazinet's motion for an assessment pursuant to s. 30 of the CLRA was dismissed by Mossip J. In her Endorsement dated June 4, 2019, Mossip J. stated that it would not be appropriate to request a Voice of the Child Report in view of the mobility issue because MA "should not be involved in that decision by being asked where she wants to live."

[72] There is no evidence in the record of MA's preferred parenting schedule. I do not know whether she would like to have a different parenting schedule or an arrangement in which she spends more time with her father.

[73] There was evidence at trial about spontaneous statements that MA made to various people at different times regarding a possible move to Ajax. Most of the comments conveyed a preference not to move. Ms. Bazinet acknowledged that MA has occasionally expressed to her a reluctance to move because she does not want to leave her friends in Guelph. I attach no weight to that hearsay evidence because the views expressed by MA have been episodic, not entirely consistent over time and likely influenced by outside factors. Therefore, the views MA is alleged to have expressed are not necessarily a reflection of her true feelings. Moreover, I am not convinced that she has the maturity, at her young age, to be able to make a proper assessment of her own best interests.

History of MA's Care

[74] Based on the totality of the evidence at trial, I accept Ms. Bazinet's submission that she has been the primary caregiver for MA from birth. However, I reject her portrayal of Mr. Bazinet as an uninvolved parent throughout the marriage. I find that she minimized the significance of his parental engagement during her examination-in-chief. I am not persuaded that his role was as marginal as she suggested. During her cross-examination, she ultimately acknowledged that he has been "present" as a parent in MA's life since birth.

[75] Prior to MA's birth, Ms. Bazinet was working two jobs, one at a hospital and the other for Telehealth. She took a one-year maternity leave when MA was born. Mr. Bazinet continued to work. During that first year, Ms. Bazinet was home all day and therefore provided most of the care for MA (shopping, feeding, dressing, soothing, diaper changing, etc.). However, Mr. Bazinet was home every morning and most evenings (he occasionally worked overtime). He gave uncontested testimony that, when he arrived home from work, he would play with and care for MA while Ms. Bazinet prepared dinner. He changed her diaper, as needed. They ate together as a family, then Ms. Bazinet went to bed early while Mr. Bazinet continued to care for MA. He would bathe MA and put her to sleep. Ms. Bazinet would then provide care if MA awoke during the night, so that Mr. Bazinet could sleep and be rested for work the next day.

[76] From the time of MA's first birthday, both parents worked. Ms. Bazinet initially returned to work part time for Telehealth. She worked from home two to three days per week and therefore had the flexibility that enabled her to accompany MA to medical appointments on weekdays. She scheduled the appointments to coincide with her availability. She therefore attended to MA's health care needs but she shared all relevant health information with Mr. Bazinet.

[77] Ms. Bazinet sometimes worked on weekends or in the evenings. Mr. Bazinet would care for MA when she worked these shifts. Ms. Bazinet continued to provide most of the care because she was working only part time, whereas Mr. Bazinet was working at least 45 hours per week.

[78] From the time MA was 16 months old until she started school, she was placed either in a daycare or in childcare with a third party during the day. Mr. Bazinet was primarily responsible for driving or walking MA (depending on the distance) to the childcare provider every morning. Ms. Bazinet was primarily responsible for picking her up in the afternoon. Both parents were listed as emergency contacts with all the care providers.

[79] The parties tried to maintain a routine for MA. Mr. Bazinet was involved in parenting in the evenings after he got home from work. The parties ate dinner together, played with MA and then one of them would draw a bath for MA. They shared bathing responsibility, but Mr. Bazinet typically put MA to sleep. He testified that he would tuck her in, sit with her and often fall asleep beside her.

[80] Ms. Bazinet eventually obtained a full-time position at a hospital, but she did a "job share" with another employee and consequently had alternate weeks off work. She therefore continued to provide most of the care for MA, but Mr. Bazinet contributed in the evenings and on weekends.

[81] The parties took some day trips together with MA to conservation area parks. Ms. Bazinet also travelled with MA alone. There were occasions when she traveled overnight or for a few days at a time with MA. They went to a trailer at Sable beach, to a family friend's cottage in the Muskoka's and to visit a friend in Owen Sound. Mr. Bazinet did not make similar trips alone with MA.

[82] From infancy, Ms. Bazinet took on the significant role of organizing and managing MA's care and activities. She not only brought MA to doctor's appointments, but she also researched available childcare providers, registered MA for the daycare that the parties selected, planned outings, investigated the rankings of schools in the area, enrolled MA in the school that the parties selected and registered MA for an after-school childcare program. She took charge as MA's social planner. For example, she kept track of birthday parties to which MA was invited, ensured that appropriate gifts were purchased for the hosts and brought MA to the parties.

[83] MA is a very active child. Over the years, Ms. Bazinet obtained information about available age-appropriate activities and registered MA for a variety of camps and sports that the parties agreed were suitable (including swimming, karate, soccer, dance, skating, horseback riding). Mr. Bazinet participated in the decision-making, but Ms. Bazinet did all the groundwork. Ms. Bazinet accompanied MA to all her activities; Mr. Bazinet also attended most times.

[84] MA eventually settled into competitive cheer as her preferred activity. She started with a team in Guelph then moved to a higher-skill team in Cambridge, and she is now a member of a team in Milton. Both parties were involved in discussions about the team changes. They reviewed the information packages and toured the gym facilities together. They have both been involved in driving MA to and from her cheer practices and competitions, Ms. Bazinet more so because MA resides with her most of the time.

[85] Ms. Bazinet retained her managerial role within the family after the parties separated. She maintained social media contact with the parents of MA's friends and conveyed relevant information to Mr. Bazinet, such as when a birthday party was scheduled on one of his parenting weekends. She continued to take responsibility for registering MA for extra-curricular activities and summer camps. She prepared calendars setting out MA's activities and provided copies to Mr. Bazinet so that they could coordinate their parenting.

[86] The post-separation parenting arrangement will be reviewed in detail below. Because MA lives with her mother most of the time, Ms. Bazinet has necessarily continued to be her primary caregiver in terms of her daily routine (e.g. feeding, clothing, transportation to school and activities). Ms. Bazinet has also continued to assume responsibility for administrative tasks associated with parenting, such as ordering school photos, completing on-line registration for field trips and communicating (via notes in a booklet) with MA's teacher about homework assignments during the week.

[87] Ms. Bazinet has regularly attended parent-teacher meetings from the commencement of MA's primary education. Mr. Bazinet has attended some of the meetings, but not as consistently as Ms. Bazinet. Some of the meetings conflicted with his annual hunting trip with his family. However, when MA began to experience academic difficulties in grade 3, both parents became actively involved in meetings with the school to address her needs. Both parents have taken steps to assist MA with her learning and homework.

[88] Since separation, Ms. Bazinet has continued to schedule MA's health and dental appointments and has taken MA to those appointments. She has given Mr. Bazinet notice of the appointments and, except for the purchase of prescription eye-glasses, he has been involved in all major health care decisions, but he has not accompanied MA to scheduled doctor's and dentist's visits. He has gone with MA and Ms. Bazinet to the hospital on occasions when MA required emergency medical care.

[89] Ms. Bazinet has generally taken the lead on MA's health care issues since birth, perhaps because of her training as a Registered Nurse. Mr. Bazinet explained that he allowed this pattern to continue post-separation because he understood that it was Ms. Bazinet's preference to oversee MA's health care needs. The evidence at trial is consistent with his impression. Ms. Bazinet testified that she "gives direction" to Mr. Bazinet when medical issues arise. She explicitly stated that she does not "feel confident there would even be initiation to engage in activity for MA's health" if it were left to Mr. Bazinet to schedule and follow up on appointments. I find no basis in the evidence to support her perspective on this issue. I accept Mr. Bazinet's testimony that, if he had equal shared parenting time with MA, he would ensure that her health and dental care needs were met during his weeks, including scheduling and attending appointments as needed.

[90] During her testimony, Ms. Bazinet simultaneously complained about the burden of the organizational and administrative work that falls to her, while at the same time making it clear that she assumes these tasks voluntarily because she does not have confidence in Mr. Bazinet's ability to shoulder a share of the responsibility. Mr. Bazinet testified that he is willing to take on more parenting tasks, but Ms. Bazinet is not prepared to relinquish control over MA's activities and care. He feels that the current parenting dynamic and division of labour have been imposed on him by Ms. Bazinet.

[91] Based on the totality of the evidence, I agree with Mr. Bazinet's submission that Ms. Bazinet has, to a certain extent, marginalized him as a parent in order to solidify her role as primary caregiver. She appears to have difficulty surrendering her role as the family manager, even though she simultaneously finds it to be burdensome. However, as Mr. Bazinet acknowledged during his testimony, he has passively accepted this longstanding pattern in their relationship, even though he would prefer to be more actively involved in MA's care. The parties have therefore both contributed to this somewhat dysfunctional dynamic.

Parties' Respective Abilities and Willingness to Meet MA's Needs

[92] Mr. Bazinet's passivity in allowing Ms. Bazinet to take charge of organizing and managing MA's education, health care and extra-curricular activities does not mean he is incapable of assuming more of those administrative responsibilities. Nor does it reflect a disinterest in parenting on his part. Rather, it reflects his general lack of assertiveness and avoidance of conflict in the context of the longstanding dynamic of his relationship with Ms. Bazinet. The text exchanges discussed earlier, in which Mr. Bazinet persuaded Ms. Bazinet to postpone a decision about whether to change MA's school, constitute a rare example of him being assertive and her being flexible in their co-parenting relationship. The evidence establishes that the pattern is usually the opposite.

[93] Despite his general passivity, I have no doubt about the sincerity of Mr. Bazinet's testimony regarding his desire "to be involved as much as possible" with MA. He stated, "I miss my daughter. It's not been easy having minimum contact with her. It's a joy whenever she's around. I want to be part of her life. I am a capable adult. I want to parent my daughter." I found his choice of the words "capable adult" to be revealing because I noticed that, during Ms. Bazinet's testimony, she often condescended to him (e.g. "I'd have to explain to him how to manage those things.") She did not disparage him openly, but she subtly conveyed her opinion that she is the superior parent.

[94] I do not share her view. I am confident, based on the totality of the evidence adduced at trial, that both parties are equally able to parent MA with a view to promoting her best interests. The parties are intelligent, compassionate and caring individuals, both capable of providing MA with appropriate intellectual and moral guidance. They are equally equipped to satisfy her physical, emotional, psychological and economic needs, and they are both committed to prioritizing her needs above their own. They both provide MA with a sense of safety and security. Although they have different approaches to parenting, they are both fit parents with equivalent parenting skills and aptitudes.

[95] Ms. Bazinet submits that, as a female parent, she is better placed to guide MA through upcoming transitions at this stage of MA's life. She testified that MA "is heading into puberty and needs her mother". She noted that MA is developing breast tissue and has already started to want to wear bras. She added that MA will need to have conversations about menstruation and stated, "I feel it's best for me to address those things with her. She doesn't engage in those conversations now with [her father]." These types of out-dated gender-based stereotypical assumptions about parenting have no place in the law: Cumpson v. Templeton, 2005 ONSC 22132 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 26.

MA's Linguistic and Cultural Heritage

[96] MA's paternal grandfather is francophone. Mr. Bazinet values his French-Canadian heritage. The parties agreed, during their marriage, that they would nurture MA's connection to this heritage. Their desire to preserve her linguistic and cultural heritage is what principally motivated them to enroll her in French immersion schooling.

[97] Although Ms. Bazinet is concerned about MA's academic progress and now wishes to transfer MA to an English school, she remains supportive of promoting MA's French language skills. She took French language college courses in 2017 in order to be able to assist MA with homework, but she admits that French is not one of her strengths.

[98] Mr. Bazinet and his father both speak French fluently. Although English is the principal language spoken in their homes, they speak French with MA periodically. Mr. Bazinet assists MA with French reading comprehension. He can relate to MA's academic struggles in French immersion because he went through the same thing. He and MA have occasional "French days" when they converse in French at home. MA visits her paternal grandfather on the weekends that she is with Mr. Bazinet and they tease each other in French.

Existing Parenting Arrangement and Length of Time It Has Been in Place

[99] Ms. Bazinet testified that the current parenting schedule was negotiated with Mr. Bazinet, reduced to writing and signed by them before she left the matrimonial home at the end of February 2016. She said she obtained a parenting plan template from a Canadian law website, customized it to their personal circumstances, then sat down with Mr. Bazinet to review it. She stated that she revised the draft terms of the plan based on his feedback before they signed it. She testified that they implemented the agreed-upon parenting plan consistently from the time she moved out.

[100] Ms. Bazinet was unable to produce a copy of the parenting plan bearing the parties' signatures, but she insisted that a signed copy existed. She adduced into evidence an unsigned parenting plan, which she claimed was the version that incorporated Mr. Bazinet's changes. She testified that "it represented what we both wanted."

[101] The unsigned parenting plan sets out terms for shared parenting on holidays and school breaks, as well as a "regular parenting schedule". According to this regular parenting schedule, MA will live primarily with her mother and will reside with her father on alternating weekends from Friday afternoon until Sunday evening. In addition, it states that evening visits with the father will be "flexible" and "arranged on a weekly basis" and that MA will spend two weeks with her father each summer.

[102] Mr. Bazinet testified that the parenting plan was presented to him by Ms. Bazinet before she moved out of the matrimonial home. He recalled discussing it with her and expressing his displeasure with the limited time he would have with MA under the proposed plan. He stated that Ms. Bazinet refused to change it. He denied having any input into the terms of the plan, denied ever agreeing to the schedule set out in the plan and denied signing a copy of the parenting plan. He said he took the proposed plan to his lawyer to deal with it.

[103] Ms. Bazinet is not asserting that the parenting plan constitutes an enforceable separation agreement on access. She does not claim that their signatures were witnessed, which is a requirement of any domestic contract under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 55(1) ("FLA"). Even if the parenting plan satisfied the formal requirements of the FLA and were found to be a valid separation agreement, I would have the discretion to disregard its terms if I concluded that it was in MA's best interests to do so: FLA, s. 56(1). The parenting plan, even if it was negotiated by the parties, would not bind the court or dictate my access and relocation orders.

[104] The evidence regarding the genesis of the parenting plan is nevertheless significant because, if the plan represents an agreement between the parties, then it constitutes relevant evidence of what the parties mutually thought was in MA's best interests at the time of their separation. This would be a relevant factor, along with all other facts and circumstances, in my determination of MA's best interests: Woodhouse v. Woodhouse (1996), 29 O.R. (3d) 417, at p. 589, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1996] S.C.C.A. No. 402; Ligate v. Richardson (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 423, at para. 59.

[105] The evidence about the genesis of the parenting plan is also relevant to the credibility of the parties because they gave such diametrically opposed testimony about it. After considering all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, I accept Mr. Bazinet's testimony on this issue and reject Ms. Bazinet's testimony as not credible.

[106] One of Ms. Bazinet's strengths is her remarkable organizational skills. She systemically maintains records and paperwork relating to MA. For example, she created and retained copies of monthly calendars of MA's activities over the years. Yet she did not preserve a copy of the executed parenting plan. It is simply not believable that she would have discarded such an important document. It makes no sense that she would have retained the unsigned copy but not the signed copy, if there was a signed copy. Moreover, if a signed copy was inadvertently lost, there ought to have been some explanation proffered as to how and when it went missing.

[107] Furthermore, on March 10, 2016, ten days after Ms. Bazinet moved out of the matrimonial home, Mr. Bazinet's lawyer (at that time), Bruce Gray, sent Ms. Bazinet's lawyer, Colin Thurston, a letter that included the following paragraph:

I understand that the parties are having discussions with respect to working out the terms of a parenting plan. Your client has provided a form of a parenting plan which my client understands she might have obtained from the internet. While it provides input with respect to potential terms in a parenting plan, many matters have to be addressed including a significantly increased role in my client's care of [MA] than from that suggested in this particular document. My client will be giving consideration to the appropriate form of a parenting plan and I expect will provide your client with a detailed response which they can review in a cooperative fashion and, hopefully, work out the terms of a plan taking into consideration the best interests of their daughter and her continued relationship with both parents.

[108] This contemporaneous documentary evidence corroborates Mr. Bazinet's testimony and contradicts the account given by Ms. Bazinet. Ms. Bazinet testified that she was surprised when she received a copy of Mr. Gray's letter because the "lawyer's description was not accurate". She maintained that she and Mr. Bazinet had agreed on the parenting plan. I find her testimony on this point to be improbable and not credible. If it were true, she could have immediately responded to the lawyer's letter by forwarding a copy of the signed parenting plan to show that Mr. Bazinet had already agreed to its terms. She did not do so and provided no explanation for her failure to do so.

[109] For these reasons, I conclude that Mr. Bazinet did not consent to the parenting plan presented by Ms. Bazinet. I find that he verbally expressed to Ms. Bazinet, in or about late February 2016, his dissatisfaction with the alternate weekend schedule that she proposed for his parenting time. His lawyer then confirmed his dissatisfaction in the letter dated March 10, 2016.

[110] The fact remains, however, that the parties nevertheless implemented a parenting schedule that closely resembles the terms of the parenting plan that Ms. Bazinet wanted. From the outset of their physical separation on March 1, 2016, MA has resided principally with her mother and stays with her father on alternating weekends. She also visits her father on Thursday evenings on alternating weeks and spends two weeks with him at a family cottage each summer. In addition, she spends time with her father on school day mornings – an aspect of the parenting schedule that will be discussed in greater detail below.

[111] Shortly after Ms. Bazinet moved to Aberfoyle, she started preparing calendars of MA's activities that included the weekends and weekday evenings when MA would be with her dad. She provided Mr. Bazinet and his mother Dianne with copies of the calendar. The parties agree that sporadic mid-week visits initially took place upon Mr. Bazinet's request, but a routine quickly emerged of alternating Thursdays, as reflected in the calendars. They disagree, however, on how this routine came about.

[112] During her cross-examination, Ms. Bazinet acknowledged that, when she first moved to Aberfoyle, she "only allowed [Mr. Bazinet] to see [MA] every other weekend" and he "had to ask every time he wanted to see [MA]" on a week day. She testified that she was open to accommodating more visits with him but said he did not ask for any additional time. She stated that he only wanted to see MA on alternate Thursdays.

[113] Mr. Bazinet denies the accusation that he was disinterested in spending more time with his daughter. He testified that he was made to feel that he was encroaching on Ms. Bazinet's time with MA whenever he asked for weeknight visits. He said he encountered "push back" from her when he asked for more parenting time, so he settled on a regular bi-weekly visit on the Thursday evening before the weekend that he did not have MA in his care. He said he did this to "keep everybody happy", which I took to mean that he compromised to avoid conflict with Ms. Bazinet.

[114] Mr. Bazinet testified that Ms. Bazinet presented him with MA's calendars as a "fait accompli" and he was expected to "just passively agree to them". He acknowledged that she would ask him about his vacation and that he could request a change in the calendar to accommodate his schedule, but he stated, "in order to be amicable, I didn't protest as much as possible." He added, "Knowing [Ms. Bazinet's] nature, if I disagreed it would exacerbate the situation…. She'd have a temper tantrum or stop talking." He explained, "I was trying to create a working relationship." During his cross-examination, he was asked how he knew how Ms. Bazinet would have responded to requests for changes to MA's calendar if he did not make requests. He responded, "based on the 20-year history between us and our previous interactions."

[115] Mr. Bazinet insisted that he nevertheless made occasional requests for additional time with MA in the early days after Ms. Bazinet moved out. He said some requests were made verbally and some were made by text message, but he was unable to point to any relevant texts from 2016 or 2017, despite voluminous text exchanges reproduced in the record. He acknowledged that, over time, he made fewer requests for additional parenting time. He pointed to only two text messages, one in May 2019 and the other in August 2019, when he asked Ms. Bazinet for additional week-day visits with MA. The record shows that Ms. Bazinet promptly agreed to the first request but ignored the second request.

[116] Ms. Bazinet testified that she understood throughout that Mr. Bazinet was satisfied with the parenting arrangement because he did not follow up on his lawyer's letter of March 10, 2016 and did not object to the arrangement that they had in place. Mr. Bazinet testified, in contrast, that he brought up his wish to change the parenting plan in conversation with Ms. Bazinet. He said there were numerous in-person discussions between them on his driveway that "never went anywhere".

[117] Mr. Bazinet did not follow up with Ms. Bazinet regarding the parenting plan in the manner that his lawyer suggested he was going to do in the letter dated March 10, 2016. He did not present Ms. Bazinet with a "detailed response" to the plan that she had proposed. There were no further communications between the parties' counsel on the parenting issue in 2016. Indeed, there appears to have been no correspondence at all between the lawyers until January 2017, when they became involved in assisting the parties to finalize a resolution of financial and property issues. A series of letters were then exchanged between counsel over several months, none of which addressed the parenting schedule.

[118] On September 7, 2017, Mr. Thurston (Ms. Bazinet's lawyer) raised the issue of the parenting schedule for the first time in a letter to Mr. Gray, who was at that time still representing Mr. Bazinet. Mr. Thurston reported that MA had repeated to her mother Mr. Bazinet's comments that he wanted to alter the parenting plan. Mr. Thurston asserted that it was inappropriate to involve MA in such discussions given her young age. Mr. Gray responded by letter dated September 19, 2017, relaying Mr. Bazinet's claim that he did not initiate any discussions with MA about parenting arrangements. Mr. Gray advised that Mr. Bazinet simply told MA, when she made inquiries about it, that "mommy and daddy are working this out". Mr. Gray then wrote:

With respect to the actual child care arrangements the parties have been in an ad hoc situation for some time and it would be appropriate that a final parenting plan be established. My client has a very close relationship with his daughter, as does your client, and it is his view that it is in [MA]'s best interests that she have maximum contact with both of her parents. My client would like to move to an arrangement which would see [MA] benefiting from parental contact on the basis of an equal time sharing which could be based upon either a week by week rotation or a 2/3: 3/2 day rotation. My client has no desire to interfere with your client's relationship with [MA] and, by the same token, expects your client will respect [MA]'s relationship with him.

[119] Ms. Bazinet recalled seeing a copy of this letter in the fall of 2017. She testified that she did not feel Mr. Bazinet's proposal for equal parenting was genuine. She said she was "surprised" that "the 50-50 kept coming up". She stated, "it seemed whenever child support was brought up, the 50-50 was discussed", implying that Mr. Bazinet was just trying to evade child support obligations by having MA in his care 50% of the time.

[120] While it is true that Mr. Thurston's letter dated September 7, 2017 had requested that Mr. Bazinet commence making monthly child support payments, the suggestion that Mr. Bazinet's request to have equal parenting time with MA was insincere and motivated by a desire to avoid child support payments is inconsistent with the preponderance of the evidence. Based on the totality of the evidence, I am convinced that Mr. Bazinet has a close relationship with MA, desperately wants to spend more time with her and wishes to be more actively involved in her day-to-day care.

[121] I find it interesting that Ms. Bazinet testified that the equal shared parenting proposal "kept coming up". Her use of that expression is consistent with Mr. Bazinet's evidence that there were prior occasions (before Mr. Gray's letter dated September 19, 2017) when Mr. Bazinet brought up his dissatisfaction with the ad hoc parenting plan and his desire to alter the schedule to an equal shared parenting arrangement. Ms. Bazinet testified that she did not recall any other letters from his lawyer about changing the parenting plan, yet she stated that it "kept coming up". I therefore accept his evidence that there were many driveway conversations between the parties that went nowhere.

[122] Mr. Bazinet was asked why he did not instruct Mr. Gray to address the parenting schedule during the 18 months between his March 10, 2016 and September 19, 2017 letters. Mr. Bazinet responded, "I was trying to create an amicable situation where, in time, we could come to a mutually beneficial agreement that took [MA]'s best interests into account." He explained, "I felt if I was too aggressive it might preclude that." He added, "I didn't want to appear aggressive or threatening to [Ms. Bazinet]… I wanted to respect her time with MA." He further testified that he hoped, if he waited and "let the situation calm", he and Ms. Bazinet would be able to agree on an equal or near-equal shared parenting plan and avoid going to trial.

[123] Mr. Bazinet's testimony on this point is echoed in correspondence from Mr. Gray to Mr. Thurston dated October 13, 2017. Mr. Gray was responding to a letter from Mr. Thurston dated September 26, 2017, in which Mr. Thurston had asserted that MA's parenting schedule "was adopted by both parties' (sic) on consent, indicating to me that they each believed this to be in MA's best interests." Mr. Gray replied that the parties "followed an ad hoc interim arrangement in accordance with your client's wishes and my client's expectation that the parties would further discuss and develop a permanent parenting plan." Mr. Gray added that Mr. Bazinet "was mindful of the emotional aspects of the separation and expected that the terms of a permanent arrangement would be worked out in due course." He further stated that Mr. Bazinet "did not consent to the present arrangement and viewed it as a stop-gap measure." He reiterated, "My client wishes to have consistent expanded contact with his daughter while respecting the same desire on the part of your client."

[124] Since these letters were exchanged between counsel in the fall of 2017, Mr. Bazinet has constantly maintained his position that equal shared parenting is in MA's best interests. He did not, however, resort to litigation to try to enforce his proposed parenting plan. Instead, he tried to arrive at an agreement with Ms. Bazinet, with the assistance of counsel, but she maintained that it is in MA's best interests to keep the parenting schedule that has been in effect since March 1, 2016.

[125] Having considered the totality of the evidence, I conclude that Mr. Bazinet has been dissatisfied with the current parenting arrangement since its inception. I further find that he conveyed his dissatisfaction to Ms. Bazinet periodically but not forcefully, and not consistently, because he was concerned about provoking conflict between them. Where their testimony clashes, I prefer his evidence, partly because it is corroborated by documentary evidence but mostly because I found Ms. Bazinet to be untruthful in her testimony about the signed parenting plan. While I do not reject all her testimony based on that single falsehood, it constitutes a significant blow to her credibility. I reject her evidence that she was unaware of Mr. Bazinet's desire to have more parenting time with MA. This is relevant because, as will be discussed below, Ms. Bazinet did nothing to facilitate greater contact between MA and her father.

[126] There were several occasions in the year leading up to the trial when Ms. Bazinet made arrangements for her mother, Ms. Driskell, to care for MA overnight while she was busy with other commitments (e.g. a trip to Toronto for a concert, accompanying Mr. Sparrow for surgery, and attending a Christmas party). She did not offer Mr. Bazinet the opportunity to care for MA on these occasions despite knowing his desire to have increased parenting time. Mr. Bazinet found out about these missed opportunities from MA after the fact. He testified that he would have liked to have MA stay with him.

[127] I find that Mr. Bazinet did not consent to the current parenting arrangement, but nor did he take active steps to try to change it. He cannot be faulted for pursuing settlement discussions, minimizing conflict and seeking to avoid litigation, but at the same time, his passivity resulted in a static situation, such that MA has now grown accustomed to the rhythm of the parenting schedule that has been in place for the past four years. This is a relevant factor, among many others, that must be taken into consideration in determining what is in MA's best interests. As a 10-year-old child, MA benefits from stability and consistency in her life and Mr. Bazinet's proposal of equal shared parenting would constitute a significant change in her parenting routine.

[128] At the same time, a relocation to Ajax would mean that Mr. Bazinet's Thursday evenings with MA (on alternate weeks) would cease, which would also constitute a change in MA's longstanding parenting routine. Furthermore, there is an additional aspect of MA's parenting schedule that would be disrupted by a relocation to Ajax, namely her morning visits with her father on school days.

[129] MA started school in September 2015, one month prior to the parties' separation. That year, she attended a temporary "holding school" because her current school building was under construction. She was bussed to the school. Due to Ms. Bazinet's hours of work, Mr. Bazinet was mostly responsible for walking MA to her school bus stop. This routine continued after Ms. Bazinet moved out of the matrimonial home. Ms. Bazinet would drive MA to Mr. Bazinet's house every school morning before work and he would walk MA to the bus stop.

[130] MA started grade 1 in September 2016. By then, construction of her current school building was complete, and she could walk to school from Mr. Bazinet's home. Her school started at 9:00 AM. Ms. Bazinet needed to be at work by 8:30 AM, so she would drive MA to Mr. Bazinet's residence every morning. Most days, MA had already eaten, but on occasion she would have breakfast with Mr. Bazinet. She was already dressed for school, but he would assess her clothing needs, in case she forgot something such as winter gloves. Then he would walk with her to school and play with her and her friends in the yard before classes started. This morning routine continued daily throughout MA's grade 1 school year (2016-2017) and most of her grade 2 school year (2017-2018).

[131] Starting in or about March 2018, there were occasions when Ms. Bazinet texted Mr. Bazinet to let him know that she would be dropping MA off directly at school because of inclement weather (MA did not want to walk in the rain), "wardrobe issues" that made her late, or other reasons. Most days, however, Ms. Bazinet continued to drive MA to Mr. Bazinet's residence before school.

[132] When Ms. Bazinet obtained a permanent position with her employer in May 2018, her hours of work changed. She started dropping MA off at Mr. Bazinet's home later than before, around 8:45 AM, and eventually around 8:50 AM. Mr. Bazinet's daily parenting time with MA began to be eroded.

[133] That fall, when MA started grade 3, Ms. Bazinet unilaterally decided to stop dropping MA off at Mr. Bazinet's residence on school mornings. She advised Mr. Bazinet that she would be driving MA directly to school. Mr. Bazinet did not immediately make an issue of this because the parties were in negotiations to resolve their disputes and he was hopeful that they would reach a final agreement on a different parenting plan. About six weeks later, Ms. Bazinet advised Mr. Bazinet (via letter between their counsel dated October 19, 2018) of her intention to move to Ajax with MA.

[134] Mr. Bazinet's lawyer (Randy Brant, at that time) responded by letters dated October 24, 2018 and December 5, 2018. He indicated that Mr. Bazinet opposed the move and accused Ms. Bazinet of negotiating in bad faith. Mr. Brant insisted that Ms. Bazinet immediately reinstate MA's drop-offs at Mr. Bazinet's home before school. He expressed Mr. Bazinet's belief that she had unilaterally reduced his access time by stopping the home drop-offs in an effort to bolster her claim for a move to Ajax. He also requested that Ms. Bazinet consent to MA spending every Thursday overnight with Mr. Bazinet.

[135] Ms. Bazinet did not agree to the Thursday overnight visits. She continued to drive MA directly to school throughout the 2018-2019 school year and during the fall semester of the current school year (2019-2020), up to the date of trial. In order to continue spending time with MA on weekday mornings, Mr. Bazinet started walking to her school to greet her and speak with her in the yard before her classes start. I accept his testimony that he has done this consistently since September 2018, except on rare occasions when he has an out-of-town meeting for work. I reject Ms. Bazinet's testimony that he has only done it "occasionally".

[136] Mr. Bazinet's morning time with MA has been significantly diminished in both quantity and quality. He testified that he now gets "maybe five minutes with her, right at the bell". Ms. Bazinet stated that it was more like two minutes.

[137] Ms. Bazinet testified that, "MA doesn't miss going to daddy's house," which I found to be a self-serving statement. She also said MA "likes spending time with her friends" in the mornings before school. She observed that other students' parents are not in the yard in the mornings and expressed the view that, at her age, MA needs the same independence. She noted that MA pushes her away quickly when she drops MA off at school in the morning.

[138] It is not uncommon for pre-teen children to assert some independence from their parents, particularly in the presence of their peers. It therefore does not surprise me that MA asks her mother to depart from the school quickly when she is dropped off. It also would not surprise me if MA preferred not to talk to her father in the school yard each morning. That is precisely why the drop-offs at Mr. Bazinet's house were significant. Before those visits were cut short and ultimately moved to the school yard, they afforded MA and Mr. Bazinet the opportunity to have private daily one-on-one time together, however briefly, every week throughout the school year.

[139] Mr. Bazinet also used to have lunch with MA at his parents' house when they cared for her on Professional Development ("P.D.") days. He would take a break from his work to join them. This routine continued for some time after the parties separated, but more recently, Ms. Bazinet has made other arrangements for MA's care on P.D. days.

[140] Mr. Bazinet laments the fact that his morning visits with MA have been reduced "to a bare minimum" and that his P.D. day lunches with MA have ceased. He testified that every "point of contact" with his daughter has been reduced by Ms. Bazinet's actions. Although the time that Mr. Bazinet and MA spend together in the mornings has gradually been diminished in both quantity and quality, the consistency of these visits remains part of the stable parenting routine that MA has come to know.

Nature and Strength of Parent-Child Relationships

[141] As L'Heureux-Dubé J. stated in Young (dissenting, but not on this point), at p. 66:

Probably one of the most significant factors in many cases will be the relationship that the child entertains with his or her parents. This must necessarily encompass such considerations as the strength of the emotional ties and the role of the person who has provided primary care in the life of the child.

[142] I find that MA has a positive, loving and affectionate relationship, as well as a profound psychological and emotional bond, with both of her parents. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of the parties as well as the preponderance of the evidence given by credible witnesses who shared their observations of MA's interactions with each of her parents.

[143] Ms. Bazinet and Ms. Driskell suggested that MA has a stronger emotional attachment to her mother, but the evidence does not support such a finding. I am persuaded by the totality of the evidence that MA is equally bonded with both parents, even though she has spent more time in her mother's care. This is not a case in which one of the parents has been largely absent or unengaged in the child's life. Mr. Bazinet has been a consistent presence and has nurtured his relationship with MA, despite the limited amount of time that he spends with her.

Love, Affection and Emotional Ties between MA and Other Persons Involved in her Care and Upbringing

[144] MA is fortunate to have warm and close relationships with her maternal and paternal grandparents as well as with other extended family members who live nearby.

Paternal Grandparents and Uncle

[145] MA's paternal grandparents, Norm and Dianne Bazinet, have been involved in her care and upbringing from a young age. I will use first names to refer to them in this judgment to avoid confusion with Mr. and Ms. Bazinet.

[146] Norm and Dianne had both recently retired at the time of MA's birth. They therefore had free time to provide support to the parties as grandparents of the newborn child. Dianne even accompanied Ms. Bazinet to some of MA's pediatrician appointments as an infant.

[147] When Ms. Bazinet's maternity leave ended, Dianne and Norm provided child care for MA for four months. Ms. Bazinet was working for Telehealth from home two or three days per week. They would come to the matrimonial home to look after MA while Ms. Bazinet attended to her employment responsibilities and Mr. Bazinet went to his office to work.

[148] Once MA started attending daycare at 16 months of age, Dianne often assisted with pick-ups from the daycare. She and Norm also continued to provide frequent childcare for MA. The calendars that Dianne kept at the time show that, during the years when MA was two and three years old, they babysat her for half days and full days several times per month, particularly in the winter months. They were away at their cottage for much of the summer months, so they saw MA infrequently in July and August.

[149] Norm and Dianne also spent time with MA together with either or both of the parties, shopping, going on outings and attending birthday parties and other family gatherings. As MA aged and became involved in various activities, Dianne and Norm offered to contribute financially to the cost and regularly attended her events, such as soccer practices, swimming lessons, skating lessons, karate lessons and dance recitals.

[150] When MA started school, Norm and Dianne regularly cared for her on P.D. days and other weekdays when there was no school (such as on "snow days", when the school closed due to inclement weather). This routine continued for some time after the parties separated. Norm and Dianne maintained an amicable relationship with Ms. Bazinet and would regularly make themselves available to babysit MA as needed. Dianne testified that they would cancel social engagements and juggle their other commitments to make time to care for MA.

[151] Dianne stated that she and Norm did a lot of babysitting for a couple of years after the parties separated, but "things were drastically reduced" after Ms. Bazinet met Mr. Sparrow in late 2017. They continued to attend MA's activities, particularly cheer practices and competitions, but the time they spent at home alone with MA essentially vanished. In 2018, there were no occasions when they babysat MA. In 2019, they cared for MA on only two days during March break.

[152] Norm and Dianne have maintained close ties with MA, despite having few opportunities to care for her. They continue to attend her cheer practices on weekends when she is in her father's care, as well as school events, such as fundraisers and open houses. According to Dianne's calendar, they saw MA on 51 occasions in 2018.

[153] Dianne explained, however, that the quality of time she now spends with MA is "not the greatest". She testified that, when she and Norm regularly cared for MA for full days and half days, neither parent was present, so they were responsible for making sure MA ate properly, ensuring her safety, and keeping her occupied with crafts and science projects. Now, although they attend MA's cheer practices and competitions, they mostly just observe her as spectators from a distance. Dianne testified that they get to hug her and speak to her briefly beforehand and afterward, but it is not comparable to the one-on-one quality time that they previously enjoyed with her.

[154] After the parties separated, Dianne and Norm started a tradition of hosting a family dinner at their home on the weekends when Mr. Bazinet has MA in his care. Their other son, Robert, lives nearby and participates. MA attends with her father on a regular basis. Dianne testified that MA has a good relationship with her "uncle Bobby".

[155] The family also gathers at a cottage for two weeks every summer. MA plays with the grandchildren of a close family friend, Jean Stevens, who owns another cottage nearby. During the years when Norm and Dianne babysat MA on a regular basis, they coordinated play dates for MA with Ms. Stevens' grandchildren. Ms. Stevens testified that the children get along very well.

Maternal Grandparents, Aunt and Cousin

[156] MA also has a warm and loving relationship with her maternal grandparents, but they have not had the same degree of involvement in her care. They were still working when MA was born and consequently did not have the same flexibility as Ms. Bazinet's parents to provide child care support, but they nevertheless assisted when they could. Ms. Driskell (the maternal grandmother) retired in 2015. Her husband plans to retire next year.

[157] Ms. Bazinet's sister Olivia and Olivia's son "GA" have attended many of MA's activities over the years. Olivia and GA live with Ms. Bazinet's parents. Ms. Driskell testified that MA has a good relationship with both of them. She explained that MA and GA are "very close" because they were born the same year and spent a lot of time together growing up. Ms. Bazinet confirmed that MA and GA still see each other about twice per month and communicate with each other often on the phone and through an age-appropriate social media platform.

[158] Ms. Bazinet speaks to her mother daily on the phone. MA participates in many of those calls. She and Ms. Bazinet also visit with Ms. Driskell on average a couple times per month, at one or the other of their houses. Ms. Driskell has travelled to Ajax for visits at Mr. Sparrow's home. As noted earlier, Ms. Driskell has cared for MA overnight on a few occasions in the past year when Ms. Bazinet had other commitments.

Mr. Sparrow and His Children

[159] More recently, MA has developed warm relationships with Ms. Bazinet's boyfriend, James Sparrow, and his two sons. Mr. Sparrow has joint custody of his children in a shared parenting arrangement on a week-about schedule, with exchanges occurring on Monday after school. Ms. Bazinet met his sons shortly after they started dating, in early December 2017. She introduced him to MA in late December 2017. Their three children were introduced to each other at some point in 2018.

[160] By February 2018, MA was spending every second weekend with Ms. Bazinet at Mr. Sparrow's home in Ajax. At that time, their parenting schedules did not coincide, so Mr. Sparrow's sons were often with their mother. But by the summer of 2018, the children's schedules were such that his boys were usually present during MA's weekend visits. At the end of August 2018, they all spent a week together at a cottage. Mr. Sparrow also occasionally visited MA and Ms. Bazinet in Aberfoyle during weeks when his children were in their mother's care.

[161] For the past year and a half, MA has spent on average two weekends each month with Mr. Sparrow and his children. She attends some of their activities (Mr. Sparrow plays hockey as a goalie and one of his boys plays soccer), and they attend some of her cheer practices and competitions. They all do things together in Ajax, such as eating meals, going for bike rides, taking walks along the lakeshore and playing board games. The children also engage in activities without the adults, both indoors and outdoors in the park across the street. They play hide-and-seek, tag, Minecraft or basketball together. On Sunday nights, they all have dinner with Mr. Sparrow's brother and sister-in-law, who live nearby. MA has met Mr. Sparrow's niece and nephew. She plays with them in the park in front of Mr. Sparrow's house. She has developed a friendship with his niece, who is similar to her in age.

[162] Mr. Sparrow spoke with adoration and affection about MA during his testimony. Among other things, he talked about the activities that they do together. They read, build trucks, and play video games. Mr. Sparrow explained that he provides limited assistance with her homework because French is not his strength.

[163] He and Ms. Bazinet both testified about their observations of MA's relationships with his sons. By all accounts, the children share mutual affection. They miss each other during the weeks when they are apart. They are disappointed when one of MA's visits to Ajax coincides with a weekend when the boys are at their mother's house. They are always excited to see each other when MA comes to spend a weekend in Ajax.

[164] One of Mr. Sparrow's boys is two years older and one is two years younger than MA. Ms. Bazinet testified that MA looks to the older boy as her "big brother" and acts as a "big sister" to the younger boy. MA has taken to teaching the younger boy French. Mr. Sparrow similarly testified that MA "looks up to" the older boy because of his maturity and "nurtures" the younger boy. He noted that MA sometimes asks the older boy to help her with homework.

[165] Ms. Bazinet testified that the children act like siblings. They play together. They support each other. They sometimes fight. They have arguments and then make up. She said MA refers to Mr. Sparrow's sons as her "step-brothers".

[166] MA has clearly bonded with Mr. Sparrow and his sons, but I believe that Ms. Bazinet is overstating the nature of MA's relationship with them. During her testimony in chief, she adduced into evidence MA's school exercise book that contains several drawings with descriptive text. The drawings were done at school. One of the them depicts a young girl, two adults and two boys, whom MA has identified by name as herself, her mother, James, and James's two sons. Ms. Bazinet testified that MA "drew this picture of her family" while at school. However, MA wrote beneath the drawing, "voici mas ami et ma maman e moi", i.e. "these are my friends, and my mom and me". MA did not identify the picture as her "famille".

Ms. McLaren

[167] MA also has a good relationship with Mr. Bazinet's girlfriend, Kelsey McLaren, but I would not characterize it as a strong emotional bond. Mr. Bazinet has been deliberately slow to integrate Ms. McLaren into MA's life, so they have spent limited time together and have not yet had the opportunity to get to know each other well.

[168] During the summer of 2019, Ms. McLaren was invited to join Mr. Bazinet's family for their annual two-week stay at the cottage. She had an opportunity to interact with MA and started to cement their relationship.

[169] It is clear from the evidence that Ms. McLaren has no intention of trying to replace Ms. Bazinet in MA's life. She has not attempted to position herself as a step-mother. She has respected Mr. Bazinet's parenting approach, as well as Ms. Bazinet's central role in MA's upbringing.

[170] When Ms. McLaren testified at trial, she spoke with obvious affection for MA. Ms. Bazinet confirmed that MA also speaks highly of Ms. McLaren. She said, "they have fun together". The evidence shows that their interactions have been consistently positive.

Parties' Plans for MA's Care in Guelph/Aberfoyle

[171] Mr. Bazinet has given thought to how he would manage as a single parent if I were to grant his requested order for an equal shared parenting arrangement. He testified that when his office was recently restructured, he asked for more of an in-office role and now enjoys flexible time to facilitate caring for MA. He does not anticipate any difficulty assuming responsibility for some of MA's dental or doctor's appointments during the week. Her after-school childcare requires that she be picked up by 6:00 PM at the latest, but her tutoring at the Oxford Learning Centre is twice per week at 5:30 PM, which would necessitate an earlier pick-up time. She also has cheer practice on Monday nights in Milton. Mr. Bazinet is confident that he would be able to get her to her appointments on time. He testified that he could make up any missed work time, if necessary, on the weeks that MA is in her mother's care.

[172] MA has been in an after-school care program for several years. If for any reason the parties decided to cancel that care, Mr. Bazinet has family members who can assist him with after-school child care, particularly his parents, who live nearby and are eager to resume a greater role in MA's care and upbringing. His brother also lives in Guelph.

[173] Mr. Bazinet has no immediate plans to cohabit with Ms. McLaren, but he foresees that, in the future, once he and MA have established a stable routine, he will likely take that step. His plan is to ensure that MA adjusts to the new parenting routine first.

[174] If Ms. Bazinet's relocation to Ajax with MA is not permitted, then her plan is to stay at her rental apartment in Aberfoyle. She submits that, in those circumstances, the existing parenting arrangement should continue, with MA seeing her father on alternating Thursday evenings and alternating weekends, plus two weeks every summer and some shared time over the holidays and March break.

[175] The Aberfoyle apartment is in the basement of a home that is approximately 4,000 square feet. The rental unit itself is approximately 1,200 square feet. The home is located on ten acres of land and has a pool. Ms. Bazinet and MA are permitted to use the backyard whenever they choose and can use the pool when the homeowners are present.

[176] MA plays with the landlords' children, but Ms. Bazinet testified that she does not have other friends in the neighbourhood. MA's friendships are largely family-related, school-related or cheer-related. Ms. Bazinet's preference would be for MA to change to an English school in her neighbourhood in Aberfoyle if they cannot relocate to Ajax. She testified that her landlords could provide after-school care for MA.

[177] Ms. Bazinet intends to continue her relationship with Mr. Sparrow regardless of whether she is permitted to relocate. They both testified that they will find a way to make it work, as they have done for the past two years. This means that she will likely continue to bring MA to Ajax on alternating weekends to spend time with Mr. Sparrow and his sons. She testified that it would not be ideal to continue this arrangement because MA is basically living out of suitcases in three different houses, in three different cities, and is travelling frequently between Aberfoyle and Ajax.

[178] It is worth noting that these less-than-ideal circumstances would not be eradicated if Mr. Bazinet's proposal for equal shared parenting were ordered. MA would spend more time living at Mr. Bazinet's residence, but she would still travel on alternating weekends to Ajax with her mother to see Mr. Sparrow and his children. She would still divide her time between the three households.

[179] It is also worth noting that, if the relocation to Ajax is permitted, MA will still be required to shuttle between two different households in two different cities in order to maintain a meaningful relationship with her father. There would be less dislocation, but no less travel, and she would not be residing in a single community or in one household.

[180] Ms. Bazinet's plans for MA's care if the move to Ajax is permitted are discussed in detail below.

Maximum Contact Principle

[181] Section 16(10) of the Divorce Act provides that, in making a parenting order, 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." As McLachlin J. (as she was then) stated in Young, at pp. 117-118:

This is significant. It stands as the only specific factor which Parliament has seen fit to single out as being something which the judge must consider. By mentioning this factor, Parliament has expressed its opinion that contact with each parent is valuable, and that the judge should ensure that this contact is maximized. The modifying phrase "as is consistent with the best interests of the child" means that the goal of maximum contact of each parent with the child is not absolute. To the extent that contact conflicts with the best interests of the child, it may be restricted. But only to that extent.

[182] In most cases, it will be in the child's best interests to maintain maximum contact with both parents because doing so is generally recognized to mitigate the detrimental consequences of the breakdown of the family unit for the child: Young, at pp. 60, 99, 107, and 117-118; Gordon, at para. 109. The Court of Appeal for Ontario has made it clear that, in access and relocation cases, failure to address the principle of maximum contact or failure to give it sufficient weight constitutes an error of law: Berry, at para. 12; Rigillo, at paras. 3-4.

[183] In Young, at p. 118, McLachlin J., citing Wood J.A. in the court below at (1990) 75 D.L.R. (4th) 46 (B.C. C.A.), held that by enacting s. 16(10) of the Divorce Act, Parliament "intended to facilitate a meaningful, as well as a continuing, post-divorce relationship between the children of the marriage and the access parent." She continued, "Without limiting the generality of the adjective 'meaningful', such a relationship would surely include the opportunity on the part of the child to know that parent well and to enjoy the benefit of those attributes of parenthood which such person has to share."

[184] In this case, putting aside the relocation issue for the moment, Ms. Bazinet's proposed parenting schedule (which mirrors the status quo) would not maximize MA's contact with her father or foster the ongoing development of a meaningful relationship between them. It would limit Mr. Bazinet's parenting time (apart from holidays and school breaks) to alternate weekends and alternate Thursday night visits. In contrast, Mr. Bazinet's proposed week-about parenting schedule would result in maximum contact between MA and each of her parents.

[185] Ms. Bazinet argues that it is in MA's best interests to continue the current parenting arrangement of primary residence with her because that is the stable routine that MA has known for the past four years and because of the strong emotional bond that has developed between them. The length of time that a child has lived in a stable environment is a relevant consideration. MA is only ten years old. For the past four years, she has resided principally with her mother. An equal shared parenting arrangement would disrupt the only parenting pattern she has known since her parents separated.

Conclusion re: Access and Parenting Arrangement

[186] Taking all the above factors and evidence into consideration – and focusing for the moment only on the issue of the parenting schedule – I conclude that if there were no relocation dispute in this case, an equal shared parenting arrangement would be in MA's best interests. I have reached this conclusion for the following reasons.

[187] Although Ms. Bazinet has been the primary caregiver to MA, Mr. Bazinet is a fully engaged parent who has been present as a significant figure in MA's life since birth. MA has strong emotional and psychological ties to both of her parents. The parties are equally willing and capable of meeting her diverse needs and caring for her in a child-focused manner. In these circumstances, it is in MA's best interests to have maximum contact with both parents.

[188] Regardless of whether the parties decide to keep MA in French immersion or transfer her to an English school, it is in her best interests to continue to nurture her connection to her French-Canadian heritage, which includes maintaining and developing her French language skills. This factor militates in favour of MA spending more time with her father than the current parenting arrangement allows, because of his and his father's fluency in French.

[189] Both parties have suitable residences (in Guelph and Aberfoyle) for MA to live with them. They both have sound plans for MA's care. Neither plan is demonstrably better than the other in terms of such things as after-school care arrangements, educational supports, involvement in extra-curricular activities, etc. They both have family members who live nearby and who can provide support, as needed.

[190] The extended family members on both sides of MA's family all share mutual love and affection with her. An equal shared parenting arrangement will benefit MA by maximizing the quality time she spends with both sets of grandparents and other extended family members. The current arrangement, where MA lives primarily with her mother, has resulted in a gradual erosion of the time that she spends with her paternal grandparents, who have been important figures in her life from birth. A parenting arrangement that restores opportunities for MA to spend more quality time with her paternal grandparents is in her best interests.

[191] While there are some obvious benefits to maintaining a familiar and stable parenting schedule, they do not in this case outweigh the advantages of maximizing equal parental contact and ensuring that MA benefits from the attributes of parenthood that both of the parties have to offer. Moreover, it is worth noting that, although MA's parenting schedule has been static since separation, her routine during the time she resides with her mother has been fluid and has evolved over the past two years, with the introduction of a new relationship with Mr. Sparrow, frequent travel to Ajax and the integration of his children into their lives. Starting to live half time with Mr. Bazinet in the matrimonial home, in a familiar neighbourhood where MA has established friendships, will represent no more of a destabilizing transition for her than what she has already experienced with the recent developments in her mother's life.

[192] Furthermore, whatever stability is offered by the status quo parenting schedule cannot displace the statutorily mandated principle of maximum parental contact unless the evidence establishes that maximum contact would conflict with MA's best interests. I find no basis upon which to conclude that equal shared parenting would be detrimental to MA's best interests or that the parenting plan proposed by Ms. Bazinet would better promote MA's interests than an equal shared parenting arrangement.

[193] Ms. Bazinet argues that MA's life is "inextricably intertwined" with her own and that a change in the status quo parenting arrangement would be "very disruptive" to MA. She submits that she has been the "central point of stability and consistency" in MA's life and that a change in the parenting arrangement would therefore risk unanticipated consequences in terms of how MA would respond to such a change.

[194] I disagree. First, I do not accept Ms. Bazinet's characterization of the evidence. Although she has been MA's primary caregiver, she has not been a source of consistency. She has introduced major changes in MA's life. I am not being critical of those changes but rather simply noting that they have required adjustments on MA's part. Moreover, Mr. Bazinet has been a consistent and stabilizing presence in MA's life. He offers continuity of a home environment in which she grew up, in a neighbourhood where she attends school and has established friendships.

[195] Second, in the circumstances of this case, there is no evidentiary basis upon which to conclude that MA's emotional bond with her mother would be jeopardized by an equal shared parenting arrangement. Mr. Bazinet has demonstrated his commitment to support and foster MA's relationship with Ms. Bazinet. He has consciously and actively refrained from infringing on their time together, despite his strong desire to spend more time with MA.

[196] The willingness of each parent to facilitate contact with the other parent and to encourage and support the maintenance and development of their child's relationship with the other parent are relevant considerations in ascertaining the best interests of a child: Divorce Act, s. 16(10). Ms. Bazinet has not fostered the maintenance or growth of MA's relationship with her father. As discussed above, her unilateral actions diminished the time that MA was spending with her father on P.D. days and school mornings. Moreover, even though Ms. Bazinet was aware that Mr. Bazinet wanted to spend more time with MA, she took no steps to facilitate greater contact. On recent occasions when she required overnight child care for MA, she turned to her mother rather than offering Mr. Bazinet the opportunity to have more parenting time.

[197] For all the above reasons, if I were asked only to decide the parenting schedule in this case without regard to the relocation issue, I would hold that an equal shared parenting arrangement is in MA's best interests. I must, however, consider additional factors relevant to MA's best interests in order to determine the relocation issue and make a final order regarding parenting. These two issues cannot be decided in isolation.

ISSUE 3: RELOCATION

Ms. Bazinet's Reasons for Wanting to Move

[198] A parent's reasons or motives for wanting to move are not relevant to the court's determination of a relocation dispute unless they reflect adversely on the parent's perception of the needs of the child or the parent's judgment about how those needs may best be fulfilled. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that, in mobility cases, absent a connection to parenting ability, a parent's reason for wanting to move should not enter the court's inquiry into the child's best interests: Gordon, at para. 23.

[199] In reality, however, a parent's reasons for wanting to move are often correlated to their ability to parent in a manner that promotes their child's best interests. The Court of Appeal for Ontario has recognized the symbiotic relationship between a primary caregiver's emotional, psychological, social and economic well-being and the quality of the child's primary care-giving environment. There are positive effects on a child's best interests in being cared for by a well-functioning and happy custodial parent: Bjornson, at para. 30.

[200] In this case, Ms. Bazinet testified about her reasons for wanting to relocate to Ajax and why she felt that the move would positively impact her parenting of MA. She described how her relationship with Mr. Sparrow had evolved and their desire to blend their families. She said they already function like a family unit when all the children are together. She stated that the children, including MA, are upset when they cannot be together. She explained that having to manage, maintain and clean two households is hard on her financially and physically. The frequent travel between Aberfoyle and Ajax requires that she pack and transport MA's clothes and belongings and prepare meals to bring back and forth. She finds it to be exhausting. She testified that relocating to Ajax would provide MA with a more stable home environment.

[201] Ms. Bazinet also testified that it is "depressing" for her to be apart from Mr. Sparrow during the week. I have no doubt that they miss each other very much. Ms. Bazinet testified that they speak on the phone every night, sometimes for up to two hours. She explained that the only time they have together is on the weekends, so they try to maximize that time, which creates tension with parenting when the kids are there. She feels that she could be more present (psychologically and emotionally) and more resilient and resourceful as a parent for MA if she and Mr. Sparrow cohabited.

[202] Combining their households would make them available to each other for the daily emotional and logistical support they want to provide to each other in their relationship, which includes caring for three children with busy lives and schedules. It would also enable them to pool financial resources and save on duplicate costs, such as paying rent and utilities for two separate residences. Ms. Bazinet argues that this would also benefit MA by increasing the economic security of her primary caregiver.

Ms. Bazinet's Plan for MA's Care in Ajax

[203] Ms. Bazinet has a detailed proposal for how she would facilitate MA's transition if she and MA relocated to Ajax. She and Mr. Sparrow plan to live together in the townhouse that he currently rents, until such time as they are able to purchase a new residence together. The townhouse has three bedrooms. Mr. Sparrow's sons would live with them on alternating weeks. The boys would share one bedroom and MA would have a room of her own.

[204] Ms. Bazinet explained that she would arrange to change MA's doctor and dentist to practitioners located in Ajax. MA would attend a school that is walking distance from Mr. Sparrow's home. The school offers both French immersion and an English stream, so MA could attend that school regardless of whether or not she continues in French immersion. The school also has an after-school care program that is similar to the one MA currently attends at her school in Guelph.

[205] Ms. Bazinet testified that the proposed new school for MA is not the same school that Mr. Sparrow's sons attend, but Mr. Sparrow's niece is enrolled at the school, and MA has befriended the niece, who lives nearby. Ms. Bazinet expressed confidence that MA would adapt well to a new school environment. She noted that MA changed her cheer teams twice and had no difficulties adapting to new teammates and coaches.

[206] Ms. Bazinet has made inquiries and confirmed that MA could continue her tutoring with the Oxford Learning Centre at a location in Ajax. She and Mr. Sparrow also inquired about cheer academies near Ajax. While she is not opposed to MA remaining on the Milton team, Ms. Bazinet has ascertained that MA could also try out for a competitive team in nearby Whitby.

Permanence and Stability of the Proposed Family Unit where MA will Live

[207] Ms. Bazinet and Mr. Sparrow testified about their mutual commitment to their relationship. They both feel that they have found a life partner. They are making long-term plans together and have already begun to integrate their lives by introducing their kids and spending time together as a family unit. They obviously take the relationship very seriously. However, it remains a relatively new relationship with many complicating factors, not the least of which is that they both co-parent children with other partners who live in different cities (Ms. Sparrow's ex-wife lives in Oshawa).

[208] As sincere as I found both Mr. Sparrow and Ms. Bazinet to be about their feelings for each other and their shared hopes and long-term plans, I believe that they have an idealistic view of the proposed move that does not necessarily coincide with reality. Ms. Bazinet is envisioning the relocation through proverbial rose-coloured glasses tinted with the optimism that a new relationship generates, but I am required to be more objective and neutral in my assessment of the stability of the family unit in which she proposes that MA would live.

[209] Ms. Bazinet and Mr. Sparrow have only known each other for a little over two years. They met in November 2017. By August 2018, they were already discussing moving in together. By October 2018, Ms. Bazinet formally asked Mr. Bazinet to consent to her relocating to Ajax with MA. She had not yet even reached the first anniversary of her relationship with Mr. Bazinet. It was clearly an impulsive decision.

[210] I recognize that more than a year then passed before the trial commenced. During that time, Mr. Sparrow and Ms. Bazinet overcame the challenges that confront long-distance relationships and further solidified their commitment to each other. There is no question that they love each other very much and appear to be a compatible couple, but just because a relationship has traction does not mean it has permanence and stability. Just because it feels right does not necessarily mean it will last. The long-term stability of the family unit in which Ms. Bazinet proposes that MA would live in Ajax is speculative at best.

[211] If the relocation occurs, all the children will face significant challenges due to the blending of the two families, including adjusting to the divided attention of their parents. MA will go from being an only child who is single-parented to being a middle child with a step-parent, with all the complications that entails. It might be an enriching experience for her, but it might also be fraught with challenges that could place strain on Ms. Bazinet's and Mr. Sparrow's relationship. The relationship's permanence has not been tested in that regard.

[212] I accept that MA enjoys the weekends that she spends with Mr. Sparrow and his sons. The evidence establishes that Mr. Sparrow's sons also enjoy those weekends. But children having fun twice a month on a weekend visit is a far cry from successfully navigating the blending of two families and living together on a permanent basis. Spending a week together while on vacation at a cottage and getting along well – which is what initially prompted Ms. Bazinet's and Mr. Sparrow's discussions about moving in together – is not comparable to living together in the context of the daily grind of going to work, getting children off to two different schools, juggling their respective activities and school work assignments, etc.

[213] Ms. Bazinet is focused exclusively on the positive aspects of her plan. I can appreciate the attraction of a fresh start with a new partner, with fewer financial obligations due to pooled resources, but Ms. Bazinet does not seem to have given any thought to the possibility that her relationship with Mr. Sparrow might not endure. She has no job in Ajax. She is confident that, with her skills, she would be able to find comparable employment, but there is no guarantee that she would do so. She will be required to abandon her permanent position in Guelph with an employer for whom she has worked for eight years. Unemployment or underemployment and concurrent financial constraints could add pressure to her relationship with Mr. Sparrow. She does not have economic security in Ajax.

[214] Moreover, Ms. Bazinet has no friends and no family in Ajax other than Mr. Sparrow and his relatives. She has no personal support network outside of the relationship. If the relationship were to falter or break down, she would be isolated and would almost certainly want to return to the Guelph area, where she grew up and where all her family lives. That would then necessitate yet another move (back) for MA, which clearly would not be in MA's best interests. That risk is precisely why one of the relevant factors for the court's consideration is the permanence and stability of the family unit in which it is proposed that MA would live if she moves.

Disruption to MA Resulting from the Proposed Move

[215] I am not faulting Ms. Bazinet for having a positive outlook, but I am concerned that she has not weighed nor even acknowledged the risks and possible downside of the move for MA. During her testimony, she was focused exclusively on the advantages of relocating to Ajax, while ignoring and minimizing the negative impacts on MA. This is why, although I have given her views the respect and serious consideration to which they are entitled as MA's primary caregiver, I am not persuaded that she has a complete grasp of what is in MA's best interests.

[216] The disruption that MA would experience by moving to Ajax is the most significant factor that weighs against allowing the relocation. Although MA has made a new friend in Ajax (Mr. Sparrow's niece) and has bonded with Mr. Sparrow's sons, the bulk of her closest friends are still her classmates, cheer teammates, and cousin GA, from whom she would be isolated if she moved. Ms. Bazinet downplayed this fact during her testimony. She mentioned that several of MA's school friends had withdrawn from French immersion and changed schools in grade 3. She stated that if MA remained on the Milton cheer team, she would retain those friends. She suggested that MA could maintain contact with GA and other Guelph friends through social media. These are mitigating circumstances, but none of them changes the fact that moving MA to Ajax would uproot her from her existing friendship network and isolate her from the people she has known all her life.

[217] The move would necessarily result in less frequent in-person contact between MA and her grandparents and extended family. Ms. Bazinet testified that MA would continue to see her paternal grandparents during their family dinners on the weekends when she is in Mr. Bazinet's care, and they could continue to attend her cheer practices in Milton on those weekends (if MA remained on the Milton team). This is true, but it fails to recognize that there would be many fewer opportunities for MA's grandparents (on both sides) to attend her school events and extra-curricular activities once they became centralized in and around Ajax, which is an inevitability.

[218] MA's maternal grandparents and her aunt and cousin GA might make the trip to Ajax because they could combine it with a visit to Ms. Bazinet's home, but the drive would be more onerous for her paternal grandparents. Dianne Bazinet acknowledged during her cross-examination that she and Norm drive long distances to go to their cottage in the summer, but that is different from driving a significant distance to attend a short event, such as a school concert or fundraiser, and having to drive back the same day. Dianne testified that they would not often make the trip.

[219] The relocation would also entail removing MA from the community in which she was raised and the only school and after-school program she has ever attended. Although she would continue to receive tutoring in Ajax, she would be required to switch to new tutors. Ms. Bazinet submits that this should not be a significant factor in the court's decision because MA "will likely experience a change of schools, possibly in the next year, as the French immersion program is becoming more of a challenge to her than an advantage" and her current school does not have an English stream. Ms. Bazinet is treating the withdrawal from French immersion as an inevitability, but the evidence at trial established that MA was showing progress in her academics in grade 4. No decision has yet been made about her future schooling.

[220] In any event, the change in MA's school would be only a part of the upheaval that she would experience if she relocated with her mother to Ajax and moved in with Mr. Bazinet and his two sons. Ms. Bazinet stressed the positive relationships and attachments that MA has developed with Mr. Sparrow, his sons and his niece, but those burgeoning relationships do not replace the life-long bonds that she has with family and friends in Guelph. Ms. Bazinet relies on evidence that many of MA's friendships have already changed over time and that some of her friends have left her school to attend an English school, but that does not alter the fact that moving to Ajax would tear her from the familiarity and security that her hometown, school, childhood friends and extended family members offer. Although MA has a strong emotional and psychological bond with her mother, Ms. Bazinet fails to appreciate that she is not the only important attachment in MA's life.

[221] Ms. Bazinet is seriously underestimating or downplaying the monumental disruption to MA's life that a move to Ajax would entail. She argues that it would be no more disruptive than changing MA's parenting schedule to the equal shared parenting plan that Mr. Bazinet proposes. I find this argument to be unpersuasive. To allow the move would uproot MA from everything and everybody that have contributed to her reality since birth, with no guarantee that her new blended family unit would be happy and well-functioning. I have no doubt that MA is resilient, but the fact that she could adapt is not a reason to permit the move. She should not be put through the disruption with no obvious benefit to her: see Cumpson, at para. 31. Being able to adjust does not equate to what is in her best interests.

Impact on Mr. Bazinet's Parenting Time

[222] If Ms. Bazinet is permitted to relocate with MA to Ajax, an equal shared parenting arrangement – which I have found would be in MA's best interests – would not be feasible. Moreover, it would not even be feasible for the parties to maintain the status quo parenting schedule. The time that MA spends with her father would necessarily be reduced.

[223] The proposed relocation would have Mr. Bazinet continue to parent MA on alternating weekends from Friday evening until Sunday evening. Ms. Bazinet has volunteered to drop MA off at his home on Friday at 6:30 PM and she proposes that the Sunday exchange would take place at 6:30 PM at a carpool lot at Guelph Line and highway 401, which is approximately a 25-minute drive from Mr. Bazinet's home. Ms. Bazinet submits that she would be doing most of the driving, thereby relieving Mr. Bazinet of that responsibility. That does not alter the fact that MA would be required to do all the travel. The move to Ajax would not relieve that burden from her.

[224] Ms. Bazinet submits that a move to Ajax would not result in any significant loss in contact or time between MA and her father. This submission fails to recognize the significance of eliminating MA's alternating Thursday evening visits with her father and their daily visits on weekdays before school. Ms. Bazinet is dismissive of the importance of the morning visits. She stressed how brief they have become, which I found to be ironic, since she is responsible for having shortened them.

[225] Ms. Bazinet testified that she did not think it would impact MA's relationship with her father if the morning visits ceased. She suggested that Mr. Bazinet could call in the mornings if he wanted to speak to MA before school. She also suggested that the time MA now spends with her father on weekday mornings and alternating Thursday evenings could be made up by MA spending an extra week with him during the summer and extra days during March Break and holidays.

[226] In considering a child's ability to maintain a meaningful relationship with a parent post separation, an additional block of time in the summer is not an adequate substitute for regular in-person daily contact (however brief) throughout most of the year. Moreover, telephone calls or video-chats are a poor substitute for in-person contact. Maximizing contact with parents post separation involves considerations of not only the quantity of time that a child spends with each parent, but also the quality of that time. The goal is to ensure that the child has maximum quality time to be able to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents.

[227] Mr. Bazinet's mother, Dianne, identified some potential long-term negative impacts of the proposed move on MA's relationship with her father. She predicted a gradual erosion of the time that MA and Mr. Bazinet would spend together. She stated, "there will be reasons why [MA] won't be able to see her father. She'll have friends [in Ajax], she'll get summer job, she won't want to travel anymore." Dianne added, "at first it will look really good on paper, but people will get tired."

[228] These are reasonable concerns about realistic outcomes. If MA relocates to Ajax, she will settle into a life there, and her trips to Guelph to visit her father on weekends will become burdensome for her because they will clash with other activities and commitments. Furthermore, I harbour concern about whether Ms. Bazinet would facilitate and ensure regular contact with Mr. Bazinet. She has not demonstrated a commitment to maximizing his parenting time in the past. Although the distance between Guelph and Ajax is not extreme, travel between the cities is dependent upon weather and traffic. Ms. Bazinet testified that she enjoys driving and would not mind. However, I can envisage her not being as motivated to make the 90-minute drive (one way, in good weather without traffic) when its purpose is to transport MA to her father, rather than to spend a weekend with Mr. Sparrow.

Conclusion re: Relocation

[229] For the above reasons, I conclude that a relocation to Ajax is not in MA's best interests. I accept that being with a happy parent generally has a positive effect on a child, but there are too many unknown factors to be confident that Ms. Bazinet would necessarily be happier in Ajax in the long-term. The stability of the family unit in which it is proposed that MA would live is uncertain at best. Moreover, the legal test for determining what is in a child's best interests focuses on maximizing contact with both parents and minimizing disruption to the child: Berry, at para. 27. The proposed move to Ajax in this case would not only render an equal shared parenting plan impossible, it would negatively impact the amount of time that MA currently spends with her father and would constitute an upheaval in every aspect of MA's life.

[230] I have given serious and respectful consideration to Ms. Bazinet's views on the issue, but I have concluded that she is too narrowly focused on the positive aspects of the move, with no consideration of the risks it would entail or the significant losses (e.g. of friends, community, and contact with extended family) that MA would suffer.

ISSUE 4: PARENTING SCHEDULE

[231] I have set out above my reasons for concluding that the proposed move to Ajax is not in MA's best interests and that an equal shared parenting arrangement is in her best interests. I must now determine the particular parenting schedule that is in her best interests.

[232] I agree with Mr. Bazinet that a week-about schedule is preferable to alternatives that involve a greater number of exchanges. The need to limit the anxiety produced by prolonged separation, which is an important factor in setting parenting schedules for infants and toddlers, is not a concern for MA, who at the age of 10 years, should not be adversely affected by spending a week at a time away from each of her parents. She has spent two consecutive weeks away from her mother every summer when she travels with Mr. Bazinet to his family's cottage. Although Ms. Bazinet described MA experiencing some anxiety and worry leading up to those separations, the actual time spent at the cottage has been enjoyable for MA, who keeps in touch with her mother by daily telephone calls. There is no evidence that the time apart has been distressing for MA.

[233] The exchanges are likely to be the most anxiety-producing aspect of MA's parenting plan. Stress related to exchanges is common among children of separated parents and there is some evidence that it applies to MA, even though the parties do not have a high-conflict relationship and their exchanges are generally smooth and uneventful. Dianne Bazinet testified that her weekend family dinners were changed from Sundays to Saturdays because MA often had an upset stomach on Sunday nights (which is when the exchanges occurred). A parenting schedule that involves only one weekly exchange is therefore in MA's best interests.

[234] Moreover, some of the pressures that Ms. Bazinet was hoping to alleviate by relocating to Ajax, such as the prolonged separation from Mr. Sparrow during the week, may be alleviated by a week-about parenting arrangement. She and Mr. Sparrow will both have weeks without parenting responsibilities. If those weeks coincide, they may no longer be required to spend them apart. Ms. Bazinet testified that she has flexibility in her current job to work remotely. She may therefore choose to work from Ajax on the weeks when MA is in her father's care. This could have a positive impact on her parenting of MA during the weeks when MA is in her care. Ms. Bazinet may also be able to reduce the amount of MA's travel to and from Ajax, because their weekend trips may become less frequent if Ms. Bazinet and Mr. Sparrow are able to spend more time together during their "off" weeks.

[235] It would be in MA's best interests for her parenting schedule to coincide, as much as possible, with Mr. Sparrow's parenting schedule, in order to ensure that she continues to have opportunities to spend extended periods of time with Mr. Sparrow's sons. If she continues to accompany her mother to Ajax for weekend visits, or if Mr. Sparrow travels to Aberfoyle to visit them, it is beneficial to MA to ensure that those weekends coincide, as much as possible, with the weekends when Mr. Sparrow has his children in his care. MA has bonded with his boys, so it is important to create a residential routine that supports her ability to maintain her relationships with them.

[236] Mr. Sparrow's parenting schedule involves exchanges on Monday after school. That schedule would also be in MA's best interests because it would enable her to occasionally extend her weekends in Ajax to include a Sunday overnight, as she and Ms. Bazinet have done in the past. I am not suggesting that commuting from Ajax to school in Guelph on a Monday morning is in MA's best interests, but there will be long weekends with holiday Mondays when MA and her mother can spend extended time with Mr. Sparrow and his children, before returning to Guelph to start her week with her father. On other occasions, she will enjoy long weekends with her father, depending on when the holidays fall on the calendar in any given year.

[237] It is in MA's best interests to continue to enjoy two consecutive weeks at Mr. Bazinet's family cottage each summer. This is a family tradition that she enjoys and which should be maintained. She should also have the opportunity to spend two consecutive weeks with her mother each summer. I will leave it to the parties to negotiate those weeks. I have made other ancillary parenting orders at the end of this judgment, based on the draft orders submitted by the parties and my assessment of MA's best interests.

ISSUE 5: CHILD SUPPORT

[238] Mr. Bazinet has been paying monthly child support in the amount of $565 to Ms. Bazinet for MA pursuant to a temporary order by Mossip J. dated June 4, 2019. He has also been paying 42% of MA's special and extraordinary expenses, with Ms. Bazinet paying the remaining 58%. These payments are in proportion to their incomes, pursuant to Mossip J.'s order. The parties have accounted for all child support arrears in their financial settlement. I am asked to make an order only for prospective child support.

[239] The parties agree that, if I order an equal shared parenting arrangement, the child support payments for MA should be calculated based on an off-set of the Table amounts corresponding to their incomes pursuant to s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175. The parties are both employees with uncomplicated T4 earnings. They agree that their respective incomes, for child support purposes, should be determined using line 150 of their personal income tax returns, which is consistent with ss. 15 and 16 of the Guidelines.

[240] Mr. Bazinet's line 150 income in 2018 was $60,971. Ms. Bazinet's line 150 income in 2018 was $80,902. The parties had not yet filed their 2019 tax returns by the date of trial, so their line 150 incomes in 2019 were not available. According to their respective Financial Statements, sworn in October 2019, Ms. Bazinet declared that she was earning $6,742 gross monthly and Mr. Bazinet declared that he was earning $5,055 gross monthly, which represents roughly the same annual incomes as they earned in 2018.

[241] As the higher income-earner, Ms. Bazinet will owe Mr. Bazinet monthly child support payments as soon as the equal shared parenting arrangement begins. Those payments are to be calculated based on a straight set-off of the Table amounts of child support that correspond to their respective 2019 incomes under the Guidelines.

ORDERS

[242] Ms. Bazinet's claim for a divorce is severed from the corollary relief. Either party may proceed with a divorce application on an uncontested basis.

[243] The parties shall have joint custody of MA, effective immediately.

[244] Ms. Bazinet's request for an order permitting her to relocate MA's residence to Ajax is denied. Neither party shall move MA's residence without the express written consent of the other party or a court order.

[245] Effective June 1, 2020, the parties shall parent MA on an equal week-about basis. Subject to the parties agreeing in writing to a different schedule, MA's regular parenting schedule shall be as follows:

1. Exchanges will take place every Monday afternoon/evening.

2. On school days, the party whose parenting week is commencing shall pick up MA from her school or from her after-school care program on the Monday of that week.

3. If there is no school on the Monday, the parent whose parenting week is ending shall transport MA to the other parent's residence by 6:00 PM on the Monday.

4. Ms. Bazinet's parenting weeks shall coincide with her partner Mr. Sparrow's parenting weeks, as much as possible, to ensure continued opportunities for MA to spend time with Mr. Sparrow's sons.

5. MA's holiday parenting schedule shall take priority over the regular parenting schedule set out above. Subject to a different agreement in writing between the parties, the holiday schedule shall be as follows:

a) MA shall be in Ms. Bazinet's care on Mother's Day from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM.

b) MA shall be in Mr. Bazinet's care on Father's Day from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM.

c) MA shall alternate between the parties' residences on Christmas each year, from 11:00 AM on December 24th until 11:00 AM on December 26th. She shall be in Ms. Bazinet's care for Christmas in even-numbered years and in Mr. Bazinet's care in odd-numbered years.

d) MA shall alternate between the parties' residences for New Year's Eve, from 11:00 AM on December 31st until 11:00 AM on January 2nd. She shall be in Mr. Bazinet's care for New Year's Eve in even-numbered years and in Ms. Bazinet's care for New Year's Eve in odd-numbered years.

e) MA's parenting schedule during the school March Break and on holiday weekends, such as Thanksgiving and Easter, will be determined in accordance with the regular parenting schedule.

f) MA shall spend two consecutive weeks with each of the parties during the summer school break. The weeks shall be selected by the parties by no later than June 30th of each year. Mr. Bazinet shall have 1st choice of his weeks in even-numbered years and Ms. Bazinet shall have 1st choice in odd-numbered years.

g) The parties shall be equally responsible for transporting MA for exchanges during holiday parenting.

[246] MA shall be at liberty to contact either parent via electronic means (telephone, text, Skype, Messenger, Facetime, WhatsApp, etc.) at any time, regardless of the parenting schedule. The parties shall facilitate such contact at MA's request, or as the other party may reasonably request from time to time.

[247] Either party may apply for a passport for MA. The other party shall provide any necessary signatures for the purpose of obtaining the passport.

[248] Both parties shall provide one month's notice to the other party of any out-of-country travel with MA. The parties shall cooperate to execute any documentation required to facilitate travel. Parental consent for travel shall not be unreasonably withheld. The travelling parent shall incur the cost associated with travel documentation (such as notarization of parental consent forms). The travelling parent shall provide the other parent, in advance, with a written itinerary of the travel plans with transportation and accommodation details.

[249] Ms. Bazinet shall commence paying monthly child support for MA to Mr. Bazinet effective June 1, 2020, in accordance with the formula set out below.

[250] By no later than May 30th of each year, commencing on May 30, 2020, the parties shall exchange copies of their Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment, for the purpose of calculating their respective child support payments in accordance with the Table amounts set out in the Guidelines. The party whose child support payment is greater shall pay monthly child support to the other party equal to the difference between their respective child support payments (i.e. a straight set-off of the Table amounts). The child support payments shall commence on June 1st of each year and continue on the first day of each month for eleven months thereafter, at which point the child support payment will be calculated for the following year.

[251] Unless the support order is withdrawn from the Office of the Director of the Family Responsibility Office, it shall be enforced by the Director and amounts owing under the support order shall be paid to the Director, who shall remit them to the person to whom they are owed.

[252] The parties shall maintain any existing life insurance policies in order to secure their respective child support obligations. The parties shall name the other as beneficiary under their policies, in trust for MA, until such time as MA no longer qualifies as a child of the marriage within the meaning of the Divorce Act.

[253] The parties shall both maintain MA as a dependent on any extended health and dental benefits plans available through their respective employment, for as long as MA is eligible. They shall cooperate to co-ordinate their benefits. They shall both authorize and direct their benefit providers to allow the other party to receive direct reimbursement for expenses incurred on MA's behalf. If direct reimbursements are not available, the party in receipt of the reimbursement shall refund the other party within 5 days of receipt of same.

[254] The parties shall consent, in advance, to MA's special and extraordinary expenses. Consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. They shall contribute to the cost of her special and extraordinary expenses under s. 7 of the Guidelines in proportion to their incomes, as calculated on an annual basis after disclosure of their Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment. The parties' new proportionate shares shall take effect on June 1st of each year, commencing June 1, 2020.

COSTS

[255] The parties are encouraged to negotiate costs. If they are unable to reach agreement, they may make written submissions to the court and I will make an order for costs. In the timetable set out below, I have made allowance for time to negotiate costs.

[256] If no agreement is reached on costs, Mr. Bazinet shall deliver a copy of his submissions to Ms. Bazinet by email and submit it to the court by no later than June 8, 2020. Ms. Bazinet shall deliver a copy of her responding submissions to Mr. Bazinet by email and submit it to the court by no later than June 15, 2020. Submissions shall be limited to two pages, excluding bills of costs and any relevant offers to settle. There shall be no reply submissions unless requested by the court. Submissions to the court may be done by email to my judicial assistant.

[257] If no submissions are made in accordance with the timetable set out above, there will be no order for costs.

Justice Cynthia Petersen

Released: May 21, 2020