Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 49251/14 DATE: 2020-07-21 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: T.J.L. Applicant – and – E.B. Respondent

Counsel: Valeria Ruoso, Counsel for the Applicant Anthony Colizza and Joshua Stevenson, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: September 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, 2019

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.J. GORDON

Supplementary Endorsement Re: Parenting Time

[1] In my reasons for decision, released October 25, 2019 (2019 ONSC 6096), I addressed the issues raised at trial, and granted a final order with respect to same, save for the precise terms of the parenting schedule. I left that item for the parties to resolve, if possible, given the similarity of their positions and having regard to the distance between the two homes.

[2] While the parties did resolve most of the scheduling matters, they disagree on the following: (a) mother’s mid week parenting time; (b) Christmas; and (c) strike days at school.

[3] Upon being informed of their disagreements, I provided direction to counsel for the exchange of submissions and affidavits, advising that I would thereafter render a decision. Both counsel have delivered the documentation as directed.

Mid Week Parenting Time

[4] Father lives in Cambridge. Mother resides in Hanover. The distance between their two homes impacts on parenting time, particularly during the week. At para. 200 of my decision, I indicated mother ought to have one evening weekly in the Cambridge area.

[5] The parties have accepted that provision but cannot agree on how to implement it. Father suggests such visit be on Wednesday. Mother says her availability is dependant upon her class schedule at Georgian College. She is enrolled as a student in the social work program.

[6] Parents are expected to be flexible in arranging parenting time. While it is helpful to have a fixed day for consistency, I am of the view mother’s proposal is reasonable. Her class schedule may change each semester, and such will likely impact her availability to spend mid week time with the child. What evening that may be is of little concern. It is far more important the visit occurs regardless of what day she is available.

[7] In result, I agree with mother’s proposal. She will advise father prior to each semester as to her class schedule and the day during the week she is able to have W.L. in her care.

Christmas

[8] The parties agree on an equal division of the school break at Christmas but not as to any special provision for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.

[9] Father proposes the school break be divided equally. Mother agrees but notes that Christmas Eve and Christmas Day alternate each year regardless of which parties’ week they occur.

[10] W.L. is seven years of age. She has three stepsisters residing with mother. Christmas time must include all family members. While father’s proposal provides consistency and allows each parent to arrange for their own family to spend time with W.L., I accept mother’s submission on this issue.

[11] Christmas is more important for children than adults. I agree with mother’s comment of W.L. spending either Christmas Eve or Christmas Day each year with her stepsisters. Such will assist in maintaining the sibling bond. It will necessitate only minor travel requirements. Again, the parents must be flexible to address the best interests of W.L.

Strike Days

[12] In the past school year, the inability of the provincial government and the teacher’s unions to resolve their contract extension resulted in a number of strike days and cancellation of school.

[13] In result, mother requests future strike days be treated in the same manner as professional development days. Father is opposed.

[14] Strike days are unlikely for some time given the resolution of the contract dispute. Yet, they remain possible in years to come.

[15] I am not prepared to treat strike days in the same manner as professional development days. Strike days were not consistent and little notice was provided. To alternate strike days would cause far too much stress in scheduling. Mother’s request, therefore is rejected.

Summary

[16] As these were trial issues, an order nunc pro tunc is granted on the terms herein.

[17] I request Ms. Ruoso provide a new draft order, approved by Mr. Colizza, and delivered to my chambers for signature. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs in this supplemental matter.

D.J. Gordon J. Released: July 21, 2020