Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-499 DATE: 2020-09-23

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Urszula Liwak-Muir, Applicant AND Scott Donald Muir, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Marc Smith

COUNSEL: Paul Fitzgerald, Counsel for the Applicant Claudia Bordes, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: September 22, 2020 and September 23, 2020, by written submissions

ADDENDUM endorsement

M. Smith J

[1] This is an addendum to my Endorsement dated September 21, 2020 (Liwak-Muir v. Muir, 2020 ONSC 5669).

[2] Following the release of my Endorsement, the Father wrote to the Court to point out a factual inaccuracy in the decision, namely at paragraph 56(b). He submits that the incident referenced (i.e. refusal to allow access) was not his wrongdoing but rather it was the Mother who did not allow him to speak to his daughter.

[3] The Mother argues that in reading the text exchanges in full regarding this event, they confirm that the Mother had already facilitated a call earlier in the day (in the afternoon), she had suggested that the Father call between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m., yet the Father demanded a call (at 7:42 p.m.) which was during the children’s bedtime routine. It is further submitted that in these exchanges, the Father is in an agitated state and he is attempting to control whom the Mother has contact with.

[4] The Father disputes this characterization. The initial conversation lasted 6 minutes and he was requested to call back in the evening as they were leaving for a bike ride. The Father’s initial request for a phone call first took place at 7:09 p.m., followed by a second request at 7:42 p.m. In terms of the allegations of control, he was simply concerned that the Mother not expose the children to someone that was outside of their COVID bubble.

[5] While it is accurate that the Mother refused the second access that day, she did so for the benefit of the child because she felt that the Father was agitated. There are other examples in the affidavit material, not referenced in the Endorsement, which led me to conclude that the Father would not be as inclined, in comparison to the Mother, to encourage regular access with the other parent. There are instances noted by the Mother, which I accept, where the Father did not want the children to see their Mother, despite both parents being in the home. The children are very young, and it would undoubtedly be confusing and upsetting for them to be restricted access to one parent, especially when both parents were present. As I mentioned in my original decision, during difficult moments of transition, the parents need to encourage maximum contact.

[6] Two additional matters need to be addressed: the date upon which the Father is to move out of the matrimonial home and the exchanges for parenting time.

[7] The Father has no desire to remain in a hostile environment and he has indicated that he will be moving out shortly. I will therefore Order that the Father is to vacate the home, along with his personal items and other property as agreed upon between the parties, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Addendum Endorsement. There appears to be a disagreement with certain items that do not belong to either party. The parties are encouraged to arrive at an agreement within fourteen (14) days, failing which the disputed items are to remain in the matrimonial home and a motion is to be scheduled before me to determine this issue.

[8] In regards to the times of the exchanges, I ordered that they take place at 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. but encouraged the parties to work out the specifics to ensure that these times coincide with the school and/or daycare. The Father says that the school begins at 9:15 a.m. and ends at 3:25 p.m. He proposes the following schedule:

a. Each week, from Tuesday at 9:20 a.m. until Wednesday at 9:20 a.m.; and

b. Every second weekend from Friday at 3:25 p.m. until Monday at 9:20 a.m.

[9] I agree with the Father that this proposal will keep the acrimonious exchanges to a minimum. Paragraphs 76 (c) (i) and (ii) of my original Endorsement are amended accordingly.

M. Smith J

Released: September 23, 2020

COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-499 DATE: 2020-09-23

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Urszula Liwak-Muir Applicant

AND

Scott Donald Muir Respondent

ADDENDUM ENDORSEMENT

Justice Marc Smith

Released: September 23, 2020