COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-99404-00
DATE: 2021 06 30
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
MEAGHAN MUMMERY,
Matthew Madott, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and –
SILVIU CRAIU-BOTAN
Respondent
Annette Nyland, for the Respondent
HEARD: June 4, 2021 at Brampton, by video-conference
REASONS FOR DECISION
Emery J.
[1] The parties are the parents of a child, N, who is currently 4 years of age.
[2] The applicant mother brings this motion for a temporary order granting her interim decision-making responsibility for N. The applicant also asks the court to impose a more restrictive parenting schedule that changes the contact time the respondent father has previously exercised up to this time.
[3] The respondent seeks an expanded parenting schedule where each party would parent N on a 2-2-3 schedule. The respondent has not brought a motion of his own to seek an Order on those terms. However, recognizing the principles implicit in making any parenting Order, I shall make the appropriate temporary Order having regard to what parenting arrangement would be in N’s best interests and to deal with the case justly within the context of the applicant’s motion.
Brief background
[4] The parties met in 2011, began co-habiting in October 2012 and were married on October 3, 2015. They first resided in a condominium in Mississauga owned by the respondent and his father.
[5] In January 2016, they planned to start a family. After encountering certain difficulties in conceiving and the heartbreak of a miscarriage in 2016, the applicant became pregnant with N, who was born on […], 2017.
[6] The applicant states in her evidence that the respondent started to exhibit controlling behavior that increased after they were married, and that this behavior became more pronounced after N was born. She alleges forms of emotional abuse that lead her to suffer episodes of depression.
[7] The respondent denies the controlling behavior or emotional abuse the applicant has alleged against him. He explains in his affidavit that the applicant has struggled with mental health and depression since the miscarriage in 2016.
[8] In May 2018, the parties moved from Mississauga to Hamilton where they had purchased a townhouse. This move required a longer commute for the respondent to his place of employment near Pearson Airport.
[9] The parties became unhappy in the marriage. They attended marriage counselling together between August and October 2018. In December 2018, the applicant was diagnosed with depression due to stress, and entered counselling for that depression.
[10] In July 2020, the applicant suggested to the respondent that they take a break from the marriage. While the applicant stayed to work on the marriage at the respondent’s request, by October 2020 the applicant had decided to leave the marriage.
[11] On October 12, 2020, the parties began to live separate and apart. The applicant left the matrimonial home and moved into her parents’ home with N in Mississauga.
[12] The applicant states in her affidavit that her move to Mississauga took place with the respondent’s agreement. The respondent disagrees, stating that this move was a unilateral decision of the applicant’s, and indicative of her exercise of self-help when she took N with her.
[13] Upon relocating with N to Mississauga, the applicant enrolled N at Royal Daycare, which is within walking distance of her parents’ home. It is also within walking distance of the home of the respondent’s parents. The applicant enrolled N at this daycare centre as she had returned to work as a Registered Early Childhood Educator at ChildVentures in Milton.
[14] Around this time, an ad hoc parenting regime emerged for N, whether through a contest of wills between her father and mother, or by consensus. Since November 2020, the respondent would have N in his care on week 1 from after daycare on Thursday to the following Tuesday when he dropped N off at daycare, and on week 2 when he was to have N overnight on Thursday from after daycare until he dropped her off at daycare the following morning.
[15] On or about April 26, 2021, Royal Daycare suggested that N be enrolled at another daycare centre. The applicant alleges that the respondent’s parents would visit N when she was playing in the yard at the daycare centre on days when she was in the applicant’s care, causing a disruption to N’s routine. An alternate daycare centre was subsequently found, and N has attended daycare during the week at ChildVentures in Mississauga since May 10, 2021.
[16] The applicant now brings this motion to change the ad hoc parenting timetable because, as she states in her evidence, N is not coping well when she is away from her mother from Thursday to Tuesday every second weekend. The applicant also alleges that the respondent has repeatedly missed picking N up for the Thursday night visit on alternate weeks. This irregularity has caused N to suffer disappointment and distress. The respondent denies the veracity of each allegation.
Position of the Applicant
[17] The applicant asks this court for an interim order that N reside primarily with her, together with sole decision-making responsibility for N. She asks the court to structure the respondent’s parenting time to the “short bursts” the respondent himself seems to recognize would be best for N at this time. The applicant seeks this change because N has exhibited signs of anxiety that includes throwing tantrums, soiling herself, and biting during the current parenting schedule. This anxiety has been documented by Dr. Graham, a family physician.
[18] The applicant submits that N’s anxiety is the result of being away too long from her mother every other weekend for five nights. Instead, she submits that it would be in N’s best interests if the parenting time for the respondent was revised to picking up N after daycare on Friday and returning her by 6 p.m. on Sunday night every other weekend. The respondent would also be entitled to parenting time for one half of the holidays, and regular video/FaceTime with N.
[19] The applicant seeks this revised parenting time as the initial step in a formalized step system to establish the respondent’s parenting time. That parenting time might be revisited after the respondent has sold matrimonial home in Hamilton and he has relocated to a new home.
Position of the Respondent
[20] In contrast, the respondent seeks an Order that reflects he will share the parenting of N with the applicant.
[21] The respondent denies that the current parenting time has caused, or is causing N to suffer anxiety. He disagrees with the applicant’s submission that the anxiety described in Dr. Graham’s report is caused during his parenting time for five nights every other week.
[22] The respondent recognizes that, while the extended parenting time he exercises every other week should be revised to ensure he has “short bursts” of parenting time, he should be given equal parenting time with N. He submits a rotating 2-2-3 schedule would accomplish these objectives. In the parenting schedule he proposes, the respondent would have N on Monday and Tuesday nights after daycare, and from after daycare on Friday to dropping her at daycare on Monday morning for week 1, and having her on Wednesday and Thursday nights after daycare for week 2 on a rotating basis.
Statutory framework
[23] On March 1, 2021, the Divorce Act, S.C. 2019, c.16 was enacted to introduce the concepts of “decision making responsibility” and “parenting time” and “contact” for a child instead of the previous terms and their association with “custody” and “access”. Despite these changes, the object under the new Divorce Act remains the same, and that is to ensure the court makes orders that are in the best interests of a child.
[24] Under the Divorce Act, the court is required, when determining the child’s best interests, to “give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being”, while considering “all factors related to the circumstances of the child.”
[25] Those factors for the court to apply to the evidence when considering what parenting order meets the best interests of a child are set out in section 16(3) of the Divorce Act :
(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including
(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.
[26] These factors provide eleven broad baskets of information of possible evidence the court should consider for the circumstances of a child. Assessing the relevant circumstances on the evidence under the statutory factors, and the ultimate determination of the best interests of a child, are fact specific.
[27] Although these factors guide the court with considering applicable evidence, this court has held that the manner of applying the factors under s. 16 (3) is holistic in nature. Justice Jain explained that the factors in s. 16(3) are non-exhaustive in Pereira v. Ramos 2021 ONSC 1737. She went on to explain that the factors do not prioritize any one criterion over others for the determination of the best interests test. No single criterion should be considered conclusive, and the weighing of the evidence under each factor will depend on the circumstances of the child.
[28] Prior to the enactment of the new Divorce Act, s. 16(10) of the former Divorce Act mandated that the court should give effect to the principle that a child have "as much contact with each spouse" as is consistent with the best interests of the child. This requirement came to be known widely as the "maximum contact principle".
[29] The language in section 16(10) of the Divorce Act, 1985 has been replaced with the wording of similar import in s. 16(6) of the current Divorce Act. The new language now speaks of making parenting orders that provide for "parenting time consistent with best interests of child". The maximum contact principles in this respect continue to apply, with the effect that previous cases relying on this principle are relevant. Failure by a court to consider and apply the maximum contact principle has been held to be an error of law: Kirichenko v. Kirichenko 2021 ONSC 2833, at para 57 affirming Rigillo v. Rigillo, 2019 ONCA 548.
[30] For the purposes of this motion, and mindful that N had been parented by the respondent every other weekend and accustomed to contact with him each week, this court accepts that on the current record that parenting arrangements on alternate weeks would be in the best interests of N. The question for the court to determine is the frequency and duration of parenting time each of her parents are given.
Analysis
[31] A court may make an interim order for the decision-making responsibility and parenting time of a child of the marriage under section 16 of the Divorce Act, pending the making of a final order. When making orders over decision-making responsibility and parenting time, the best interests of the child are the ultimate issue.
a) the child's needs, given the child's age and stage of development, such as the child's need for stability
[32] The need for stability is key to N’s well being in the wake of the marital breakdown between her parents, and the shared parenting that has developed on an ad hoc basis.
[33] The applicant states that she was, and always has been the primary caregiver for N. While the parties may disagree with the degree of caregiving the respondent provided to N prior to separation, there is no dispute from the evidence that N was never out of the applicant’s care for long periods of time.
[34] N loves each of her parents, and she would benefit from having contact time with her father as much as is consistent with her best interests.
[35] The respondent submits that N requires frequent and consistent access with both parents as she is only four (4) years old. The schedule proposed by the applicant significantly reduces the parenting time with N he has routinely exercised since November 2020, which weaken their bond over time and harm their relationship. Neither of these outcomes would be beneficial to the child.
[36] In this case, applicant is seeking an unequal parenting schedule due to the child’s alleged anxious tendencies. The applicant relies on Dr. Graham’s notes dated January 12, 2020 and March 11, 2021 to support her position that the child has been having a difficult time adjusting to the schedule. However, Dr. Graham’s notes makes no mention whatsoever that the parenting schedule may be causing the child’s alleged behavioral concerns. In fact, Dr. Graham states that he did not see any red flags that something more was going on, such as a mental health issue developing.
[37] The respondent submits that the applicant acknowledges that N exhibited “anxious behaviors” prior to separation, almost 10 months before. This fact would suggest that any behavioral issue (if any) is not caused or the result of the current parenting schedule. He submits it would be contrary to the best interests of the child and section 16(6) of the Divorce Act to limit the respondent’s access out of a concern that is not linked to the current schedule.
[38] Like so many instances where the delicate matter of bonding between the child and a parent is involved, it is up to the court to find the right balance. In doing so, the court must also ensure that N’s circumstances are properly considered and that the schedule maximizes the opportunities for each of her parents to meet her needs. This includes sensitivity to her emotional well being, and the accommodation for the anxiety she is suffering.
[39] While the parties may disagree about whether this anxiety is caused or related to N’s separation from her mother for five nights every other week, this anxiety is at least an underlying condition that is exacerbated by that absence. The duration of N’s time away from her mother while in her father’s care at this age must be considered under the circumstances.
[40] The applicant submits that the gradual increase in access, or contact time, for the child with the respondent, and N’s temperament should be considered. The applicant relies on the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Parenting Plan Guide (the “Guide”) attached to the applicant’s affidavit to make this submission.
[41] I am not taking the Guide into account as evidence on this motion, or as authority for the principles it purports to advance because it was not introduced through an affidavit from its source. This Guide is put before the court as evidence on this motion akin to an expert opinion, without being proffered properly by the expert who wrote it. I therefore decline to rely on its contents for this motion.
[42] In any event, the order I am to make is interim in nature and there is no need to make a graduated contact order for the short duration this order is being made.
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
[43] The applicant does not deny the N loves both of her parents. However, she has been the primary caregiver for N since she was born. She has given evidence that she has sacrificed her career to stay home and care for N. The applicant and N have therefore spent a great deal of time together to form a strong bond.
[44] For his part, the respondent worked long hours after N’s birth to provide for the young family. He has always been a good provider, with the unfortunate consequence that his work has taken him away from the home more than he might have liked. Consequently, he was not at home while at work, and when he was at home, he was tired and did not spend an abundance of quality time with N. With his work schedule and commuting time, there is evidence before this court that he may not have formed as strong of a bond with N as the applicant before separation.
[45] The applicant has provided N with a stable environment in Mississauga since separation. The applicant’s mother and father and sister have been, and continue to be supportive of the applicant and N. The support of an extended family from her mother’s side fosters the stability that is so beneficial to N. The fact that N has since been living with the applicant and her extended family has allowed strong bonds to grow.
[46] The nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent is strong. The respondent has always maintained a close and loving relationship with the child. It is his hope this relationship with N will continue and grow. The respondent further states in his evidence that N is close with both sets of grandparents and it is important that the child continue to develop and enjoy a relationship with both sides of her family.
[47] The respondent submits that the incidents at the first day care reveal that N wants to spend more time with the respondent. When his parents would walk past the first day care centre, the child would always ask about her father, which would lead to a FaceTime visit with the respondent. According to a letter filed in evidence, N cried out “I want Daddy” during the incident on April 14, 2020.
[48] When exercising the contact time he may be given on this motion, the respondent intends to continue sending the child to day care and plans to spend as much time with her as possible. However, he simply does not have as much time to spend with N as the applicant. He has provided little evidence of the role his parents will play in N’s life in the short term. This is particularly relevant while the respondent remains a resident of Hamilton, with parents in Mississauga and a job near the airport.
c) each spouse's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other spouse
[49] The applicant states that she has always promoted the respondent's relationship with the child. Since the applicant moved to Mississauga, the respondent has shared significant contact time with N, which is possibly more time than he spent with N prior to the separation.
[50] On the other hand, the respondent has continued to make it difficult for N to keep in contact with the applicant. This difficulty is amplified when N is under the respondent's care for long periods of time.
[51] The respondent was aware of where the applicant was moving to with N to Mississauga, and even encouraged the move. This evidence, given by the mother but disputed by the father, may be considered at least on the issue of the child’s need for stability: Seng v Dowling, 2021 ONSC 1491.
[52] The respondent maintains that he is ready, willing and able to care for the child on a shared parenting schedule. His work hours are flexible and his evenings and weekends are free so he has the ability to parent N during the time he has her in his care. He argues that it appears the applicant does not have the ability to care for the child on a full-time basis as she often has her parents or sister babysit N when she is preoccupied with work. The respondent maintains that it is in the child’s best interests to spend more time with him, rather than with extended family members.
[53] The respondent states that he has attempted to communicate with the applicant about important decisions involving the child. However, he goes on to state that the applicant has consistently refused to consult him or to discuss options with him.
[54] I find that each party professes a willingness to support and encourage N’s relationship with the other parent. Any interim Order must provided for the frequency of parenting time for each party to maintain the presence of both parents in N’s life on a regular basis. This frequency will go a long way to support relationship development between N and each of her parents, as well as to provide predictability for both parents and child when planning activities.
d) the history of care of the child;
[55] Prior to separation, the applicant was essentially parenting N from the moment she woke up, to the time she went to bed. In contrast, the respondent did not care for the child as often because of time restraints due to his heavy schedule outside the home.
[56] Although N has been residing with the respondent for a 5 day stretches every other week since November 2020, this parenting schedule has produced nothing but a false status quo. The applicant argues that here was never an agreement between the parties as to a proper parenting schedule.
[57] The parenting schedule the parties have followed (or not) is too fresh to find the path taken to date has established a status quo. It is open to the parties to demonstrate good faith going forward and to either negotiate or litigate parenting issues after showing how the terms of this Order are followed.
e) any plans for the child's care
[58] It is the current intention of the applicant to continue residing with N at her parents’ home in Mississauga.
[59] The applicant plans on having N attend the ChildVentures daycare where she is currently registered in Mississauga. With the Covid-19 issue and other uncertainties of the outside world, she believes the child is well served by remaining in her current home and daycare environment.
[60] It is unknown where the respondent will reside once the matrimonial home in Hamilton is sold. The court also knows that there is some question about his ability to consistently pick N up and drop her off at daycare while putting in the long hours he has traditionally worked.
f) 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
[61] The applicant has facilitated communication between the parties and has request the parties work together to resolve the outstanding issues. The applicant submits she has advised the respondent of her concerns for N's wellbeing. She has taken steps prior to separation and post-separation to reach out to service providers to obtain assistance with N as well as for her own situation.
[62] The respondent has, in contrast, denied that N is dealing with any internal issues. He has failed to acknowledge the relationship between N and the applicant, what anxiety N is going through and how his behaviour may be affecting his daughter.
[63] The applicant also alleges the respondent has failed to even facilitate phone calls or FaceTime visits when N has been in his care. His rigid attitude has only served to escalate the tension between the parties, driving them further apart and causing further stress to the child. These allegations are denied by the respondent.
[64] I cannot make assess the credibility of the parties on the basis of the written record. However, the evidence about the inclination of the parties to communicate leads me to conclude that, at this time, decision making for the child should not be shared by her parents in the short term. At the same time, the conflicting evidence from the parties supports the view that any order should contain features that encourage the parties to cooperate with facilitating N to communicate with both parents openly and often.
Findings
[65] It is clear from the evidence that N clearly loves both of her parents. For the purposes of this motion, I find that each of the parties is a good and loving parent to N and want a parenting plan that is best for her.
[66] I am also aware from the evidence that the parents of each party, being N’s grandparents, actively support their daughter or son in this dispute over equal parenting for their grandchild. This case has all the makings to become a battle of the grandparents, if it is not one already.
[67] This Application was commenced earlier this year. Despite very helpful materials on the motion filed by counsel, the evidentiary record for this motion was limited. I can only make a decision on an interim basis for three basic reasons. First, there is the limited record, which will likely grow with time. Second, there is an indication in the evidence that the respondent will likely sell the townhouse in Hamilton. I do not know what benefits or drawbacks may exist if the respondent moves closer or farther away from where N currently lives in Mississauga. And the third reason relates directly to how the N adjusts to the parenting Order this court is making, and how it will hopefully assist with lowering her anxiety level.
[68] Although the parties seemed at cross-purposes at first, they are essentially seeking the same thing: an interim order setting the parenting arrangement that will be in N’s best interests. I have weighed the factors under s. 16(3) and I have found that each party is a good parent and that there is an extended family support network on each side. The court also recognizes the policy objective under s. 16(6) to award as much time with each parent that is in the best interests of the child.
[69] I have only the applicant’s evidence to decide which party should have decision making responsibility for N, and with whom she should have her primary residence. I heard very little, if any submissions on behalf of the respondent against awarding that relief to the applicant. I find on the evidence that the applicant is a very good parent to N, and that she has put forward an acceptable parenting plan that meets N’s needs and circumstances. It would be in N’s best interests to reside primarily with the applicant, and to grant the applicant sole decision making responsibility over N for the present time.
[70] The motion was really about the parenting time for the court to award to the respondent.
[71] There are a number of recent cases that have examined the parenting schedule advanced by the respondent.
[72] In Arbitman v. Lee, 2021 ONSC 315, the applicant father brought an urgent motion for seeking a 2-2-3 equal schedule on a temporary, without prejudice basis for the children, and for equal decision-making authority. The respondent mother opposed and sought orders for primary residence, and limited parenting time for the father. Ultimately, Monahan J. ordered a 2-2-3 parenting schedule upon making the following findings:
(a) it is in the interests of the children that parenting arrangements going forward provide them with the opportunity to maintain their close and loving relationships with both of their parents.
(b) it is in the interests of the children that parenting arrangements should be designed to ensure that they are not exposed to any further conflict between their parents.
(c) the children’s lives have been significantly disrupted by the events of the last few months. This disruption has caused confusion and distress for the children. It is in their best interests to establish arrangements which are stable and predictable and which, over time, will reduce the anxiety they are currently experiencing.
[73] In Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480, the applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order for a rotating 2-2-3 equal parenting schedule. The motion was brought because of the respondent mother’s unilateral move with the child from the matrimonial home in the Town of Erin to Toronto. The father maintained that he had always been a fully involved parent who often cared for the child while the parties lived together. The mother disagreed with those representations, maintaining she had always been the child’s primary caregiver, while the father continued to work. Kurz J. ultimately ordered a 2-2-3 parenting schedule and found it was in the child’s best interests to have her parents share in her upbringing.
[74] The facts in the Phillips case are distinguishable from the facts on the motion before this court, in that the parties agreed that if the court found the parents should share parenting of the child, it should be on a 2-2-3 revolving schedule. Justice Kurz ordered that schedule upon making the threshold finding for shared parenting. I have made no such finding for the interim order I am making.
[75] In Pereira v. Ramos, the applicant father brought a motion requesting an order to increase his parenting time with the parties three (3) children in accordance with a 2-2-3 parenting schedule, or a week- about schedule. The respondent mother opposed the father’s motion and requested that the parties continue to follow the current schedule where the children reside primarily with her and visit their father on alternating weekends. The father maintained that he was an active parent throughout the duration of the marriage and the mother disagreed. Jain J. held found that it was in the best interests of the children to spend as much time with each parent as possible. She therefore found a shared parenting time regime was applicable, and accordingly ordered a week-about schedule for that parenting time.
[76] In the above cases, the court ordered schedules that promote a shared parenting regime and as much time as possible with each parent. As well, the court ordered schedules that altered the status quo that was arbitrarily imposed by one of the parties, against the wishes of the other party. Most importantly, the court recognized the importance of preserving and fostering a relationship with both parents, especially when the children are young, and considered the 2-2-3 parenting schedule was a good way to meet those goals.
[77] There is too much uncertainty about the respondent’s current circumstances to order the 2-2-3 week about parenting arrangement he seeks. On the other hand, the court is reluctant to reduce his parenting time that the parties have been following since they separated in October 2020, as N has grown accustomed to seeing her father for overnight visits each week.
[78] In my view, the five nights and four days is too long a time for N to be away from her mother at her age. The respondent has had N for contact visits during periods that include Friday and Monday while she is at day care during the day, leaving the respondent to parent her in the evenings, to get her ready for daycare while getting ready for his own work in the mornings, and over the weekend. Having N every other weekend from Friday after daycare to 6 p.m. on Sunday night would give him the same weekend days and overnights one week, while recognizing the parenting time he currently has available.
[79] Providing the respondent with an overnight contact visit on Thursday after daycare until he drops N off at daycare the following morning would provide him with the Thursday night contact he has enjoyed up to now. So that N and the respondent will see each other at least every three days, the court also considers to be in N’s best interests, at least for now, that the respondent have parenting time with her on Monday and Tuesday nights from after daycare to Wednesday morning at daycare on those weeks he does not have her the preceding weekend.
[80] This schedule provides as much parenting time for the respondent that is in N’s best interests before she enters primary school. It is also consistent with the respondent’s position that he is available to parent on different days of the week, in the same manner he was flexible when he proposed a 2-2-3 rotating schedule.
[81] The court is therefore redistributing the parenting time the respondent currently has with N in an approximate way, but in “shorter bursts”. It is hoped that this parenting plan for N and the shorter, but more frequent contact visits with her father will lessen or eliminate N’s anxiety while giving this family the benefit a parenting plan that works, and the stability that N requires.
Conclusion
[82] For these reasons, there shall be a temporary Order that, on an interim basis:
a. The child, N, shall reside primarily with the applicant Meaghan Mummery, and the applicant shall have sole decision-making responsibility for N until further order;
b. The respondent, Sivio Craiu-Botan, shall have parenting time with N on a rotating two week schedule as follows:
i. from Friday after daycare until 6 p.m. on Sunday when he drops N off at the place she resides primarily with the applicant, and on Thursday from after daycare until he drops her off at daycare the next morning in week 1;
ii. on alternate weeks, on Monday and Tuesday nights from the time he picks N up at daycare until he drops N off at the daycare on Wednesday in week 2;
iii. ii. If the daycare is not open on a day the respondent is to pick up or drop N off, the respondent shall pick her up and drop her off at the place where she resides primarily with the applicant;
iv. If the respondent cannot exercise any parenting time at the time he is to commence that parenting time, he shall provide written notice by email or text to the applicant at least 24 hours in advance to the applicant so that she knows to pick up N at the daycare centre; and
v. If N would have been parented by the respondent during the weekend starting on Friday, July 2, 2021 under the arrangement followed before this motion, then the schedule for week 1 will commence on July 2, 2021, otherwise the schedule for week 2 shall apply.
c. Each parent having N in their care shall allow and facilitate N to have a contact visit with the other parent by FaceTime, Zoom, Skype or other video means for at least 15 minutes between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. each evening.
d. The applicant shall retain the original of N’s Health Card but shall provide a notarial copy of the Health Card to the respondent forthwith.
[83] The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs for this motion between them. If they cannot, written submissions may be filed on costs as follows:
a. From the claiming party, by July 9, 2021;
b. From the responding party, by July 16, 2021;
c. No reply submissions are permitted, without leave;
d. Any submission shall be limited to two pages, not including relevant offers to settle or a bill of costs;
e. Submissions may be filed by email to my judicial assistant at melanie.powers@ontario.ca
Emery J.
Released: June 30, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-99404-00
DATE: 2021 06 30
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
MEAGHAN MUMMERY,
Applicant
- and -
SILVIU CRAIU-BOTAN
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
Emery J.
Released: June 30, 2021