COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-15438
DATE: 20210122
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
M.H.
Applicant
– and –
L.K.
Respondent
Cheryl Goldhart and Surinder Multani, for the Applicant
Georgina Carson and Elissa Gamus, for the Respondent
HEARD: January 14, 2021
Pinto J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Overview
[1] The applicant’s motion for a new parenting schedule, and the respondent’s cross-motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, among other relief, was heard before me via Zoom on January 14, 2021.
[2] The parties were married on November 27, 2016. They separated on January 16, 2020 and continued to live separate and apart in the matrimonial home. They have two children: L, born October 3, 2017; and D, born April 19, 2019.
[3] The parties are currently parenting subject to the temporary Order of Akbarali J. dated February 20, 2020. The Order was the culmination of the father bringing an urgent motion that the parties settled by way of a temporary without prejudice consent order. The Order provided, inter alia, that the parties would parent the children on an agreed schedule at the matrimonial home, and that during one parent’s parenting time, the other would not interfere.
[4] After the February 2020 Order, the parties were to attend a Case Conference on April 15, 2020, and, failing resolution, a Motion on May 5, 2020. The Case Conference and Motion were postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its initial impact on the family court.
[5] A mediation session with Dr. Barbara Fidler, a clinical psychologist, to deal with communication and parenting issues was unable to resolve the parties’ dispute.
[6] A continued Case Conference before Goodman J. involving 5 separate attendances was unsuccessful in resolving the issues and the within long motion was scheduled.
[7] Another Case Conference on December 10, 2020, before Shore J., discussed confidentiality and temporary support issues.
[8] The applicant father brings a motion for a 2/2/3 equal time regular parenting and holiday schedule. He seeks to parent the children at his separate residence, a home that he has rented since August 2020, located 10 to 15 minutes by car from the matrimonial home.
[9] The respondent mother does not oppose the father moving out and parenting the two children at his separate residence. However, she proposes a different schedule that would involve the children spending approximately 4 days out of 14 with their father. She brings a cross-motion seeking an order that she have sole decision-making for the children, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home (the “main issues”) on a temporary basis. Additionally, she seeks a temporary order with respect to child support and spousal support, payment of interim disbursements, life insurance as security for support, and a restraining order against the husband (the “secondary issues”).
[10] At the hearing of the motion, counsel for the parties advised that while the main issues needed prompt judicial resolution, they could probably resolve the secondary issues, failing which the parties would return before me on February 12, 2021, for a one-hour motion. Accordingly, these are my reasons for decision with respect to decision making, the parenting schedule, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.
[11] For the reasons that follow, I allow the father’s motion for equal decision making and a revised parenting schedule (Schedule B in the appendix to these reasons but starting February 1), and I dismiss the mother’s motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.
Discussion
[12] The father is an obstetrician/gynaecologist, self-employed at a fertility clinic. He works four days a week from 8:45 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He does not work Wednesdays. He begins a new job on January 18, 2021. The amount of the father’s annual income is in dispute as he earns employment income as a fertility specialist, but also from family corporations and trusts. The mother alleges that the father’s income is much higher than declared, but the father claims that his income is around $700,000 annually.
[13] The mother is trained as a childhood educator. She has a Bachelor’s degree in kindergarten and elementary education, and a Master’s degree in educational psychology. The mother’s last full-time job was Director of Educational Support Services at a private Jewish elementary school, earning around $90,000 per year. The mother was on maternity leave when the parties separated. She submits that she cannot return to the workforce due to her childcare responsibilities, the impact of COVID-19, and her pending enrolment in an online certificate program.
The Father’s position re: decision making and parenting schedule
[14] The father deposed that, contrary to the mother’s depiction of him, he is a loving and active parent. He attributes many of the couple’s problems to his mother-in-law’s interference in the couple’s marital affairs before and after separation, and his wife’s attempts to minimize his involvement in the children’s lives. He claims that, while the level of conflict has decreased in the matrimonial home since the implementation of the February 2020 Order, the atmosphere at home has become at times tense and uncomfortable due to his wife’s continued interference during his parenting time. To diffuse the situation, in August 2020, he rented a new residence, a large rental home, close to the matrimonial home and L’s nursery school. While the children have spent some time there, the mother refuses to consent to the father having the children stay overnight.
[15] The father believes that it is in the best interest of the children that they spend separate but equal time with him in his new residence to reduce the children’s exposure to conflict. The father has proposed a 2/2/3 equal time parenting schedule (“Schedule A”) or, an alternative schedule that gradually, within a few months, establishes a 2/2/3 plan (“Schedule B”). Both Schedules are included in the appendix to these reasons.
The Mother’s position re: decision making and parenting schedule
[16] The mother deposed that she is the primary parent of the two young children. She claims that the father has engaged in harassing and abusive behaviour towards her, and that it is in the best interests of the children that she obtains sole custody of them.
[17] The mother’s position is that she has been the children’s primary parent from birth and that the children are primarily bonded to her. She portrays the father as a busy physician who has outsourced his parenting to nannies and/or his family members. The mother alleges that the father has made poor and dangerous choices with the children in his care, that he fails to prioritize the children’s schedules and routines, and that he fails to tend to the children’s hygiene and grooming. The mother alleges that the father has not acknowledged his underlying mental health issues. She claims that he is impatient, angry, moody, and reacts negatively when criticized. The mother attributes the older daughter L’s anxiety and regression to the father’s poor parenting.
[18] The mother’s proposed parenting schedule involves the father having the children on Week 1: Wednesday 11:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Friday 3:00 p.m. overnight to Saturday 3:00 p.m. Week 2: Monday 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.; Wednesday 11:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Saturday 3:00 p.m. overnight to Sunday at 3:00 p.m. The mother proposal is included in the appendix to these reasons as “Schedule C”.
[19] The children’s nannies provided competing perspectives on the parties’ parenting ability. The parties’ former nanny, A.M., was the couples’ nanny for the two-year period from March 2018 to February 2020. This corresponds to the period before the parties’ separation until about a month after the separation. Her evidence was that, pre-separation, both children interacted with their parents positively. Post-separation, she described the morning routine as tense and the parents as no longer interacting with each other. A.M. stated that, notwithstanding the separation, the parents continued to shower the children with attention and care, and that both parents were fully capable of taking care of the children on their own separately, with or without her.
[20] E.M., the children’s nanny since March 2020, swore an affidavit stating that the children are closer with the mother than the father, and that the children cry for the mother when the father is parenting them.
Analysis
[21] The parties filed multiple voluminous affidavits on the motion. The affidavits are replete with allegations and counter-allegations of one parent interfering with the other, troublesome and meddling in-laws, and unstable conduct.
[22] The facts may be highly contested, but the law is very clear. The sole test for determining custody and access issues is the “best interests” of the child: Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), s. 16(8). An amended Divorce Act is set to come into force on March 1, 2021, but the current Divorce Act does not provide a list of factors concerning the best interests of the child. Court often have regard to the factors set out in section 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12.
[23] Section 16(9) of the Divorce Act instructs the court not to consider the past conduct of a person unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of that person to act as a parent of the child. Section 16(10) specifies that, in making a custody and/or access order, the court must give effect to the maximum contact principle.
[24] The best interests of the child are analyzed from the child’s perspective, not from the parents’ perspective: Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at pp. 52-53, 100.
[25] The father argues that his proposed arrangement, a 2/2/3 shared parenting arrangement, is the natural next step from the consent arrangement that has been in place since February 2020. For every allegation of poor parenting made by the mother, he has a response that suggests the mother tends to exaggerate everyday parental challenges. The father suggests that the present co-parenting arrangement in the same home has become unworkable and that, while there will no doubt be a period of adjustment for the two young girls, each parent is capable of separately parenting in their own residence. This will reduce conflict and be in the best interest of the children.
[26] The mother portrays the father’s proposal as a drastic change in the children’s life, particularly as she is the primary caregiver. She claims that, despite the February 2020 consent order, in reality, the children have never experienced a 50-50 parenting schedule, let alone at another location. The mother states that the children are primarily bonded to her and that the children will suffer while the father is at work or while he outsources his parental responsibilities. The mother claims that the father is preoccupied with his perceived rights to equal parenting, rather than what is in the best interests of their children.
[27] In arriving at my decision, I find significant guidance in the dicta of Wright J. in Kimpton v. Kimpton, 2002 CanLII 2793 (Ont. Sup. Ct.):
[1] There is a golden rule which implacably governs motions for interim custody: stability is a primary need for children caught in the throes of matrimonial dispute and the de facto custody of children ought not to be disturbed pendente lite, unless there is some compelling reason why in the interests of the children, the parent having de facto custody should be deprived thereof. On this consideration hangs all other considerations. On motions for interim custody the most important factor in considering the best interests of the child has traditionally been the maintenance of the legal status quo. [Emphasis in original.]
[2] Unless the courts insist that they will not disturb the existing arrangements for children on interim motions except in those cases where it is clear that the children are being exposed to danger or there is some other compelling reason, the courts will continue to be confronted with litigants demanding that the court embark upon the impossible task of attempting to assess the relative merits of parties who have filed numerous affidavits contradicting the affidavits of the other.
[28] The question then arises as to what is the status quo? I find the answer is the consent order of February 2020, whereby both parents jointly share decision making and equal parenting. The wife’s position appears to be that, despite the February 2020 consent order, there is no equal parenting actually taking place because she is the “primary parent.” Presumably, the mother believes that maintaining the status quo means providing her with sole decision making and giving the father a limited parenting schedule commensurate with his limited role in the children’s lives.
[29] The mother’s position is untenable.
[30] While the mother complained of feeling pressured into consenting to the February 2020 consent order, she clearly did so with the benefit of legal counsel and the order, on its face, is an equal parenting arrangement. I cannot see how the status quo can be described as something other than that.
[31] What has transpired since February 2020, is that the parenting arrangement under one roof has become unworkable. It may be, as the father alleges, that the mother is interfering with his parenting time, or it may be, as the mother alleges, that the children want their mother when they are with the father; but nevertheless, I find that it is in the best interests of the children to have equal parenting time with each parent. The fact that both children are young does not change this: Schmidt v. Haley, 2004 CanLII 34344 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), at para. 12.
[32] The mother called the police to the house on two occasions complaining of the father’s conduct. The police declined to investigate further but contacted the Children’s Aid Society (CAS). There was no evidence of further police or CAS involvement.
[33] I do not consider my decision to turn on findings of credibility since I find the law strongly supports a maintenance of the status quo, albeit with parenting in two separate homes. However, I cannot help but observe that many of the mother’s allegations of the father are so exaggerated, and her criticisms of his parenting so sweeping, so as to detract from her credibility: Alsawwah v. Afifi, 2020 ONSC 2883, at paras. 70-71. Here are a few examples:
- M.H. has driven to his parents’ house on highways without buckling L into her car seat on at least two occasions. The father responded that, on one occasion, he noticed that L’s seat buckle was not properly secured. He now makes a point of double checking.
- While in M.H.’s care, L suffered a laceration on her chin and required medical assistance at The Hospital for Sick Children. The father responded that the child was running, fell, and cut her chin. The father texted the mother and kept her informed about the hospital visit. The mother says it is not the fall, but the father’s cavalier attitude that concerns her, however, the motion material suggests that the father was attentive to this incident.
- M.H. cannot manage simple tasks like brushing teeth, brushing their hair, and getting them dressed, and will leave them in pajamas all day or put them to sleep in daytime clothes in reaction to power struggles he finds himself in and unable to navigate. The father responded that L is a typical 3-year old toddler and he has to pick and choose his battles. He ensures that the children brush their teeth twice a day. Sometimes going to bed wearing day clothes rather than pyjamas is okay.
- When he believes that they are misbehaving, such as not eating properly, he uses the crib as a punishment. This method has caused L a fear of nighttime and has undermined our children’s healthy eating habits. The children used to love eating “green trees” (broccoli), as well as many other fruits, vegetables and proteins. L used to ask for olives, “pink fish”, veggie lasagna or Asian chicken. Suddenly, L and D use the words “plain” and ask for slices of bread, plain noodles with butter, or McDonald’s. The father responded that he continues to feed the children healthy food. He has noticed McDonald’s toys in the home, not purchased by him. He claims that a fast-food meal or less than nutritious meal from time to time is not a sign of bad parenting.
[34] It is not that the mother’s evidence should be rejected and the father’s believed, but rather that many of the mother’s concerns reflect daily parenting challenges that couples often disagree on. This does not make them bad parents, and certainly does not constitute sufficient evidence to warrant changing a previously agreed upon decision making and parenting arrangement.
[35] The mother claims that she is still breastfeeding the younger daughter. But breastfeeding does not act as a trump card for parenting decisions: Holomey v. Hillis, 2020 ONSC 6299, at paras. 17, 20. Here, the evidence of the mother’s necessity to breastfeed due to medical reasons is dated, from a year ago.
[36] The nannies’ competing evidence was of limited value. The post-separation nanny, E.M., who claimed that the children were more bonded to the mother, acknowledged that she worked from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to Friday. Since the husband works these hours except for Wednesdays, I find that this nanny’s perspective may very well be influenced by who she sees the children with most of the time, and/or who is primarily directing her activities (i.e. the mother).
[37] The applicant provided a proposed 2/2/3 equal-time parenting schedule at Schedule A of his Notice of Motion and, in the alternative, a graduated parenting schedule which works up to a 2/2/3 arrangement as Schedule B.
[38] I accept that the change of residence will be a significant change for the children, but this does not, in my view, warrant denying the father equal decision making and parenting time, including overnight. The children have spent play time and nap time at the father’s new residence, albeit just one overnight (when there was an air conditioning problem at the matrimonial home). When the father has attempted to have overnights with the children at his new residence, the mother has not consented. I find that separating the parties physically during parenting time is likely to reduce conflict and be in the best interests of the children. I do not find merit to the suggestion that the children must only sleep in the matrimonial home. With respect to the s. 24(2) CLRA factors, I find that they favour the father’s parenting plan as it is the only plan that provides the children with equal time with each parent, which is in their best interests. However, to accommodate any adjustment concerns, I find that the father’s Schedule B is the preferrable schedule and I have incorporated that into my order.
Exclusive Possession of the Matrimonial Home
[39] The mother’s cross-motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was premised on her need for privacy, non-interference when she is parenting, and protection from her allegedly abusive husband. The mother alleges that violence does not have to be physical and that exclusive possession of the matrimonial home on a temporary basis is appropriate: Mohajeri v. Stroedel, 2020 ONSC 6554, paras. 56-58.
[40] In his motion materials, and at the hearing of the motion, counsel for the father emphatically confirmed that the father undertakes not to move back to the matrimonial home. However, the father submitted that granting the wife exclusive possession would be highly prejudicial to his potential desire to put the matrimonial home up for sale. A significant amount of the father’s equity is tied up in the matrimonial home.
[41] Section 24(1) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, sets out the criteria to consider when ordering exclusive possession. The factors do not favour the mother’s request. Given my order re: equal decision making and parenting, I do not see how the best interests of the children are advanced by granting the mother exclusive possession. I am concerned that doing so will be perceived as tilting the playing field in favour of the mother. The relief sought by the mother is not necessary, in light of the father’s undertaking, and is certainly not advisable at a critical point when the parties are about to embark on a new parenting arrangement.
[42] The mother is concerned about the possibility of the father bringing a motion to sell the matrimonial home. No such motion is currently pending, and the parties are continuing their discussions to resolve their interim financial issues, which will otherwise be returned before me in February. It is not appropriate to award exclusive possession of the matrimonial home at this stage, in order to pre-emptively erect roadblocks to a potential motion for sale of the home. Moreover, while the mother uses the language of “violence”, it is categorically rejected by the father. I am not satisfied based on the evidence on the motion that the mother’s allegations of psychological violence by the father warrant an exclusive possession order. This case is not akin to the concerns of violence by the father against the children or mother in Pinto v. Pinto, 2011 ONSC 7403, as cited by the respondent.
Conclusion
[43] The terms of the Order of Akbarali J. dated February 20, 2020, shall remain in place except paragraph 1 of that order shall be varied such that the children of the marriage, L and D, shall follow the parenting and holiday schedule set out at Schedule B to the applicant’s Notice of Motion, except Stage 1 shall now commence on February 1 instead of January 18, Stage 2 shall now commence on March 1 instead of February 15, and Stage 3 shall now commence on April 1 instead of March 15, 2021.
[44] That part of the mother’s cross-motion seeking a temporary order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home is dismissed.
[45] If the parties are unable to settle the remainder of the issues on the motion, they shall attend before me on February 12, 2021, for a one-hour motion.
[46] The parties shall advise me by contacting Patrizia Generali, Family Law Assistant at the Superior Court of Justice at Patrizia.Generali@ontario.ca, if they cannot agree on costs.
[47] This order is effective upon being signed and released to the parties.
Pinto J.
Released: January 22, 2021
APPENDIX
SCHEDULE A
REGULAR PARENTING SCHEDULE
- Commencing January 18, 2021, the parties shall parent the children in accordance with the regular schedule as set out below:
MON.
TUES.
WED.
THURS.
FRI.
SAT.
SUN.
1
AM
M.H. – 7:00 am pick up
M.H.
L.K. – 7:00 am pick up
L.K.
L.K.
M.H.
M.H.
PM
M.H. – 3:00 pm pick up
2
AM
L.K. – 7:00 am pick up
L.K.
M.H. 7:00 am pick up
M.H.
M.H.
L.K.
L.K.
L.K. 3:00 pm pick up
*For clarity, M.H.’s parenting time is:
a) Week 1 – Monday from 7 am until Wednesday 7 am; Friday from 3 pm until Monday at 7 pm; and
b) Week 2 - Wednesday from 7 am to Friday at 3 pm;
- The parent whose parenting time is commencing shall pick up the children from the other parent’s home, unless as otherwise agreed upon by both parties.
HOLIDAY PARENTING SCHEDULE
The parties shall share holidays in accordance with the holiday parenting schedule below, which shall override the regular schedule.
Rosh Hashanah: The parties shall alternate the first two days and two nights of Rosh Hashanah such that L.K. shall have the children for the first evening/Erev of the holiday and first day of Rosh Hashanah until 4:30 pm in all even numbered years and the 2nd night and 2nd day in all odd numbered years and M.H. shall have children for the first evening/Erev and first day until 4:30 pm in all odd numbered years and the 2nd night and 2nd day in all even numbered years, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise;
Yom Kippur: The children shall be with L.K. for Erev Yom Kippur and Kol Nidre service and Yom Kippur day until 4:30 pm on all even numbered years, and M.H. will have the children for breaking of the fast on even numbered years. The children will be with M.H. for Erev Yom Kippur and Kol Nidre service and Yom Kippur day until 4:30 pm on all odd numbered years, and L.K. will have the children for the breaking of the fast on odd numbered years;
Passover Holidays: The parties shall alternate between the first and second nights of Passover such that the children shall be with L.K. on the first night of Passover on all even numbered years and with M.H. the first night on all odd numbered years;
Mother's Day/Father's Day: The children shall be with L.K. on Mother's Day and with M.H. on Father's Day. If the day does not fall with the relevant parent, the weekend will be split and the children shall spend from Saturday at 5:00 pm to Sunday at 5:00 pm with the parent with whom they are celebrating;
Children's Birthdays: The children shall spend time with each parent on the children's actual birthday as per the parents' mutual agreement;
Birthday Parties: L.K. shall arrange and host a birthday party for each child including their friends (schoolmates and/or neighborhood friends and/or playmates) on odd numbered calendar years and M.H. shall arrange and host a birthday party for each child including their friends on even numbered calendar years;
Halloween: The parent with whom the children are scheduled to be for the evening of Halloween, as per the regular schedule, shall supervise trick or treating and shall handle the costumes for the children that year, providing them in time for the children to wear them to any other Halloween events that they are attending that year; and
Pending further agreement or court order, due to the young age of the children, the regular parenting schedule shall be followed and in place during Christmas/New Year's holidays, Spring Break, Summer Break and any other school closures.
SCHEDULE B
REGULAR PARENTING SCHEDULE
STAGE 1
- Commencing January 18, 2021 and for a period of one month, the parties shall parent the children in accordance with the regular schedule as set out below:
Week/Time
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
1
Morning
L.K.
L.K.
M.H.
L.K.
L.K.
M.H. 9:00 am – overnight
M.H.
Afternoon
M.H. 3:00 pm – 6:00 pm
L.K. 5 pm - pickup
Overnight
L.K.
M.H. 4:00 pm –
L.K. 6:00 pm -
Week/Time
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
2
Morning
L.K.
L.K.
M.H.
L.K.
L.K.
M.H.
L.K.
Afternoon
M.H. 3:00 pm – 6:00 pm
L.K. 5 pm -pickup
Overnight
L.K.
M.H. 4:00 pm – Pick up
L.K. 6:00 pm – Pick up
M.H. 3:00 pm –
For clarity, M.H.’s parenting time is:
a) Week 1 - Monday from 3 – 6 pm; Tuesday from 4 pm to Wednesday at 6 pm; Saturday from 9 am to Sunday at 5 pm; and
b) Week 2 - Monday from 3 – 6 pm; Tuesday from 4:00 pm to Wednesday at 6 pm; Friday from 3 pm to Saturday at 5 pm.
STAGE 2
- Commencing February 15, 2021 for a period of one month, the parties shall parent the children in accordance with the regular schedule as set out below:
Week/Time
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
1
Morning
L.K.
L.K.
M.H.
L.K.
L.K.
M.H.
L.K.
Afternoon
M.H. 3:00 pm – 6:00 pm
L.K. 5:00 pm – pick up
Overnight
L.K.
M.H. 4:00 pm - pick up
L.K. 6:00 pm - pick up
M.H. 3:00 pm – pick up
Week/Time
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
2
Morning
L.K.
M.H.
L.K.
L.K.
L.K.
M.H.
Afternoon
M.H. 3:00 pm – pick up
M.H. 9 am – pick up
L.K. 5:00 pm- pick up
Overnight
L.K. 4:00 pm -
For clarity, M.H.’s parenting time is:
a) Week 1 – Monday from 3 – 6 pm; Tuesday from 4 pm to Wednesday at 6 pm; Friday from 3 pm to Saturday at 5 pm.
b) Week 2 – Monday from 3 to Wednesday at 4 pm; Saturday at 9 am to Sunday at 5 pm.
STAGE 3
- Commencing March 15, 2021, the parties shall parent the children in accordance with the regular schedule as set out below:
MON.
TUES.
WED.
THURS.
FRI.
SAT.
SUN.
1
AM
M.H. – 7:00 am pick up
M.H.
L.K. – 7:00 am pick up
L.K.
L.K.
M.H.
M.H.
PM
M.H. – 3:00 pm pick up
2
AM
L.K. – 7:00 am pick up
L.K.
M.H. 7:00 am pick up
M.H.
M.H.
L.K.
L.K.
PM
L.K. 3:00 pm pick up
For clarity, M.H.’s parenting time is:
a) Week 1 - Monday at 7 am until Wednesday 7 am; Friday at 3 pm until Monday at 7 pm; and
b) Week 2 - Wednesday 7 am to Friday at 3 pm.
- In every stage, the parent whose parenting time is commencing shall pick up the children from the other parent’s home, unless as otherwise agreed upon by both parties.
HOLIDAY PARENTING SCHEDULE
The parties shall share holidays in accordance with the holiday schedule below, which shall override the regular schedule.
Rosh Hashanah: The parties shall alternate the first two days and two nights of Rosh Hashanah such that L.K. shall have the children for the first evening/Erev of the holiday and first day of Rosh Hashanah until 4:30 pm in all even numbered years and the 2nd night and 2nd day in all odd numbered years and M.H. shall have children for the first evening/Erev and first day until 4:30 pm in all odd numbered years and the 2nd night and 2nd day in all even numbered years, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise;
Yom Kippur: The children shall be with L.K. for Erev Yom Kippur and Kol Nidre service and Yom Kippur day until 4:30 pm on all even numbered years, and M.H. will have the children for breaking of the fast on even numbered years. The children will be with M.H. for Erev Yom Kippur and Kol Nidre service and Yom Kippur day until 4:30 pm on all odd numbered years, and L.K. will have the children for the breaking of the fast on odd numbered years.
Passover Holidays: The parties shall alternate between the first and second nights of Passover such that the children shall be with L.K. on the first night of Passover on all even numbered years and with M.H. the first night on all odd numbered years;
Mother's Day/Father's Day: The children shall be with L.K. on Mother's Day and with M.H. on Father's Day. If the day does not fall with the relevant parent, the weekend will be split and the children shall spend from Saturday at 5:00 pm to Sunday at 5:00 pm with the parent with whom they are celebrating.
Children's Birthdays: The children shall spend time with each parent on the children's actual birthday as per the parents' mutual agreement.
Birthday Parties: L.K. shall arrange and host a birthday party for each child including their friends (schoolmates and/or neighborhood friends and/or playmates) on odd numbered calendar years and M.H. shall arrange and host a birthday party for each child including their friends on even numbered calendar years.
Halloween: The parent with whom the children are scheduled to be for the evening of Halloween, as per the regular schedule, shall supervise trick or treating and shall handle the costumes for the children that year, providing them in time for the children to wear them to any other Halloween events that they are attending that year.
Pending further agreement or court order, due to the young age of the children, the regular parenting schedule shall be followed and in place during Christmas/New Year's holidays, Spring Break, Summer Break and any other school closures.
SCHEDULE C
Week 1: Wednesday 11:30 am to 5:30 pm; Friday 3:00 pm to Saturday 3:00 pm
Week 2: Monday 3:30 to 5:30 pm; Wednesday 11:30 am to 5:30 pm; Saturday 3:00 pm to Sunday at 3:00 pm
Week 1
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
M
M 11:30-5:30
M 3:00
L 3:00
Week 2
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
M
M 3:30-5:30
M 11:30-5:30
M 3:00
L 3:00
Subject to the holiday schedule as agreed upon by the parties, the children shall be with the Wife at all other times. The Husband shall be responsible for picking up and dropping off the children at the Wife’s home or L’s school.
Except in the event of an emergency in which case the parties shall communicate by phone, the parties shall communicate through Our Family Wizard and shall limit their communications to child-related issues.
Each party shall have the right of first refusal. If either parent cannot care for the children during his or her parenting time for a period of more than 4 hours, the other parent shall be promptly notified and that parent shall have the right to care for the children if they are in a position to do so.
COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-15438
DATE: 20210122
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
M.H.
Applicant
– and –
L.K.
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
Pinto J.
Released: January 22, 2021