COURT FILE NO.: FC-13-1778-2
DATE: 2021/08/26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
COURTNEY MEACOE
Applicant
– and –
ANDREW DAVID ISAAC CUTLER
Respondent
Alison Southern, for the Applicant
Rebecca Rosenstock, for the Respondent
HEARD: August 24, 2021
REASONS FOR decision
Audet J.
[1] This is a motion to change and a cross motion to change dealing with the parenting and support of the parties’ son Hayden (born on March 5, 2013 – now 9 years old).
[2] Pursuant to a Final Order dated November 10, 2016, signed by Justice Shelston on consent of the parties (“the 2016 Final Order”), the applicant Mother has sole custody of the child, who resides primarily with her, and the Father has parenting time with him every second weekend as well as some holidays. The Father is also required to pay child support in the amount of $107 per month, based on and imputed income of $15,550, as well as a monthly contribution of $44 towards daycare.
[3] In September 2017, the Mother filed a Motion to Change seeking to adjust the Father’s child support obligations, retroactive to January 1, 2016. It was later amended to seek the imputation of an income in the amount of $60,000 on the Father for the purpose of fixing his child support obligations. The Father filed his own Motion to Change seeking to vary the parenting terms of the 2016 Final Order, granting him joint decision-making authority for the child and increased parenting time.
BACKGROUND FACTS
[4] The parties did not cohabit for very long and separated months after Hayden was born. At the time, both parties resided in Ottawa. Shortly after the separation, the Father moved to Harwood, Ontario, some 3.5 hours away from Ottawa. The Father alleges that at the time he consented to the 2016 Final Order, the Mother was not permitting him to have access with Hayden and he consented to the terms sought by the Mother to ensure he was able to get some parenting time with him. The order provided for a period of supervised parenting time between them, with an obligation to obtain alcohol testing, and eventually led to unsupervised, regular contact between the Father and Hayden.
[5] Despite the clear terms of the 2016 Final Order, the evidence before me makes it clear that there was a lot of mistrust between the parties, which led to increased and significant parental conflict. Although the Father continued to have regular parenting time with Hayden, conflict around parenting issues (including the Father’s parenting time during summer and holidays) perdured, and the parties’ ability to communicate efficiently with one another became non-existent. This led to a number of motions being brought to deal with temporary issues, which further increased the parental conflict.
[6] In 2020, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer became involved and completed a comprehensive assessment. The evidence adduced before me in the context of today’s motion fully supports the conclusions reached by the clinical investigator, Ms. Sandra Kapasky, which can be summarized as follows:
Since the 2016 Final Order was made, the Mother has been solely responsible for all of Hayden's day to day needs. She has been the main liaison regarding his education, medical and mental health and extra curricular activities. The Father has had minimal involvement with Hayden’s day-to-day care, but he has continued to exercise his parenting time consistently;
Hayden has been very clear and consistent in his expressed desire to spend more time with his Father. He is very well aware of his parents’ conflict and inability to get along with one another for his benefit. He believes that it is his Mother’s responsibility to decide if and when he will see his Father, and this is upsetting to him;
Hayden is both well aware of the adult conflict and is at risk of emotional harm due to his exposure to it;
Despite the many concerns raised by the Mother in relation to the Father’s ability to care for Hayden for more than a few days at a time, no such concern in fact exists and the Father is perfectly able to care for Hayden, including for longer periods of time;
Hayden enjoys the time he spends with his Father very much, wants more time with him, and there is no evidence that Hayden is not properly cared for while spending time with his Father; and,
There is a strong risk of the Father’s relationship with Hayden being minimized if the present parenting arrangement continues.
[7] In her report, Ms. Kapasky recommended that the parties attempt to make joint decisions about Hayden’s health, education, religion, and major extracurricular activities before such decisions are made. If the parties cannot agree, the Mother should have final say. She also recommended that the regular parenting time continue to occur every second weekend, and that the Father be granted increased parenting time during the summer (three weeks by the summer of 2022) and other holidays. She recommended that the parties communicate through a communication tool (such as Our Family Wizard), that they attempt to mediate first in the event of disagreement, and she also made a number of other recommendations with regards to various parenting matters in an attempt to minimize parental conflict.
[8] To the admission of the Mother, being made aware of the OCL’s conclusions and recommendations has been a turning point in the parties’ co-parenting relationship, at least from her point of view, and she no longer harbours concerns about the Father’s ability to care for Hayden, nor is she seeking to reduce the Father’s parenting time with him. In fact, she consents to an order granting him increased parenting time with Hayden. The parents have also started to use Our Family Wizard several months ago to communicate, and both parents report a clear improvement in their level of engagement and ability to communicate effectively on matters related to Hayden.
[9] At the time of the OCL investigation (which concluded in July 2020), and to this day, the Father’s weekend parenting time generally takes place alternatively in Ottawa (where the paternal grandmother resides) and in Harwood. The paternal grandmother (or another driver designated by the Father) is responsible to transport Hayden for his parenting time with his father. On or about July 2021, the Mother moved to Alexandria with Hayden. Although she notified the Father of this move in May 2021, it is not disputed that she did not consult with the Father about her relocation plans. The effect of this move is that the distance between the Father’s home, the paternal grandmother’s home and the Mother’s home has increased.
ANALYSIS
Parenting issues
[10] Strangely enough, at the time of the motion hearing before me, not many issues remained in dispute in relation to parenting. Both parties submitted draft final orders that they wanted me to make which contained very similar language on various parenting issues. The main issues still in dispute were the following:
Whether the Mother should retain sole decision-making authority over major decisions, with an obligation to meaningfully consult the Father (the Mother’s position), or whether the parties should have joint decision-making authority with the Mother having final say if there is disagreement after meaningful consultation has taken place (the Father’s position);
Whether the Father should have two or three weeks of summer vacation with Hayden;
The way in which the Christmas holidays should be shared between the parties;
Whether or not the Mother should continue to be permitted to travel internationally with Hayden without the need to obtain the Father’s consent, or whether she should be required to seek consent;
Pick up and drop off location; and,
Other minor issues related to the length of notice for changes in the Father’s parenting time, communications with the child, etc.
[11] I find that there are sufficient material changes in the parties’ and the child’s circumstances to justify a review of the parenting arrangements in place pursuant to the 2016 Final Order. Such material changes include, but are not limited to:
The significant parental conflict since the 2016 Final Order was made, and its impact on Hayden’s emotional well-being;
Hayden no longer being a three-year-old toddler; he is now nine years old. He has clearly and consistently expressed his wish to spend more time with his Father; and,
The strong risk that, if the current parenting arrangements remain, the Father’s role in Hayden’s life will be minimized.
[12] I have incorporated in my detailed parenting order (below) the provisions that the parties both agreed upon to a large extent. Following are the reasons supporting my decision on those issues which remained in dispute.
Decision-making responsibility
[13] The parties’ dispute over this is pure semantics, in my view. The end result is the same: the parents agree to meaningfully consult with one another on major decisions needing to be made for Hayden. If they cannot agree, the Mother will decide.
[14] Rather than using words which will only give one party the impression that he/she won, and that the other lost, I have chosen to use neutral language which reflects what the parties have agreed upon: a meaningful consultation process followed by a final decision being made by the Mother if there is an impasse. I have also indicated the areas of decision-making which require consensus.
Christmas holidays
[15] As stated earlier, the parties live some 3.5 hours apart. It is not reasonable in my view to insist on the Father traveling such a distance to spend only one day (December 26) with Hayden, as the Mother suggests. While I appreciate that since the 2016 Final Order was made the Mother has always spent Christmas Eve and Christmas Day with Hayden, and the Father has always spent Boxing Day with him (as consented to by them in the 2016 Final Order), this is not sufficient reason to maintain the status quo. This was agreed upon when Hayden was very young and the Father had limited parenting time with him aside from his regular weekends. In my view, both parents should now be afforded an opportunity to spend meaningful time with Hayden during the Christmas Holidays and, most importantly, Hayden should be entitled to spend Christmas with each of his parents and their families, including his Father’s family and including in his Harwood home.
[16] As a result, I have concluded that the Christmas Holidays would be divided between the parties equally, with each parent having the first part of the holidays (including Christmas) every other year.
Summer holidays
[17] The Mother takes the position that the Father should have two weeks of summer holidays, not three, because he has not even exercised his right to have summer holidays this summer. She proposes to start with two weeks and, if the Father uses them in the future, this can be reviewed.
[18] The evidence before me does support the conclusion that the Mother offered summer parenting time to the Father this summer, and that he did not respond. This said, there is significant evidence before me which, while contradictory, clearly supports a finding that changes in the regular or holiday parenting schedule have been the source of significant conflict between the parties. Past attempts to resolve the issue of summer parenting time without court intervention have failed. The Father indicates that he chose to forgo this summer’s vacation because he knew the parties would not be able to reach an agreement and he did not want to engage in further litigation. That excuse is unsatisfactory to me.
[19] Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that the Father has been consistent in his wish to spend summer vacation with Hayden during the past several years, and Hayden clearly wants this to happen. The issue, therefore, is not whether it is in the best interest of Hayden to spend three weeks of summer vacation with his Father (as I find that it is), the issue is how to schedule those vacation weeks in a way that will:
Ensure consistency and stability for Hayden;
Minimizes the need for the parents to discuss, negotiate and achieve agreement on dates and times;
Minimize parental conflict; and,
Reduces the potential for Hayden to be disappointed because anticipated parenting time with his Father is cancelled or does not occur.
[20] With this in mind, I have included provisions in the detailed parenting order below giving the Father three weeks of summer vacation with Hayden, at fixed dates each summer, with an obligation for the Father to confirm in writing by a certain date that he intends to take advantage of his vacation weeks. If he fails to do so, he will have forgone his summer parenting time (other than his regular parenting weekends).
International travel
[21] I see no reason why the Mother should now have to seek the Father’s consent to travel internationally with Hayden. This only has the potential to cause parental conflict. Further, the evidence before me is that the Mother has only travelled once internationally with Hayden since the 2016 Final Order was made.
[22] This said, the Mother should have a positive obligation to notify the Father in advance of any such travel, including by giving him all details in relation to the trip. If the proposed travel will interfere with the Father’s parenting time with Hayden, then the Father’s consent to the change in the parenting schedule (but not to the international travel itself) should be required.
Pick-up and drop-off location
[23] When the Father relocated to Harwood without notice to or the consent of the Mother, he had to live with the consequences of his own unilaterally imposed choice and he became responsible for the transportation of Hayden between Ottawa and Harwood. Similarly, the consequences flowing from the Mother’s unilaterally imposed choice to relocate the child’s residence to Alexandria must be borne by her. As such, the child’s exchanges to and from his parents’ residences for the Father’s parenting time shall occur at an agreed upon location in Ottawa, unless specifically agreed to otherwise by the Father, in writing.
Child Support
[24] The Mother seeks to impute an income of $60,000 to the Father and to adjust his child support obligations retroactively to the 2016 Final Order (it was confirmed by counsel during the motion that despite the relief claimed in her amended Motion to Change, the Mother is only seeking the go back to the date of the 2016 Final Order). To support this position, the Mother relies on a court order made in September 2013 in relation to one of the Father’s other children, requiring him to pay child support based on an imputed income of $60,000 (the “2013 child support order”).
[25] The Father is prepared to increase his basic child support commencing on September 1, 2021, based on an imputed yearly income of $25,000. He does not agree to adjust his child support obligations back to the 2016 Final Order. He asks to be permitted to repay child support arrears as they are currently recorded by the Family Responsibility Office (based on the child support provisions of the 2016 Final Order) at the minimum rate of $50 per month until fully repaid.
[26] The Father has historically worked in the restaurant industry. When the parties were in a relationship, he worked full-time as a server earning tips. When he moved to Harwood, he continued to work in the restaurant industry, but on a part-time basis.
[27] I do not accept that the Father should be imputed an income of $60,000, based on the following reasons. When the parties consented to the 2016 Final Order, imputing a $15,550 annual income to the Father, the 2013 child support order – in which an income of $60,000 was imputed to him – had already been made and the Mother was fully aware of it. Despite this, she consented to the Father’s child support obligations being based on an annual income that was significantly less. This means that she already knew then that the Father was not earning the higher level of income imputed upon him in the 2013 child support order.
[28] Further, the 2013 child support order was made following an uncontested proceeding. The Father did not consent to this order nor did he participate in these proceedings. Based on the evidence before me, I accept the Father’s explanation as to why he has not, until recently, initiated variation proceedings to change that default order.
[29] This being said, I am of the view that the Father is either voluntarily underemployed, or that he has access to more income than he claims. I come to that conclusion based on the following.
[30] At the time the parties consented to the 2016 Final Order, imputing a $15,550 income to the Father, the Mother did not have access to his 2016 tax return. Presumably, she relied on his 2015 income tax return showing an annual income of $15,908 for that year. As stated earlier, the 2016 Final Order was made in November 2016 and as such the Father’s 2016 income tax return was not yet available.
[31] In the context of this motion, the Father provided a 5-year comparative tax summary confirming that in 2016, and throughout the years that followed (up to and including 2019), he earned more than the $15,550 income upon which his child support obligations were based. This summary confirms that he earned the following income during those years:
2016 employment income of $18,960;
2017 employment income of $18,709;
2018 employment income of $23,750; and,
2019 employment income of $24,091.
[32] During those years, the Father was employed as a part-time server in the restaurant industry earning tips in the form of cash. Since at least 2018, he works in a restaurant in Fort Hope called the Railside Grill. The Father indicates, and I take judicial notice of the fact that, the restauration industry has taken a hard hit during the COVID pandemic. The Father states that he was unable to work for most of 2020 (his final 2020 pay stubs indicates total income earned in 2020 of $7,474, without tips) and from March 2021 to now (no evidence was provided by the Father with respect to income earned in 2021).
[33] The Father states, in his August 18, 2021 affidavit, that Port hope is a small town with limited employment opportunities. He indicates that the Railside Grill was under the same ownership for 30 years and they were recently bought by new owners. He says that there is currently no employment and that he is seeking other venues in case the reorganization does not lead to consistent employment. He states that he has spoken to the owners several times and right now they are the only ones operating the restaurant.
[34] I do not accept the Father's evidence in that regard. The Mother has filed evidence confirming that there are a lot of employment opportunities in the restaurant industry in Port Hope. More interestingly, she adduced evidence confirming that, as of a week ago, the Railside Grill was looking for servers and counter employees on a full-time or part-time basis, with salaries ranging from $12.45 to $15 an hour.
[35] I draw an adverse inference from the fact that the Father did not complete and file his 2020 income tax return, as court-ordered, and that he did not provide any evidence of CERB or other COVID related benefits available to him during the years 2020 and 2021. Further, the Father has provided absolutely no explanation as to why he was only working part-time before the pandemic. He has reported no health issues or disability that would prevent him from being fully employed. Having a total of four children to support, his continued part-time employment over the years is not only unexplained, it is unjustifiable.
[36] I find that the Father is able to work on a full-time basis, earning at least minimum wages. If he is working as a server, he is also earning tips which are not all reported on his income tax returns. The Father’s financial statement confirms yearly living expenses of $18,036, in addition to monthly FRO garnishments in the amount of $1,000 per month, or $12,000 per year (which includes child support for three other children, in addition to Hayden). This means that he has total yearly expenses of roughly $30,000. Other than child support arrears and a student loan debt, he only owes $2,800 in consumer debt (his Visa) in addition to having borrowed $5,300 from his mother. This means that he has access to income of at least $30,000 per year, regardless of what his tax returns say.
[37] The Father confirmed that he was able to work for some months in both 2020 and 2021, and there is no reason to believe that he was unable to benefit from the COVID related emergency benefits in the amount of $2,000 per month made available to all individuals whose employment was terminated due to the pandemic. The Father indeed confirms that he is currently receiving EI benefits in the amount of $2,000 per month.
[38] Based on all of the above, I impute an annual income of $30,000 to the Father for the years 2016 to and including 2020, and ongoing, for the purpose of calculating his child support obligations. The 2016 Final Order provided for a yearly exchange of income information to adjust child support, and the Mother’s Motion to Change seeking that adjustment was filed in 2017. This is not, therefore, a retroactive child support case. There is no reason to deny the Mother’s request to adjust the Father’s child support obligations “retroactively” to the month following the month in which the 2016 Final Order was made (December 2016), and I so order.
Section 7 expenses
[39] The 2016 Final Order required the Father to contribute to Hayden’s s. 7 expenses, “in particular” the cost of his daycare, health, medical and dental premiums and uninsured medical and dental expenses. It required him to contribute $44 per month towards daycare but did not specifically make reference to the cost of extracurricular activities for Hayden.
[40] The Mother seeks a contribution to the following s. 7 expenses incurred by her since the 2016 Final Order for Hayden:
Daycare in the amount of $13,231;
Extracurricular activities (basketball, taekwondo, hockey, swimming, gymnastics) totalling $4,481.61 (or an average of roughly $896 per year over five years);
Dental costs (totalling $177,14); and,
Counselling (in the amount of $158.20).
[41] The net cost of daycare, dental expenses and counselling are clearly s. 7 expenses to which the Father has an obligation to contribute in proportion to his income. However, the Mother has not taken into account the tax benefits available to her in relation to the daycare costs incurred. As a result, the total provided by her will need to be adjusted to reflect the tax benefits available to her and confirm her net costs for this expense.
[42] I find that the Mother is not entitled to a contribution by the Father to the cost of Hayden’s extracurricular activities for the following reasons. Firstly, I find that the Mother did not meaningfully consult the Father about these anticipated costs, and before incurring them. Secondly, despite my finding about his ability to earn income, the fact remains that the Father is of very modest means. In addition to this, he is currently obligated to support four children, none of whom are under his full-time care (and therefore, presumably, he is responsible to pay the full Table amount for each of these children). The Father has no assets, only debts. He does not even have a car. It is clear that he lives a very modest lifestyle.
[43] While the expenses incurred by the Mother over the past five years on account of Hayden’s extracurricular activities were clearly in Hayden’s best interests and reasonable in relation to the Mother’s means (she earns income in the range of $60,000-$70,000), they were simply not reasonable in relation to the Father’s means and very limited ability to pay. Further, his transportation costs to exercise his parenting time are important, regardless of whether those costs are currently being assumed by his own mother or any other third parties. As a result, no contribution is required from the Father on account of extracurricular activities for Hayden.
[44] The parties shall provide me with revised calculations confirming the Father’s basic child support obligations from December 2016 to present, based on an imputed income of $30,000, as well as his proportionate share of net section 7 expenses based on what I allowed above. They shall also confirm the amount of arrears owing by the Father in light of what has been garnished by the FRO from December 1, 2016 to present.
[45] Once the above is confirmed, I will decide whether the Father should now be required to pay the life insurance premiums assumed by the Mother in accordance with the 2016 Final Order, and I will finalize my order in relation to child support and related financial issues.
[46] Costs submissions are also deferred to after I have finalized my child support order.
ORDER
[47] Based on the above, I make the following final parenting order:
Decision-making authority
The parties shall jointly parent their child, Hayden Bradley Isaac Cutler, born March 5, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the child”). They shall make all major non-emergency decisions related to the child’s health, education, religion and important extracurricular activities together, after having meaningfully consulted one another in accordance with para. 2 below. Following a meaningful consultation process, if the parties still do not agree on a decision to be made, the Mother shall make the final decision.
The parties shall meaningfully consult with each other prior to making any major non-emergency decision to be made for Hayden. “Meaningful consultation” means the following:
a. The party wanting a decision to be made shall provide the other party with all relevant information in relation to the decision to be made. Any request for further information must be answered within 24 hours days of the request; and,
b. The other party shall have seven (7) days to consider the request and to provide input. In the event of disagreement and after a minimum consultation period of 15 days from the date the initial request was made, the Mother shall make the decision. She shall promptly inform the Father of her decision in writing.
Day-to-day and emergency decisions will be made by the parent in whose care the child is when the decision needs to be made.
Neither party is permitted to relocate the child’s residence at a distance that is greater than the distance between the Father’s and the Mother’s current residences, without consent or a court order.
Both parties shall be able to communicate with and obtain documentation independently from third party service providers involved with the child about the child (medical, educational, mental health, extra curricular activities, etc). This clause is intended to provide the consent of both parties as it pertains to information sharing about the child, however, in the event that a third party professional requires additional consent, the parties shall comply with signing any necessary documentation required by the third party, within 48 hours of the request.
Parenting time
The child’s primary residence shall be with the Mother.
The Father shall have parenting time with Hayden as follows:
a. every second Friday from 4:30 p.m. to Sunday at 8 p.m. If the Monday is a holiday or a PD day, the Father’s parenting time extends to the Monday at 8 p.m. unless he confirms otherwise by 5 p.m. the Monday preceding his weekend parenting time, in writing; and,
b. Any other times as agreed by the parties.
There shall be no changes in the parenting schedule (including the Holiday schedule), unless consent is sought and obtained at least seven (7) days in advance of the scheduled pick-up time. If the Father’s parenting time is missed as a result of the Father’s breach of this provision, there will be no make-up time. If the Father’s parenting time is missed because of the Mother’s breach of this provision, make-up parenting time shall be provided at another time chosen by the Father, to occur within the following two months.
If the Father is unable to exercise his parenting time as set out herein (including his Holiday parenting time), he shall give the Mother at least 72 hours’ notice of same, unless the cancellation is the result of an unanticipated emergency (child or Father is sick, snow storm, etc.). No make-up time will be granted for missed parenting time that is cancelled by the Father. If it is the Mother who needs to cancel for a valid reason (such as the child being ill), she will also give 72 hours’ notice of the cancellation and makeup parenting time shall be provided at another time chosen by the Father, to occur within the following two months.
Reasonable requests for changes in the parenting schedule to accommodate appointments and special events (such as a family celebration) shall not be unreasonably denied. The party consenting to a request for change shall have the right to choose the date(s) at which the make-up parenting time will occur.
The child’s exchanges to and from his parents’ residences for the Father’s parenting time shall occur at an agreed upon location in Ottawa, unless specifically agreed to otherwise by the Father. The Father and/or his designated driver shall be responsible to drive the child to and from Ottawa and Harwood.
In the event that the Mother moves back to Ottawa, the Father shall pick up the child directly from school/daycare or at the Mother's residence if the child is not in school.
The Father shall be able to exercise parenting time in any location in Ontario without any geographical restrictions. The Father shall advise the Mother in advance if the visit is not taking place in Harwood, Alexandria or Ottawa (or in close proximity thereof).
The child shall be able to contact either party liberally. Neither party shall interfere with communication and shall allow the child to speak to the other parent in a private location, whenever he wants.
The Father shall be able to contact the child at any time, between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m., when he is in the care of his mother. The Mother shall be able to contact the child at any time, between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m., when he is in the care of his father, but only if she has not had contact with him for at least three days.
Either party can attend school events or extracurricular activities no matter which parent has parenting time.
Holiday schedule
- The following schedule shall replace the regular parenting schedule:
a. Christmas and winter vacation - In odd numbered years the Mother shall spend the first half of Christmas vacation with the child from the day after the last day of school at noon to the halfway mark at noon. In odd numbered years, the Father shall spend the second half of Christmas vacation with the child from the halfway point to the day before school at 7 p.m. The reverse shall occur in even numbered years, where the Father receives the first half of Christmas vacation commencing the day after the last day of school at noon, and the Mother shall receive the second half of Christmas vacation commencing on the halfway mark between the day after the last day of school at noon and the day before school reconvenes at 7 p.m.;
b. Easter - In odd numbered years, the Mother shall have the entire Easter weekend with the child from Thursday after school to Monday at 7 p.m. If the Easter weekend falls on the Father’s regular parenting weekend, the Father may elect to spend the preceding or the following weekend with the child, so long as he confirms his wish to do so, in writing, at least two weeks in advance of Easter weekend. In even numbered years, the Father shall have the entire weekend with the child from Thursday after school to Monday at 7 p.m. If Easter weekend falls on the Mother’s regular parenting weekend, the Mother may elect to keep the child in her care the preceding or the following weekend, so long as she confirms her wish to do so, in writing, at least two weeks in advance of the Easter weekend;
c. Mother's Day - The Mother shall have parenting time with the child on Sunday at 10 a.m.-7 p.m.;
d. Father’s Day: The Father shall have parenting time with the child on Sunday at 10 a.m.-7 p.m., so long as he confirms his availability by 5 p.m. on the Monday preceding Father’s Day weekend;
e. Child's birthday: The child's birthday shall be celebrated with whichever parent has care of the child;
f. March break: The Father shall have the entire March break with the child (being Monday to Friday in addition to the Father’s regular parenting weekend) in even numbered years and the Mother shall have the entire March break with the child in odd numbered years (Monday to Friday including her regular parenting weekend);
g. Summer vacation – The Father shall have three weeks of summer holiday with the child each summer, as follows:
i. The week (Monday to Friday) following the Father’s 1st regular parenting weekend in July;
ii. The week (Monday to Friday) following the Father’s 1st regular parenting weekend in August; and,
iii. The week (Monday to Friday) following the Father’s 2nd regular parenting weekend in August.
h. The Father shall confirm in writing by June 1st each year whether he intends to take his assigned three weeks of vacation (or any one of them). If he fails to confirm in writing by June 1st, he is deemed to have forgone his right to take summer vacation with the child, unless the Mother agrees otherwise.
i. The Mother shall be entitled to take two consecutive weeks of vacation with the child each summer, even if it means that the Father will loose one of his regular parenting weekends, so long as she confirms in writing by June 15 each year her intention to do so and the scheduled dates of her vacation with the child.
Communication
The parties shall only communicate with each other in writing and only on matters that affect the child.
The parties will use the application Our Family Wizard to communicate with each other on non-emergency matters and all features on the Application shall be utilized, unless agreed otherwise by the parties.
The parties shall be responsible for their own costs associated with Our Family Wizard.
The parties shall upload all appointments, meetings and extra curricular activities set for the child on Our Family Wizard, as soon as the event is announced.
The parties shall respond to any message from the other parent within 48 hours of the message being received. All communication shall be civil, concise and child focussed.
In the event of emergency, the parties shall communicate with each other via phone or text message. The parties shall have at all times a cell phone number that the other party can call/text and which can only be used in case of an emergency for the child.
The parties shall promptly share with the other any significant medical issues or injuries that occur to the child during their parenting time.
The parties shall notify each other of any change in their residence as soon as the change is confirmed.
Neither party shall speak ill of the other parent to the child or make any disparaging comments. The parties shall encourage a meaningful relationship between the child and the other parent.
Travel
The Mother may travel internationally with the child without the need to obtain the Father’s written consent. However, she shall provide a minimum of 45 days notice including the flight information, details of travel and contact information while abroad.
If the Mother’s travel plans with the child (international or not) interfere with the Father’s parenting time, she shall obtain his consent to the travel before booking flights or making any travel arrangements. If the Father does not respond to the Mother’s request for consent to travel pursuant to this provision within 5 days of the request being made, he is deemed to have consented. Consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
The parties shall advise the other if they will be travelling with the child outside of the Province of Ontario / Ottawa-Gatineau region.
Madam Justice Julie Audet
Released: August 26, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: FC-13-1778-2
DATE: 2021/08/26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
COURTNEY MEACOE
Applicant
– and –
ANDREW DAVID ISAAC CUTLER
Respondent
REASONS for decision
Audet J.
Released: August 26, 2021