COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-013977

DATE: 20210128

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

MINH TUAN TRAN

Applicant

– and –

LYNN CHIU

Respondent

Mason Morningstar, for the Applicant

Annie Kenet, for the Respondent

HEARD: January 21, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

P.J. Monahan J.

[1] The Applicant, Minh Tuan Tran, and the Respondent, Lynn Chiu, were married in July 2011, separated in June 2015, and divorced on November 14, 2017. They have two children, ET, who was born on July 16, 2014, and MT, who was born on August 21, 2019. The parties continued a romantic relationship after they separated, which resulted in MT’s birth.

[2] In the initial period after their separation, the parties seemed able to successfully resolve issues arising from the breakdown of the marriage. The parties entered into two agreements (the “Agreements”), a July 2017 Separation Agreement and a June 2018 Amending Agreement, in which they addressed many significant matters, including a parenting schedule for ET.

[3] However, over the past 12 to 18 months, the parties have had increasing difficulties resolving even minor issues involving their two children. This is the second contested motion that has been brought in the last two months to address disputes over Mr. Trans’s parenting time with the children. On November 27, 2020, Nishikawa J. granted Mr. Tran a modest increase in his parenting time with MT and ordered Ms. Chiu to pay costs of $2500. In the course of her Endorsement, Nishikawa J. noted that there was little in dispute between the parties, and that “proceeding with motions, with numerous affidavits, over differences of less than one hour and who is responsible for driving reflect a level of intransigence that is not in anyone’s interest, let alone the children’s best interests.” Nishikawa J. suggested that the parties’ efforts and resources would be better directed towards resolution, not only to save themselves time, money and stress, but also because it would be in their children’s best interest.

[4] Nishikawa J’s advice seems to have gone unheeded.

[5] On this motion, Mr. Tran seeks to add some overnights to his existing parenting time with ET, and to add two additional weeks to his existing single week with ET during the summer holidays. He also seeks to resolve a number of minor disputes that have arisen between the parties over matters such as when and by whom ET should be picked up.

[6] Ms. Chiu is opposed to any changes to the existing parenting schedule. She seeks to have Mr. Tran’s motion dismissed and the matters he has raised deferred to trial.

[7] The parties have filed numerous affidavits totaling hundreds of pages. As will be discussed below, the vast majority of the material that has been filed is only marginally relevant to the narrow issues raised by Mr. Tran’s motion. Not only does this manner of proceeding ignore the “primary objective” of the Family Law Rules, which includes saving expense and time and dealing with a case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity, the Respondent has ignored the restrictions applicable to evidence for use on a motion for temporary relief as set out in Rule 14 (20). I will have more to say about these procedural and evidentiary matters later in this Endorsement.

Background

[8] Pursuant to the Agreements, ET resides primarily with Ms. Chiu. Mr. Tran has parenting time with ET as follows:

Week One Tuesday, after school or daycare to drop off at 8 PM;

Friday, after school or daycare to drop off on Sunday at 6 PM;

Week Two Tuesday, after school or daycare to drop off at 8 PM.

[9] Mr. Tran is to pick up ET from daycare or school no earlier than 3:30 PM unless otherwise agreed. Where daycare or school is closed, pickup will be at 5 PM from Ms. Chiu’s residence.

[10] In addition, Mr. Tran has one week of uninterrupted time with ET in the summer.

[11] In June 2019, Mr. Tran began residing with a new partner, CSA. Their residence is located in Scarborough, which is an approximately 45-minute drive from Ms. Chiu’s residence and ET’s school. CSA has a daughter from a previous marriage who is seven years old and who resides with Mr. Tran and CSA.

[12] In November 2019, Mr. Tran brought an Application seeking a more equal parenting schedule with ET. The parties had a case conference before Kiteley J. in June 2020 but were unable to resolve their differences. This resulted in Mr. Tran bringing a motion for increased parenting time with ET, as set out below.

Parties’ Positions on These Motions

[13] Mr. Tran states that he wishes to be as active as possible in ET’s life. Since there are no concerns over his ability to parent ET, he maintains that ET deserves to have an active and involved father in his life. He therefore seeks the following increases to his regular parenting schedule:

i. rather than return ET by 8 PM on Tuesday night, ET would remain overnight on Tuesdays with Mr. Tran, with Mr. Tran dropping ET off at school on Wednesday morning;

ii. on alternating weekends when ET is in Mr. Tran’s care, ET would remain overnight on the Sunday night and be dropped off at school the next morning.

iii. Mr. Tran wishes to pick up ET on Tuesdays and Fridays at 3:30 PM, even if there is no school that day; and

iv. if Mr. Tran’s parenting time with ET is preceded or followed by a PA day or a statutory holiday, his parenting time with ET would be extended to include that additional day.

[14] Mr. Tran also seeks to have ET in his care for three nonconsecutive weeks during the 2021 summer vacation, and to have CSA added to the list of people who may pick up ET from his school.

[15] Ms. Chiu argues that Mr. Tran’s motion should be dismissed and there should be no changes to the existing parenting arrangements for ET, which have been in place since the Amending Agreement in June 2018. She further argues that consideration of the changes Mr. Tran is proposing should be deferred to a trial.

[16] In support of the relief Ms. Chiu is seeking she makes the following submissions:

i. the status quo with respect to custody and access should be maintained until trial unless there is a compelling or urgent reason to change it, in accordance with the so-called “Golden Rule” in family law proceedings. No such compelling or urgent reason has been advanced by Mr. Tran to justify the changes he is seeking in ET’s schedule;

ii. there has been no material change since the Agreements and thus no basis to alter the access arrangements previously agreed to by the parties;

iii. ET has had numerous changes in his life in the past 18 months and it would not be in his interest to make any further changes in Mr. Tran’s access at this time;

iv. Mr. Tran lives 45 minutes away from ET’s school and it would not be in ET’s interest to have to commute to school 45 minutes in the mornings;

v. increasing access for Mr. Tran in the manner requested will reduce ET’s time with his sister MT, which would not be either child’s best interest; and

vi. there are countless text messages, email exchanges and letters exchanged between counsel which are relevant to the issues being determined. The only way to get all of this relevant information before the court would be by way of a trial in which both parties have an opportunity to provide viva voce evidence and be subject to cross-examination. This is especially so given the numerous inconsistencies, allegations and omissions in Mr. Tran’s motion materials.

Preliminary Evidentiary Issue: Non-Compliance with Rule 14 (20)

[17] Rule 14 (20) restricts the evidence that may be used on a motion for temporary relief, unless the court otherwise orders, as follows:

i. The party making the motion shall serve all the evidence in support of the motion with the notice of motion.

ii. The party responding to the motion shall then serve all the evidence in response.

iii. The party making the motion may then serve evidence replying to any new matters raised by the evidence served by the party responding to the motion.

iv. No other evidence may be used.

[18] Mr. Tran has brought a motion for increased parenting time with ET. Ms. Chiu brought a cross-motion, seeking an order dismissing Mr. Tran’s motion and scheduling this matter for a trial.

[19] The following affidavits have been filed for this motion:

i. Initiating affidavit of Mr. Tran, sworn January 5, 2021;

ii. Responding affidavit of Ms. Chiu, sworn January 11, 2021;

iii. reply affidavit of Mr. Tran, sworn January 14, 2021; and

iv. Reply and sur-reply affidavit of Ms. Chiu, sworn January 18, 2021.

[20] Mr. Tran’s second affidavit contains two parts, a response to Ms. Chiu’s request to schedule a trial, and a reply to the main substantive issues.

[21] Ms. Chiu’s second affidavit also contains two parts, a reply to her request to schedule a trial at paragraphs 1 to 7, and a sur-reply to the main substantive issues at paragraphs 8 to 27.

[22] Ms. Chiu’s reply in respect of her request to schedule a trial, set out at paragraphs 1-7 of her second affidavit, is proper. However, her sur-reply evidence in the remainder of the second affidavit fails to take account of the requirements of Rule 14 (20). Filing a notice of motion seeking to dismiss Mr. Tran’s initiating motion does not provide Ms. Chiu with leave to file a sur-reply. If this were the case, every litigant would respond to a notice of motion with a request to dismiss the motion, which would provide them with a final right of reply, despite being the responding party to the motion.

[23] When this issue was raised in oral argument, counsel for Ms. Chiu indicated that at the time of filing the second affidavit, it was unclear as to whether Mr. Tran was seeking interim or final relief. Since Rule 14 only applies to motions for interim relief, it was not clear whether Rule 14 (20) applied.

[24] Mr. Tran is not seeking a final order but merely an expansion of his parenting time with ET pending trial. Indeed, Ms. Chiu’s position is that his motion should be dismissed because Mr. Tran is seeking to make interim changes to ET’s schedule pending trial. As such, it is obvious that the requirements of Rule 14 apply on this motion.

[25] Ms. Chiu did not seek leave to file a sur-reply in accordance with Rule 14 (20). In any event, had leave been sought to file paragraphs 8 to 27 of Ms. Chiu’s second affidavit, such leave would not have been granted. Those paragraphs of the second affidavit deal with matters that could have been addressed in her first affidavit, or with disputes between the parties over a variety of matters that are only tangentially or minimally relevant to the specific issues raised on this motion. A substantial portion of the second affidavit also contains argument rather than evidence.

[26] Rule 14 (20) is important. It provides for finality in the filing of evidence to avoid endless affidavit wars. Accordingly, paragraphs 8 to 27 of Ms. Chiu’s affidavit of January 18, 2021 will not be used in this Endorsement, in accordance with Rule 14 (20).

Motions To Be Determined Solely Based on ET’s Best Interests

[27] It is elementary that the sole criterion for determining custody and access arrangements is the best interests of the child, as determined by reference to the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of the child.[^1] Section 24 of the CLRA sets out the various considerations that must be taken into account in determining the child’s best interests, including the following:

a. the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child, as well as other members of the child’s family who reside with the child;

b. the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

c. the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

d. the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;

e. the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live; and

f. the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent.

[28] The “best interests of the child” includes the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.[^2] As McLachlan J. (as she then was) explained in Young v. Young, the so-called “maximum contact” principle is not absolute. Contact with a parent may be restricted to the extent that it conflicts with the best interests of the child, but only to that extent.[^3]

No Need to Prove Urgency or Material Change in Circumstances on This Motion

[29] As noted above, Ms. Chiu relies on the so-called “Golden Rule” that the status quo regarding custody and access should be maintained until trial, unless there is a compelling reason to change it. For example, she relies upon Peet v. Zolob,[^4] in which I. F. Leach J. commented that “it is generally accepted that the status quo should not be changed on an interim basis in the absence of evidence that the existing arrangement is harmful to the children.” She argues that Mr. Tran has provided no evidence as to any urgency requiring a change in ET’s schedule and therefore all of the changes he proposes should be deferred to a trial.

[30] In fact, however, this so-called “Golden Rule” is less of a rule than a specific application of the requirement to determine custody and access matters based on the best interests of the child in question. It reflects the importance courts place on stability in a child’s custody and access arrangements. If those arrangements are to be addressed at an upcoming trial, courts will be understandably reluctant to make temporary changes in those arrangements prior to trial, only to see those temporary changes adjusted a second time following the trial.

[31] While stability in a child’s custody and access arrangements is important, it is merely one of the factors relevant to a determination of the child’s best interest pursuant to s. 24 (2) of the CLRA. The court must take all relevant factors into account in determining what arrangements are in a child’s best interest, and there is no rule that mandates a different calculus in relation to motions for adjustments in a child’s custody and access arrangements pending a trial.

[32] This is illustrated by Peet v. Zolob, upon which Ms. Chiu herself relies, where Leach J. noted that adherence to the status quo pending a trial is not a goal in itself and must be considered as merely one factor in the determination of the child’s best interest. Leach J. proceeded to grant the request to adjust access arrangements pending trial on the basis that the changes proposed did not involve any major disruption to the children’s lives and it was in their best interests that these changes be implemented immediately.

[33] I therefore find that Mr. Tran need only show that the changes he is proposing in ET’s schedule would be in ET’s best interests; it is not necessary that he demonstrate any urgency requiring a change.

[34] Nor is it necessary for Mr. Tran to demonstrate that there has been a material change in circumstances since the entering into of the Agreements. There is no court order in place regarding custody or access for ET and thus no need to satisfy the requirements of s. 29 (1) of the CLRA or s. 17 (5) of the Divorce Act in relation to the variation of a court order.

[35] To be sure, the Agreements are important factors in considering ET’s best interests. However, those Agreements do not establish the need to meet the threshold test of a material change in circumstances as a condition precedent to an order altering access arrangements set out in the Agreements.

The Changes Proposed by Mr. Tran Can Be Addressed Without a Trial.

[36] Ms. Chiu argues that it is impossible for her to adduce all the necessary evidence regarding ET’s schedule in order to determine whether the changes proposed by Mr. Tran should be implemented.

[37] I would not accept this submission for two reasons.

[38] First, Ms. Chiu has filed two lengthy affidavits totaling well over 200 pages which address numerous matters which are only marginally relevant to the specific issues raised on this motion. This includes matters such as the date upon which Mr. Tran began living with CSA; the date upon which Mr. Tran informed Ms. Chiu that he was changing his residence; who is responsible for the cancellation of counselling appointments involving ET; disputes over the scheduling of extracurricular activities for ET; and Mr. Tran’s motives in bringing this motion. It would not be an appropriate use of court time and resources to have these largely irrelevant matters canvassed in further detail at a trial.

[39] Second, Mr. Tran is proposing relatively modest changes to ET’s parenting schedule. Courts are routinely called upon to make interim orders with respect to such uncomplicated matters. To require that these matters be deferred to trial would be entirely unnecessary and directly contrary to the primary objective of the Rules, which is to ensure proportionality in the manner in which family law litigation is conducted.

[40] Accordingly, I would dismiss Ms. Chiu’s request that the relief sought by Mr. Tran be deferred until trial.

Are the Changes proposed in ET’s Parenting Schedule in his Best Interests?

[41] Before considering whether it is in ET’s best interests to make the changes in his parenting schedule as proposed by Mr. Tran, I begin with a general observation.

[42] Despite the high conflict between Mr. Tran and Ms. Chiu, it is evident that both parents have a strong bond with ET and are reliable, loving and competent parents. It is clearly in ET’s interest to foster and strengthen his bond with both his parents. Given the limited access which ET current enjoys with Mr. Tran, this finding tends to support expanding Mr. Tran’s parenting time with ET.

[43] With that general observation in mind, I turn to a consideration of the specific changes proposed by Mr. Tran.

a. Proposed addition of overnights on Tuesdays and Sundays

[44] As described above, Mr. Tran currently has parenting time with ET every Tuesday beginning after school until 8 PM, and on every second weekend from Friday after school until Sunday at 6 PM. He proposes to add overnights on Tuesdays as well as on the Sundays when ET is in his care.

[45] In his affidavits, Mr. Tran provides a detailed account of the current Tuesday access schedule. Mr. Tran currently picks up ET after school and they arrive home at about 4:15 PM. Once home, ET plays a game or does an activity. Dinner is typically eaten between 5:30 and 6 PM. After dinner Mr. Tran and ET may have a bit of time to play a game, before preparing to leave by 7:15 PM in order to arrive back at Ms. Chiu’s home by 8 PM. If ET were to stay overnight on Tuesdays, rather than follow this rushed schedule, ET would be able to spend additional time with Mr. Tran and have a regular evening routine.

[46] Adding additional overnights on Tuesdays and Sundays, would mean that ET would need to leave Mr. Tran’s residence by 8 AM in order to get to school on time. Mr. Tran points out that when ET stays with him on the weekends, ET currently wakes up between 6:30 and 7:15 AM. He therefore argues that if ET stays overnight on Tuesdays and Sundays, there should be no difficulty in ensuring that he would have time to have breakfast and leave for school on time the following morning.

[47] Ms. Chiu opposes the additional overnight access for three reasons.

[48] First, she argues that in the past 18 months, ET has had numerous changes in his life, including the addition of a baby sister, the loss of his extracurricular activities, and dealing with school closures and school changes as a result of Covid 19. She does not believe that ET needs or should be forced to adjust to any more changes in his schedule.

[49] Second, Ms. Chiu argues that having to drive 45 minutes to get to school on one or two mornings a week would not be in ET’s best interest. She points out that in Goncalves v. Slattery, the court refused to add additional parenting time for two young children on the basis that a 45-minute drive in the mornings was too burdensome and not in their best interests.[^5]

[50] Third, Ms. Chiu argues that adding to ET’s time with Mr. Tran will reduce his time with his sister, MT, and that would not be in either child’s interest.

[51] I would give little weight to the first and third of these objections.

[52] With respect to the first concern identified above by Ms. Chiu, I understand and accept that ET has been experiencing many changes in his life over the past few years since his parents separated. Nevertheless, the changes that Mr. Tran is proposing to the weekly schedule are relatively modest. They involve extending visits which ET already has with Mr. Tran. ET will continue to reside primarily with Ms. Chiu, attend the same school and, once the restrictions associated with Covid 19 are lifted, participate in the same recreational activities and see the same friends.

[53] With respect to the third concern about reducing ET’s time with his sister MT, it is generally desirable for siblings to remain together. The obvious solution is for Mr. Tran to have parenting time with ET and MT at the same time. However, in her November 27, 2020 endorsement, Nishikawa J. considered this issue and ordered that Mr. Tran’s parenting time with MT take place when ET is not his care. Nishikawa J. made this order in order to provide Mr. Tran with an opportunity to strengthen his bond with MT.

[54] I anticipate that as MT gets older and her bond with Mr. Tran becomes more established, the parties may adjust the parenting schedule. In the meantime, the fact that Mr. Tran spends time with MT without ET should not result in ET being deprived of parenting time with his father, when such time would be in his best interest. MT and ET currently spend a great deal of time together and that will not change appreciably if the schedule proposed by Mr. Tran is implemented.

[55] Of greater concern is the fact that the additional overnights proposed by Mr. Tran would result in ET having to drive 45 minutes to school one or two mornings a week. ET is only six years old and this additional time might well prove tiring and affect his experience at school.

[56] Mr. Tran has provided detailed reasons as to why the additional Tuesday overnight would be in ET’s best interest. This includes the fact that ET would have a more relaxed schedule and have a real opportunity to strengthen his bond with his father. However, Mr. Tran has not provided a similar rationale for the addition of the Sunday overnights. As things stand now, ET spends the day with Mr. Tran and is returned home by 6 PM. Unlike on Tuesdays, there is no indication that the current Sunday schedule is rushed or that ET lacks an opportunity to spend quality time with his father. Further, adding the Sunday overnight in addition to Tuesdays would result in ET having to drive 45 minutes to school two mornings a week.

[57] Balancing these various considerations, I find that the addition of Tuesday overnights with Mr. Tran would be in ET’s best interests, given the opportunity it will provide for ET to further his bond with Mr. Tran. However I do not believe that adding a second overnight on Sundays would be in ET’s interest at this time, given that this would involve a second long drive to school on alternating weeks.

[58] I therefore would grant Mr. Tran’s request to add a Tuesday overnight but dismiss his request to add a Sunday overnight.

b. Pick Up Time on Tuesdays and Fridays

[59] The Agreements provide that Mr. Tran will pick up ET from school at 3:30 PM, or at 5 PM from Ms. Chiu’s residence when there is no school. ET has been engaging in virtual learning since January 5, 2021, in light of the school lockdown. Ms. Chiu is of the view that Mr. Tran must pick up ET at 5 PM until such time as in-person learning resumes.

[60] Mr. Tran seeks an amendment to the parenting schedule such that he will pick up ET after school or at 3:30 PM at Ms. Chiu’s residence if there is no school.

[61] Ms. Chiu opposes this change but offers no good reason for doing so, other than the fact that she opposes any changes to ET’s schedule. There would be no inconvenience to her or to ET from the change being proposed by Mr. Tran since she is home with ET at 3:30 PM. There is simply no reason why Mr. Tran should be forced to wait until 5 PM to commence his parenting time with ET.

[62] I therefore grant the relief sought by Mr. Tran on this issue.

c. PA Days and Statutory Holidays adjacent to Weekends

[63] Mr. Tran seeks to have his parenting time extended to include PA days and statutory holidays where such days fall on a Friday or a Monday adjacent to a weekend where ET is in his care. Thus, where a PA day or statutory holiday is on a Monday immediately following a weekend where ET is in Mr. Tran’s care, his parenting time would be extended to include that Monday. Similarly, where a PA day or statutory holiday is on a Friday immediately prior to a weekend where ET would be in his care, Mr. Tran’s parenting time would begin on Thursday after school.

[64] Ms. Chiu opposes this change on the same grounds as previously described, namely, that there should be no changes in ET’s parenting schedule.

[65] I have already found that it is in ET’s best interest to expand his parenting time with Mr. Tran. The change he is proposing with respect to PA days and statutory holidays furthers that interest. I would therefore grant the relief sought by Mr. Tran, except that where the PA day or statutory holiday falls on a Monday, Mr. Tran will return ET to Ms. Chiu by Monday at 6 PM, rather than on Tuesday morning as Mr. Tran proposed in his Notice of Motion. This is so as to avoid an additional morning drive for ET to get to school on the Tuesday morning.

d. Adding CSA to Persons Authorized to Pick Up ET from School

[66] Mr. Tran seeks to have CSA added to the list of persons who are authorized to pick up ET from his school. Ms. Chiu has refused this request.

[67] CSA filed an affidavit which indicates that she and ET have a loving relationship. CSA also affirms that she understands that Ms. Chiu is ET’s mother and that she is not looking to interfere with that relationship in any way.

[68] CSA is a responsible adult who has a daughter of her own. I see no good reason why CSA should not be permitted to pick up ET from school. I would therefore grant this request.

e. Additional Weeks During the Summer Vacation

[69] Mr. Tran currently has one week of uninterrupted time with ET during the summer. He proposes to add two additional nonconsecutive weeks during the period July 1, 2021 and August 31, 2021 (the “Summer Period”).

[70] These additional weeks would give Mr. Tran the opportunity to further strengthen his bonds with ET. This is in ET’s best interest for reasons already described. I therefore grant this request.

[71] Mr. Tran and Ms. Chiu will attempt to agree on the three weeks when ET will be with Mr. Tran in the Summer Period. In the event that they are not able to so agree by April 30, 2021, Mr. Tran will by that date provide Ms. Chiu with a list of four non-consecutive weeks during the Summer Period when he would like to have ET in his care. Ms. Chiu will select three weeks from the list of four provided by Mr. Tran and inform Mr. Tran by no later than May 7, 2021 of her selection.

f. Decision-making

[72] Mr. Tran seeks an order that the party with ET at the relevant time shall make daily decisions affecting his well-being.

[73] The parties provided for parenting decisions in relation to ET in the Agreements. Despite disputes on various issues, there is no evidence that those provisions are not working acceptably well. I see no need to amend the relevant provisions in the Agreements at this time and would decline to make the order sought by Mr. Tran.

Disposition

[74] Order to go as follows:

a. effective February 1, 2021, Mr. Tran shall have regular parenting time with ET as follows:

Week One: Tuesday, after school (or at 3:30 pm if there is no school) until Wednesday morning drop off at school;

Friday, after school (or at 3:30 PM if there is no school) to drop off off Sunday at 6 PM;

Week Two Tuesday, after school (or at 3:30 PM if there is no school) until Wednesday morning drop off at school.

In the event that ET is not in school on a Tuesday or Friday, his pick up at 3:30 PM will occur at Ms. Chiu’s residence

b. if Mr. Tran’s parenting time on a weekend is preceded or followed by a PA day or a statutory holiday, his parenting time with ET shall be extended to include that additional day. For example, where a PA day or statutory holiday is on a Monday, Mr. Tran’s parenting time shall be extended to include the Monday, with a drop off at 6 PM on that day. Likewise, where a PA day or statutory holiday is on a Friday, Mr. Tran’s parenting time shall begin on Thursday after school, or at 3:30 PM if there is no school.

c. Mr. Tran shall have parenting time with ET during summer 2021 as follows:

i. irrespective of the regular parenting schedule, Mr. Tran shall have ET for three weeks (nonconsecutive) between July 1, 2021 and August 31, 2021;

ii. if the parties are unable to agree on the relevant three weeks by April 30, 2021, by that day Mr. Tran will provide Ms. Chiu with a list in writing of four nonconsecutive weeks where he would like to have ET in his care. Ms. Chiu will select three weeks from the list of four provided and so inform Mr. Tran of her selection in writing by no later than May 7, 2021;

d. Ms. Chiu will add CSA to the list of people who may pick up ET from his school, Our Lady of Peace Catholic Public School, and shall provide Mr. Tran with proof of having done so within seven days of this Order;

e. the other parenting arrangements set out in the Agreements remain in effect;

f. the parties may adjust the parenting arrangements set out above by mutual consent in writing; and

g. all of the other motions for relief by the parties, save and except for costs, are hereby dismissed.

[75] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, they may make cost submissions in writing of up to three pages, not including Bills of Costs or Offers to Settle, in accordance with the following schedule: Mr. Tran shall file his costs submissions by February 10, 2021; Ms. Chiu will file responding cost submissions by February 19, 2021; and Mr. Tran will file reply cost submissions (if any) by February 24, 2021. No other cost submissions will be permitted.

P. J. Monahan J.

Released: January 28, 2021

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

MINH TUAN TRAN

Applicant

– and –

LYNN CHIU

Respondent

ENDORSEMENT

P.J. Monahan, J.

Released: January 28, 2021

[^1]: Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), s. 16 (8); Children's Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c. C. 12, (the “CLRA”), s. 24.

[^2]: Divorce Act, s. 16 (10).

[^3]: Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 3.

[^4]: 2014 ONSC 5748 at para 14.

[^5]: Goncalves v. Slattery, 2009 Canli 58978 at para 25.