Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-21-00000027-00 Date: April 12, 2022 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

B E T W E E N: L.A.B., Applicant Counsel: Cory Deyarmond

-and-

R.D.H., Respondent Counsel: Steven Lahti

Before: Malcolm J.

Reasons for Judgment

Introduction

[1] This is a decision after a focused hearing held over three days in December 2021 with respect to the child, D.G.H., born February 2019 (“D.”), and whether he should reside primarily with the applicant mother in Burlington or with the respondent father in Prince Edward County (“P.E.C”). I have used initials to identify the parties and child as the parties live in a small community and I find it is not in the child’s best interests to use the full names of his parents.

[2] Each party filed a trial affidavit and testified. Counsel provided both oral and written submissions on December 15, 2021.

Position of the Parties

[3] The applicant mother requests that she be allowed to relocate with D. from P.E.C., Ontario to Burlington, Ontario, that she have sole decision-making responsibility with an obligation to consult with the father, and that the primary residence of the child be with her.

[4] She requests that the respondent father have parenting time with the child on alternate weekends from Thursday at 6:30 p.m. until Monday at 6:30 p.m. until the child attends junior kindergarten in September 2023 and thereafter on alternate weekends from Friday at 6:30 p.m. until Sunday at 6:30 p.m.

[5] The respondent father, in his written materials, mirrored the mother’s requests for sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child, but during examination requested continued shared parenting time on a week about basis until September of 2023. At that time, he asks that the child reside primarily in his care. He also indicated he would agree to joint decision making.

Brief History of the Legal Proceedings

[6] The case started when the mother brought an emergency motion on June 2, 2021, asking for permission to relocate with the child to Burlington, Ontario. She asked that the motion proceed prior to a case conference; this request was denied by me.

[7] An early case conference was held on June 8, 2021. There was no resolution of the relocation motion, and a long motion was scheduled for June 18, 2021.

[8] On June 18, 2021, the motion for relocation did not proceed as the father's lawyer was involved in a trial. The motion was adjourned to September 1, 2021, but the parties instead asked for a full case conference to be held on that date. They agreed that the issue of relocation required a final decision, and the matter was scheduled for a focused hearing on issues of relocation, decision making and parenting schedule.

[9] The focused hearing was scheduled for the week of December 6, 2021, with filing deadlines for affidavits.

[10] At the trial management conference on November 26, 2021, the respondent father brought a motion to adjourn the focused hearing, which was denied. It was determined that the matter could proceed a few days later than originally scheduled over two days with evidence in chief primarily by way of affidavit together with cross examination. The submissions were scheduled for the next week.

[11] The hearing proceeded on December 8, December 9, and December 15, 2021. From December 9 to December 15 the parties were able to resolve the Christmas vacation parenting time, as I indicated I would be reserving my decision.

Background

Prior to Move to Prince Edward County

[12] The parties started living together around May 2007 and were married on September 6, 2012. They lived primarily in the Hamilton, Burlington area until 2017 when they moved to P.E.C.

[13] The father had lived in PEC until he was approximately 18 years of age when he moved to the Hamilton, Burlington, or Greater Toronto Area. The mother had lived in the Hamilton, Burlington area for most of her life until she moved to PEC after the parties married.

Move to PEC

[14] The parties moved to PEC in 2017 because the father had inherited one-eighth of his grandmother’s estate which included a farmhouse and farm property. With the assistance of a loan from the mother's family, the parties purchased the remaining seven-eights of the property from the father’s uncles. The parties lived in the old farmhouse while the father built the present matrimonial home. The parties were living in that home when they separated.

[15] When the parties moved to PEC the mother continued to work in Burlington by commuting at least two days a week. She then left that employment when she obtained employment with the County of Hastings in April of 2018. Her income was approximately $30,000 per year less than what she earned in Burlington.

[16] After the parties moved to PEC the father left his employment to focus on building the matrimonial home. They also operated a farm called “H&H farms”, pasturing animals and growing crops. The father provided tours to the public and the mother did the purchasing, accounting, and managing of the retail operation.

Birth of Their Child

[17] Their child, D., was born in February 2019.

[18] The parties do not agree on the date of separation, but after January 30, 2021 only one of them was in the matrimonial home at a time.

[19] The parties do not agree upon who was responsible for childcare responsibilities for D. prior to or after separation.

Childcare Responsibilities Prior to Separation

[20] The mother’s evidence is that she was the primary caregiver of the child during her 11-month maternity leave and after her return to work. She breastfed D. for six months. She describes the father being very busy building the matrimonial home and she was responsible for most of the childcare.

[21] The father then obtained a job outside of the home and farm and she was responsible for taking the child to daycare in the morning and picking him up at the end of her workday. She indicated that she was primarily responsible prior to separation for the evening and morning care of the child as well. She described preparing and feeding their son dinner, preparing him for bedtime, changing diapers and bathing him.

[22] The father’s evidence was he had not been responsible for the domestic duties when the parties were a “team” and they came upon him unexpectedly, yet he also claims he was equally responsible for the care of the child.

[23] The mother was the primary caregiver of the child while the father worked very hard in building the matrimonial home, trying to operate the farm, and providing tours to the public or tourists. When he was available, I find he was a loving and active father who doted on his child.

[24] The father testified that he is a very hard worker and “I do take on a lot of stuff because I am R.”. He is proud of his work ethic and refers to himself in the third person. I accept that he was working very hard in building the home and operating the farm. However, I find the evidence supports that prior to separation he was not the primary care giver of the child.

Date of Separation

[25] The father says that although he originally agreed the date of separation was January 30, 2021, he subsequently changed his mind and indicated it was on October 9, 2020, when the parties had a disagreement, and he left the home for several days. He says that after that time the mother did nothing to try to reconcile the relationship, she did not intend to reconcile and therefore, they were separated on that date.

[26] He described going to see a mental health professional for his metal health and going to the gym to improve his physique. He joked that he went to the “marital” arts gym where he was involved with boxing. He described himself as improving his mental health and physical health and the mother not acknowledging his improvements or working to fix the “sinking ship”. He says he was the only one working on the marriage.

[27] The mother in direct contrast says from October 2020 to January 2021 the couple lived together, had meals together, socialized, hosted events including a New Year’s Eve party, and were wearing their wedding rings during this time. I accept from her evidence that she did not intend to separate from her husband prior to October 9, 2020, but rather only intended to do so after January 30, 2021 when she saw messages from a woman on his phone. Further, the father cannot testify as to the mother’s state of mind.

[28] The father frequently described the separation in disaster metaphors such as the “sinking ship” and the “terribleness”. I find that he was very upset about the end of his relationship with the mother. In cross examination his answers were often that he could not recall. Perhaps his upset at the end of his marriage affected his memory.

[29] The father described himself as building an extremely efficient beautiful matrimonial home and he was becoming resentful as they could have remained in the old farmhouse. This was inconsistent with his evidence that the farmhouse was very expensive to heat and that he could not care for their son two days a week because he had to continue to build the new home even though there was no deadline for its completion. When asked about the permit for building the home and the date for completion he avoided answering the question by indicating that all permits expire.

[30] The evidence of the father consisted of answering many questions not in the affirmative or negative but by saying “okay”, making a comment, and not giving direct answers. On at least two occasions he was told by the court to answer questions and not make aside comments, but he found it almost impossible to do.

[31] I do not accept the father’s evidence as to the date of separation. His evidence was not clear as to how the mother was not committed to the marriage. He gave no example as to something that was asked of her that she did not do. It appears the father was busy, going to work at the farm, going to the gym and seeing his therapist. Further, the parties together acknowledged that January 30, 2021 was the date of separation. I also find that was the date the parties were living separate and apart with no chance of a reconciliation. There is no evidence that the mother had an intention to separate earlier and the father clearly was doing everything he could to maintain the marriage.

Childcare Responsibilities After Separation

[32] After January 30, 2021, the parties had a three-week nesting schedule in the matrimonial home until March 2021 when the father had lost his alternate accommodation and asked the mother to leave the home. The mother left the matrimonial home to stay with her father who also lived in PEC.

[33] During the time of the nesting arrangement, only one of them would be in the home overnight for three weeks. The mother was responsible for coming to pick up the child to take him to daycare and also for returning him to the house after daycare whether it was her week or not. Both parents shared the nightly routine by preparing the child’s dinner and bedtime routine every other day.

[34] The father did not deny that he did not take the child to daycare, pick up the child from daycare or that the mother remained with the child until he returned from his work and provided care when the father was unavailable. I find that even after the parties separated the mother was responsible for most of the daycare and childcare responsibilities.

Mother’s Move to Burlington

[35] The parties do not agree on the facts leading up to the mother deciding to move to Burlington for employment.

[36] The mother lived in the Hamilton, Burlington area for most of her life until 2017. She worked there until 2018. Her mother, stepfather, sister, brother-in-law, stepsister and her partner, and her best friend and her husband all live in the Burlington area. I find that these individuals do and will continue to provide support for the mother. The mother's father, the maternal grandfather and his wife, moved to PEC but they are moving back to Burlington.

[37] In January 2021, the mother’s best friend texted or emailed her and informed her that someone was retiring from her father's business, and she was needing help to recruit a replacement. During the same time, the mother was applying for a promotion within her employer organization. She interviewed for a different job with a higher salary on February 12, 2021 but did not receive it.

[38] At the beginning of February 2021, the mother and her best friend were discussing the soon to be vacant job within her father’s business and I accept that the mother was thinking about relocating but did not wish to relocate without working out the parenting arrangements with the father. The mother’s evidence was that the father on March 21, 2021 requested a proposal.

[39] By March 27, 2021, she told her friend that she and the father were getting close to working something out on their separation.

[40] On March 30, 2021, the mother had provided a handwritten proposal to the father which provided for a relocation of the child and her to Burlington and the father would have alternate weekend parenting time. The father in reply indicated that he wanted equal and opposite compensation for his son being taken from him and where he only gets to see “him every other F…ing weekend”.

[41] The father then made a counter proposal on March 30, 2021, by email, wherein he offered alternate week parenting until the child reached school age and then they would determine a different schedule. A financial offer was also made.

[42] The mother was clearly not happy but indicated she would agree with the financial proposal if she could have her arrangements with their son.

[43] On April 15, 2021, the parties met with each other and typed a document whereby the mother would be allowed to move to Burlington with the child and she and the father would share parenting time on an alternate-week schedule. Once the child was in school, he would be primarily with his mother and have parenting time with his father for two weekends, and then the mother one weekend and alternating. The holidays would be divided equally, and the school break would be 60% to the father and 40% to the mother.

[44] The parties also worked out a financial arrangement that provided for no child support.

[45] The mother was to take that agreement to her lawyer to draft a separation agreement.

[46] She obtained a rental residence on April 15, 2021, in Burlington. The mother offered to show the father the residence she was hoping to rent, and he replied he was not interested.

[47] The mother planned to move to Burlington on May 1, 2021. On that date, the father offered to help her move her things out of the matrimonial home, which she accepted. In his testimony, he said he did so because he did not wish to have movers coming into the home. The mother believed he was being supportive of the move.

[48] On May 1, 2021, after he had helped her move her things out of the matrimonial home, the father then told her he no longer agreed that she could move with the child, and they would continue with their alternating day schedule. The mother, although not starting work in Burlington until June 18, 2021, was unable to have the child with her for more than a day at a time because of the father’s demand.

[49] The father told the mother he would no longer deal with her and that all negotiations would go through the lawyer and that he was not going to communicate with her on the phone.

[50] Despite this threat, he did communicate with her after that time, but not in a positive way.

[51] The evidence as to the mother’s decision to accept a job in Burlington in a company run by her close friend’s father is somewhat difficult to follow at times as the parties communicated by text, direct conversations and sometimes emails. However, I find that when she accepted the position around mid-April 2021, she believed that the father had agreed that she could take their child to Burlington on at least a week about schedule.

[52] The father complained that the record of communication would be more complete if the mother had complied with his request for disclosure of text messages between the parties on his phone which had been part of her phone plan. Her evidence was the phone was returned to him and he “wiped it” down to factory settings and she could not obtain his text messages.

[53] The father on more than one occasion complained that his evidence was not as complete because of the timing of the hearing. I accept that he did not receive notice of the mother’s application until June 2, 2021, but the mother's lawyer wrote to him on March 22, 2021 to try to resolve the parenting issues. The lawyer asked for a financial statement to be completed to resolve the financial issues in addition to the parenting issue. The response from the father was to demand that the lawyer not contact him until the mother had a proposal prepared. The mother tried to resolve the parenting issues outside of court, including the typed April 15, 2021 agreement.

[54] The father had three months to prepare for the hearing that was scheduled for September 1, 2021 at both his and the mother's request. He had to the December hearing date to prepare. I do not accept that the father’s evidence would be more complete with more time or all the phone records. The father did have the complication of three different lawyers, but he had legal representation from June 2021.

[55] I have reviewed the text messages filed between the parties, and I find that from those messages, the trial affidavit and oral evidence at the hearing, the mother tried her best to negotiate parenting time in a fair and reasonable way with the father. She tried to have a full weekend with the child on Mother’s Day, which was refused by the father. Later he discovered it was Mother’s Day and told her in an abusive manner that he did not know when Mother’s Day was, and she could have that time. He also would not allow her to bring the child with her to a cottage with the family for a weekend.

[56] The father testified that there was never any agreement or offer for the mother to move to Burlington with the child. I do not accept his evidence. He was extremely evasive and difficult to follow when cross examined on several points, even ones that should clearly have been answered in the affirmative. For example, he had a lawyer in June 2021 on a limited scope retainer who wrote to opposing counsel with an offer to settle, on a temporary basis, for week about parenting prior to the first motion date. Yet the father denied that he had offered week about parenting, claiming that the lawyer was not retained and should not have written a letter. This lawyer attended the first case conference.

[57] The father testified that the parties had jointly retained the mother's lawyer to prepare a financial settlement. He continued to claim that he had been retained throughout his cross examination despite the fact he had never met the lawyer, had not written a check or sent money to the lawyer and had not signed a written retainer for the lawyer. Later, in reply evidence, he agreed he had not retained the lawyer jointly with the mother.

[58] In para. 92 of his affidavit in support of his evidence in chief, he indicated that the mother did not need to bring her urgent motion because she said they had come to a temporary agreement on decision making and parenting time. He supported this statement in a very circuitous, confusing fashion. He indicated that since the mother believed she had an agreement with him for week about parenting, her motion was not required. He refused to say there was an agreement for week about parenting but continued to assert that since the mother believed it, she did not need to bring the motion.

[59] I find that the motion was necessary because he withdrew his consent to her move prior to the motion and only made an offer to settle for shared parenting after the motion was brought, although now curiously he says there was no offer made.

[60] When he was asked if he had made an offer for week about parenting, he denied it and his affidavit indicates that he would never have agreed for D. to be moved to Burlington. I do not accept that that is true. Although the agreement made between the parties was not binding on either of them, they had for a short time agreed on a plan and then the father changed his mind.

[61] Further, by the time of this focused hearing the parties had agreed that they would share, on a temporary basis, parenting time with D. on a week about schedule.

[62] The mother had her first week in Burlington on June 21, 2021, and on that day the father came to Burlington and went to the mother’s stepsister’s home, visited the mothers home, the maternal grandmother’s home and the day care. He had contacted the stepsister (with little notice) about bringing a jeep part to her, but it was a surprise to everyone else. The mother was gracious to him and facilitated him seeing the child at the day care and speaking with the staff. He acknowledged it was a good day care. Despite the mother’s surprise to see the father, I find she handled the situation in a very reasonable and child focused way. I contrast this with how the father handled the mother’s request to have the child for a full weekend for Mother’s Day, or to go to a cottage or his very negative response to her receiving information inadvertently about the child’s day care in PEC through the daycare’s app.

Best Interests of Child Test

[63] The decision now is what is in D.'s best interests with respect to parental decision-making responsibility and parenting time. Section 16 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), sets out the considerations for the court. The sections applicable for these parties are as follows:

16 (1) The court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage in making a parenting order or a contact order.

Primary consideration

(2) When considering the factors referred to in subsection (3), the court shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

Factors to be considered

3. In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;

(d) the history of care of the child;

(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

[64] Because of the parties’ struggles in communication I am considering s. 16(3)(i) first, the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child.

Decision-Making Responsibility and Parties’ Ability to Communicate and Cooperate

[65] For a very short period of time after their separation the parties were able to make decisions together with respect to their child, but not without some conflict.

[66] Since the mother moved out of the matrimonial home and to Burlington, the parties have been making day-to-day decisions for the child during their week of parenting time. I note there have been some difficulties in sharing of information and making decisions, in particular with respect to medical decisions

[67] When the father wanted to make changes to the parenting arrangements such as drop-off time, the mother agreed. When the mother wanted to have the child for a weekend to go to a family cottage or for Mother’s Day, he refused after his internet was disconnected due to the mother not paying for it after she left the home. The mother warned him that the internet was being disconnected and offered to help but he did not take her help. Only later did he agree she could have the full Mother’s Day, but he conceded this in an abusive, profanity-laced message, containing derogatory statements such as “retarded bitch”.

[68] On May 2, 2021, the father told the mother that he had been high or drunk when he agreed to the week on and week off arrangement. He was very angry with her, swearing at her and telling her she was stupid and not a good mother and not qualified for her new job. The mother recorded this encounter. He did not deny this incident occurred, but at trial insisted that there never was an agreement for shared parenting on a week about basis nor for the mother to move to Burlington with their child.

[69] He then wore a body camera to videotape the mother when he met with her. He had received a letter at the matrimonial home in her maiden name. He claimed she was defrauding the government as she had identification in both her married and maiden names. She explained she was obtaining a new driver’s license. He said he would not forward mail to her in her maiden name. This type of communication does not promote joint decision making.

[70] The mother discovered on May 30, 2021, that there was insufficient money in the joint account for her to buy gasoline for her car. The father had taken $6800 from the account without her knowledge. He said he wanted to talk to her in person. When she indicated on May 31, 2021 that she was upset about this, he said he would be continuing to enforce the day on day off parenting arrangement.

[71] The communication from the father to the mother is sometimes quite rude and offensive. He does not deny this and says he regrets it, but it did continue.

[72] The father in his argumentative affidavit indicated that the mother had two weapons in her arsenal: “lies and libel”. He says this in response to her indicating that he changed his Facebook status to that of widowed, and that it was a joke, but the mother found it offensive. The father in his evidence indicated several times that the mother in her materials was unreasonably inferring certain things about him. I believe he meant that she was implying something, and he inferred something from it. One example was that she indicated that the father named her as “da debil” in his phone book. She looked it up on the Internet which indicated it was a Croatian word for moron. She took offence to this. He indicated she should not have taken offence because it simply meant devil from a movie in which it was an endearing term. I accept that the mother could have believed to be called “da debil”.

[73] I do not find that the mother has lied or committed libel in these statements. As to libeling him because of his unvaccinated status she simply commented that there were some places he would be unable to go with his son because of his unvaccinated status. This would include such places as gyms, and restaurants. He, in his materials, indicated that he could not go to a fancy restaurant, but she did not say anywhere in her materials fancy restaurant just restaurant, now that the public can enter restaurants without proof of vaccination.

[74] With respect to his claim that she has libeled him by calling him a racist, she was repeating how he refers to people of colour and that he would make comments at his tours of the farm that their black bull had produced a number of offspring and then not cared for them “just like all black fathers”. The father indicated that the person who complained about the statement on the farm Facebook account accepted his apology and he indicated that he said it in jest. He also went on to say that he is not PC, meaning politically correct, and that people adore him and pay money to hear him talk at his farm and that he is quite the comedian. He says most people do not take his comments the wrong way.

[75] I find that the comments the mother attributes to the father are not adorable or funny and they are certainly more than just not politically correct. I find that the mother did not lie or libel him, she is simply reporting what has occurred. The father may not be a racist, but he has certainly said things which promote a negative racial stereotype that is offensive and not appropriate. The mother testified that he makes comments in front of their son that are racist, such as what colour is that kid or when he noticed the mother’s nail polish, he asked who painted her nails and said probably an Asian woman.

[76] I accept that he does not mean harm by these comments, but they are harmful and not in the child’s best interests to hear. They are not inclusive or appropriate. He commented that the mother could have said similar things, but he does not find that she is a racist.

[77] He also makes an extremely odd comment in para. 191 of his affidavit indicating:

“I could easily start saying that L. assaults people and gets into hit and run accidents. I could even phone the police up and report her for such it does not mean that she actually did any of that.

In this country we are innocent until proven guilty and I am not even charged with anything to be proven guilty of.”

[78] In para. 193 he says “I do have a break and enter, impersonation and failed to appear charge from 2003. . . 18 years ago. . . long before D. came into the picture”.

[79] His comments about this are extremely odd. The mother’s comment was that he did not provide a full Form 35.1 affidavit listing his criminal record. His lawyer then had to update the form. He did not deny the incidents that she alleged in her affidavit which included a bar room fight, he simply indicates they have no bearing on his ability to parent. He says that he does not blame her for making the claims, as lies and libel are her only tools to convince the court that the child should leave PEC.

[80] The father says that the mother told him that she lived in a nice white middle class neighbourhood in Burlington. She said she said this to counter his comments that there was drug dealing, persons of colour and a gentlemen club close to her home. There is no evidence that the mother has said the kind of things that the father has admitted to saying.

[81] In September 2021, the father told the mother that he needed to change the exchange hours. He was fortunate to obtain a very good job working as a mechanic with heavy equipment primarily in Kingston where his employer is located. The mother was complimentary about the job, but the father did not tell her about the job in advance or what the hours of work were or how it would change their son’s day. He would not share his hours of employment and her lawyer had to make the request to determine that his hours of employment are 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. in a city more than one hour from his home. This is a concern that he did not share information about how his new employment would impact the care of the child.

[82] When the father was cross-examined and asked to confirm whether he had said certain things earlier in the year he often replied that he did not remember yet said his son would remember what happened to him at age two, as he remembered what happened to him at age two.

[83] In Kaplanis v. Kaplanis (2005), 249 D.L.R. (4th) 620 (Ont. C.A.), the court found that:

1. There must be evidence of historical communication between the parents and appropriate communication between them.
2. Joint custody cannot be ordered in the hope that it will improve their communication.
3. Just because both parents are fit does not mean that joint custody should be ordered.
4. The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate does not preclude an order for joint custody.
5. No matter how detailed the custody order, there will always be gaps in unexpected situations, and when they arise they must be able to be addressed on an ongoing basis.
6. The younger the child the more important communication is.

See also LaPalme v. Hedden, 2012 ONSC 6758, at para. 58.

[84] In Giri v. Wentges, 2009 ONCA 606, the court said the following at para. 10:

Second, as this court has repeatedly held, joint custody requires a mutual commitment between parents to cooperate on matters pertaining to the raising of their child, and an ability for the parents to put their own interests behind those of the child: see Kaplanis v. Kaplanis (2005), 249 D.L.R. (4th) 620 (Ont. C.A.).

[85] When the parents disagreed on too many important issues that affected the child’s best interests the court found joint custody and parallel parenting was not in the child’s best interests: see Graham v. Bruto, 2008 ONCA 260, at para. 2.

[86] Although the court does not expect that the communication between separated parents is to be free of conflict, the issue is whether it may be achievable in the future: see Warcop v. Warcop, 2009 ONSC 6423, 66 R.F.L. (6th) 438, at para. 94.

[87] The court should look at how the parents parented prior to the separation to determine if coparenting and cooperation is possible: see Growen v. MacKenzie, 2008 ONCJ 170, at para. 20.

[88] I find the father to be evasive, insincere, and not credible at times and there does not appear to be much positive communication between the parties. To have joint decision-making responsibilities there must be some degree of cooperation and communication between the parties.

Medical or Health Decision Making

[89] The child became extremely ill on August 14, 2021 during a week with his mother and she took the child to a local hospital for medical attention. She described him as having a temperature of 104 degrees Fahrenheit and coughing. She contacted the father who wished her to return the child to PEC. He did not want the child to have a Covid test. In his evidence the father indicated that he was doing everything he could to protect his child including arguing for him not to have a COVID test in which something would be stuck into the child's nose and into his brain. Both parents had agreed they would not want their child tested for Covid if he was just having cold symptoms. The father was not reasonable in his response to how the mother handled the child’s illness.

[90] I find the father was not aware of how the Covid test could be administered to a young child. If the mother had followed the direction of the father to take the child to PEC she could have put his health at greater risk. The father blamed the mother for allowing the Covid test to occur when it was required by the hospital to ensure he did not have the virus. At the hospital, the child had epinephrine through an inhaler to open his airways. He was monitored for four days. He was a very sick child.

[91] The parties do not agree about the Covid vaccination. The father testified that he agrees with vaccinations for his child to attend school but that the Covid vaccination is not a vaccination. He indicates that he has acquaintances and friends who have had serious side effects that cannot be coincidental including heart attacks, strokes or heart problems. He said there was too much coincidence for this not to be caused by the vaccination. He will not obtain the vaccination, nor would he want his son to have it until he can be sure that there are no side effects. He has not spoken to his physician about the vaccination. The mother says she will follow the medical advice. I find the mother is best placed to make medical decisions for the child when she will follow the medical advice.

[92] I noted that the father indicated he takes his son frequently to friends’ homes. He did not indicate he followed the health protocol at the time such as wearing a mask indoors with friends outside his family as he is not vaccinated. The mother, in her affidavit, indicated the father often does not wear a mask when he should or follow physical distancing. The father did not deny this in his materials or testimony but instead said that the mother broke protocol by visiting her family in a red zone. She admitted visiting her mother when the marriage ended, and she was upset. She denied seeing other family members.

[93] The father indicated that the mother had removed the child from their family doctor in the county because he had received a bill to the home, and he assumed it was for the transfer of the medical file. There is no evidence to that effect and the mother indicates she has not moved the child’s doctor although she has a physician in Burlington who will take the child as a patient. The father works during the week very long hours, he leaves his home before 6:00 a.m. and picks up his son at 6:00 p.m. It would be difficult for him to take care of the health appointments.

[94] The mother asks that she have sole decision-making responsibility, but she would have a positive obligation to consult in a meaningful way with the father prior to making decisions. The father now asks that the parties have joint decision-making responsibility.

[95] I find it is in the child's best interest that the mother has sole decision-making responsibility as it relates to the child’s medical care given: their different views on the medical treatment of their son; the unavailability of the father due to his long workday (having a nine-hour day with more than two hours of commuting each day); the conflict between the parties in communication; and the abusive responses by the father to the mother. The abusive fashion in which the father sometimes communicates with the mother does not bode well for positive and timely joint decision making. I also find that the mother, based on previous communication with the father, will do her best to consult with him before making any major decisions.

Education Decision Making

[96] Prior to separation the parties had discussed where their child would go to school when he became school aged. They had looked at a Christian Academy in PEC. The mother indicated that tuition was too expensive for them. Prior to the separation she was the primary wage earner for most of the time as the farming operation did not make a profit.

[97] The father now indicates that he wishes that the child attend a private school in Belleville at a tuition cost of $17,000 per year. He indicates that he will make it work. The school is not in PEC, but he indicates it is on his way to work. He must leave for work before 6:00 a.m. as his workday starts at 7:00 a.m. in Kingston. He has not investigated before or after daycare if that was his choice.

[98] The mother has indicated that if she is allowed to live in Burlington with the child, the child would attend a public school that is extremely close to where she is living. She hopes to obtain accommodation in that area as she is two minutes from her employment and only ten minutes from the child’s daycare.

[99] I find that the mother should have the sole decision making with respect to the child’s education. I am satisfied that she would keep the father fully informed and consult with him before major decisions are made. She allowed the father to speak directly with the daycare that she had chosen, whereas the father was quite distressed when she was able to access information about the child's daycare in the father's region despite the right of each party to be able to obtain information about their children's education from third parties, as set out in s. 16.4 of the Divorce Act.

[100] The mother shall have sole decision-making responsibility of the child as to his physical and mental health and education subject to consultation with the father.

Extra Curricular Activities / Religious Institution

[101] The child has not yet been involved in any extracurricular activities and I expect that each parent continues to provide for the child's religious instruction while in their home. Given that the extra-curricular activities can be addressed during the parent’s time with the child, each of the parties shall be responsible for making extra-curricular arrangements, so long as they are during their time with the child and do not impact on the other party’s time. If the parties cannot agree upon the child's extracurricular or religious activities the mother shall have the final decision-making authority.

Parenting Time

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

[102] Both parents adore their son and want what is best for him.

[103] The child is only three years of age and requires stability. There is no evidence that he has any special needs but because of his young age he is very dependent on his caregivers.

[104] The evidence of the mother supports that she can provide for his needs based on his age and stage of development. She has a structured and predictable routine for the child in her home.

[105] There is more flexibility in the father's home with the child often dictating the plan. The father referred frequently to the child as being perfect. He indicates that he will eat what the child wishes to eat for meals such as Kraft Dinner, hotdogs and little pizzas because that is what his child likes to eat. It also appears that he can cook them very quickly as there is not much time between when he picks up his child after work, and when the child needs to go to bed.

[106] The father also indicates that the child has no set bedtime because he (the child) knows when he needs to go to bed. He says that he goes frequently to friends’ homes in the evening and his child will tell him when he is tired and wants to leave. The child gets up around 5:30 a.m., eats breakfast in five minutes and is dropped off by 6:00 a.m. at the paternal aunt’s home. The child has no set bedtime, but the father thinks he goes to sleep around 8:30 p.m.

[107] I find that the mother’s plan is more focused on the child’s needs given his age and stage of development.

(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

[108] I am satisfied that both parents and their extended families have a positive and strong relationship with the child. The father has a large extended family but the number of family members who provide support is not the consideration.

[109] The mother spoke very positively about the paternal grandmother who sends photos of the child to the mother and allows her to speak with him. She had only positive things to say about the father’s family.

[110] Although the father did not speak positively about the mother’s family, I accept they have a positive relationship with the child.

[111] On a day when the child was being exchanged, the father says the grandfather was not child focused as he did not get out to the car to comfort the child when the child was upset, and instead asked if he hit his head. The mother’s evidence was that the child had fallen and hit his head and the grandfather acknowledged that and place him on his lap to comfort him.

(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;

[112] Although the father, during his evidence, indicated he now would agree to shared parenting, in his affidavit he indicated that the child hated to go with the mother, and the child begs him not to go. When the mother expressed concerns about the child having some issues in the summer at times throwing tantrums, telling lies and struggling, he says that it is due to his wife's actions. He said there may be “nothing wrong with her parenting but there is something wrong”. He then says she is a good mother, so he blames the problems on Burlington not being the child’s home.

[113] I find based on the evidence that it is the mother who supports the development and maintenance of the father’s relationship with the child. The negative communication and comments by the father toward the mother, which is sometimes, profane, insulting and aggressive, show his true opinion of her. In contrast she has been very calm, child focused and collaborative in her approach to find resolution or middle ground with the father.

[114] Even the father’s descriptions of the mother in his affidavit show that he is not able to support her development with the child.

[115] The cross examination of the father as to his description of the mother’s “lies, malice, whims and selfish” but then insisting he is not calling her a liar or selfish make it impossible to find that he can support the mother and her relationship with the child.

(d) the history of care of the child;

[116] Prior to the separation the mother was the primary care giver. Since the separation the parties have shared equal parenting time, although I find that until the mother moved to Burlington she was still responsible for more of the day-to-day care of the child.

[117] Since the move to Burlington, in the father’s home the child is cared for by the father, his sister and the grandmother and the day care staff during the work week. In the mother’s home she and the day care provide care during the work week.

(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

[118] I cannot ascertain the child’s views and preferences as to his care, although I expect the child would prefer to have this litigation resolved so he can be settled. Children fare better when there is less conflict between their parents.

[119] Both parents describe the child as happy and content in their care.

[120] The father describes the child as upset in having to go to his mother’s home, but I do not have the context of the upset. Younger children may have difficulty with transitions but then settle very easily into their other home as described by the mother.

(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

[121] Both parents described themselves as belonging to the Christian faith. They discussed enrolling their child in a Christian private school. I find that the parents will both support their child in maintaining his religious and spiritual upbringing. The father’s opinion is that he the mother is not following their religious belief because of her desire to separate but that is not the test for the court to consider.

[122] In any event each parent is entitled to share their religion with their child during their parenting time, unless it is not in the child’s best interests: see Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3.

[123] Here there is nothing to suggest that either parent’s wish for the child to follow the parent’s faith would be contrary to the child’s best interests.

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

[124] The parties have written plans in their affidavits that are very similar. The father’s plan seems to have been copied from the mother’s as it mistakenly says he has extended family located in Burlington and surrounding areas. The question for the court is whether the child should live primarily with the mother and then go to school in Burlington or have shared parenting and then go to school in PEC.

[125] The mother describes a detailed, structured, child-focused plan for the child in her home. Her workplace, day care and proposed school are all less than ten minutes from her home. The child goes to day care at 7:55 a.m. and the mother picks him up at 4:05 p.m. and he is home by 4:15 p.m. The child spends more time with his mother and less time in the care of others. She has a set bedtime for the child at 7:30 p.m. and the child gets up at 6:45 a.m.

[126] Because of the distance to the father’s workplace the child must wake up around 5:30 a.m. or 5:45 a.m. and has breakfast usually in five minutes. The child is at his aunt’s home by 6 a.m. to give the father time to drive to Kingston where he starts work at 7:00 a.m. The child is then taken to his grandmother’s home who takes him to his day care. Each location being approximately 30 minutes or less from the other. The father picks up the child at the end of the day after 6:00 p.m. at his sister’s or mother’s home. The father says the child goes to bed around 8:30 p.m. but has no set bedtime.

[127] The father’s plan is to purchase the mother’s interest in the matrimonial home and farm but that has not been resolved. The mother is renting an apartment but if she moves, she wishes to remain in this same area where she is close to the school, daycare and her work.

[128] The father describes a lovely relationship with his son that is very outdoorsy. He bought an ATV so he could have adventures. He takes his son on the tractor with him. He goes to the beach and his friends’ homes. All the things that he does with his son I assume he is doing on weekends as the workday is very busy.

[129] The mother appears to be more child structured and schedule oriented during the week when she is working. This in part is due to her job and her workplace being two minutes from her home.

[130] The mother indicates that when the child comes into her care, he is exhausted. The father describes the child as not wanting to go to his mother’s home. He says the child is not tired as he tells his father when he is tired and then goes to sleep.

[131] The mother described the child throwing tantrums and making up lies and being very clingy to her toward the end of the summer. She does not blame the father, but she indicates that it may be due to “the instability and back and forth between different homes, different daycares and different house rules”, as well as different routines. Since the father has his new job, the child is cared for by three family members and the day care. In the mother’s home it is her and the day care. Therefore, I would expect there are different rules and different routines.

[132] It is understandable that the child is tired when he comes to the mother’s home.

[133] I find that the mother’s plan of long alternate weekends for the father is very child focused given the very busy and tiring weekday schedule in the father’s home.

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

[134] I find the parents are both willing, but the father has less ability during the work week to care for and meet the needs of the child.

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

[135] I considered the ability of the parents to communicate and cooperate when considering the decision-making responsibilities for the child and determining that the mother requires sole decision making because of the poor communication between the parties.

[136] Unfortunately, the father has been unable or unwilling to put the child’s need to have parents with a child-focused and respectful relationship with each other above his need to denigrate the mother.

[137] The father has been unable to communicate positively on even small issues such as the mother’s request to have the child on Mother’s Day and to fix a Christmas schedule.

[138] He has responded out of proportion to information, for example when he was so angry about the mother receiving information that the child’s day care in PEC was closed. The father was extremely angry in accusing her of invading his privacy. The mother’s responses to the father were calm and child focused. When the mother discovered the father had a new job, she was very complimentary since she knows it is a very good fit for him. He is an excellent mechanic. But when she asked for his schedule, he was very angry. If parties are going to have a shared decision-making agreement, they must share information relevant to their child.

[139] I recognize the father may have been feeling anxious about the court proceedings and wanting to ensure that the court record is correct but to refuse to talk to the mother except in person about the $6,800 he took from the joint account to pay a farmer, for a debt that was not pressing nor provable as the dealings were all cash, was not child focused.

[140] Calling the mother names, sometimes in front of the child, is not child focused or respectful. The father promises to do better, and I hope he does, but I must examine the evidence as it is before me today.

(j) in allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child;

[141] The plan of the father does give the child more time with each parent until the child reaches school age. Unfortunately, the plan is not in the best interests of the child given the father's work schedule. Further, even if the father had similar hours of employment in a closer location to the child's potential school and daycare, I have found that the mother’s plan is in the child's best interest.

[142] If the mother had not moved to Burlington, I would still have changed the parenting arrangement to provide that the child was primarily in his mother's care during the work week. I may have provided a midweek visit on the off week but not overnight. To ensure that the child does have maximum contact that is consistent with his best interests, any parenting order would have to provide additional time to the father which can be accomplished by equal sharing of time during the two-week Christmas or winter school break and during the summer school break. Further there are several months in which there are five weekends and on those months (but not during December or July or August) the father should have additional parenting time.

[143] The father’s request for equal parenting time until the child goes to school is not in the child’s best interests.

[144] Maximum contact does not mean equal parenting time because each family situation is different, and the court must consider the child's best interests: see Knapp v. Knap, 2021 ONCA 305, 155 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. 34.

[145] The mother moved to Burlington and the parties started sharing time with the child without a court order. The father agreed that she could go with the child on a week about schedule after the court proceedings commenced.

[146] In considering the request to relocate the applicable provisions of section 16.9 are as follows:

Best interests of child — additional factors to be considered

16.92 (1) In deciding whether to authorize a relocation of a child of the marriage, the court shall, in order to determine what is in the best interests of the child, take into consideration, in addition to the factors referred to in section 16,

(a) the reasons for the relocation;

(b) the impact of the relocation on the child;

(c) the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or a pending application for a parenting order and the level of involvement in the child’s life of each of those persons;

(d) the reasonableness of the proposal of the person who intends to relocate the child to vary the exercise of parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new place of residence and the travel expenses; and

Factor not to be considered

(2) In deciding whether to authorize a relocation of the child, the court shall not consider, if the child’s relocation was prohibited, whether the person who intends to relocate the child would relocate without the child or not relocate.

(a) the reasons for the relocation;

[147] The mother has moved to Burlington to be closer to her family and friends and take a job paying $30,000 per annum more than her previous job in P.E.C. with a family friend. Her work, the day care and her home are in close proximity. Her only family member who lives in PEC is her father and he is moving to Burlington. She submits that the plan provides her son with a better life.

(b) the impact of the relocation on the child;

[148] The impact of the relocation impacts D.’s time with his father, but it provides him with a routine where he has more time with a parent and more sleeping time. I find this is in his best interests. The maternal family and friends are close and able to provide the same support to the mother that the father has from his family.

[149] The real impact of the relocation is to add considerable driving time for exchanges of the child for parenting time. The mother chose to move to Burlington, and I do find that her plan is in the best interests of the child but given she has more flexibility than the father in her schedule and she finishes work early I find that she should provide most of the driving to facilitate the exchanges. For example, if the drive is three hours from PEC to Burlington, she could drive two hours to meet the father. I recognize that the parents use Hwy 407 to avoid the traffic of Hwy 401 and easy convenient places to stop will be known better to them.

(c) the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or a pending application for a parenting order and the level of involvement in the child’s life of each of those persons;

[150] At present each parent has equal time with the child.

(f) the reasonableness of the proposal of the person who intends to relocate the child to vary the exercise of parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new place of residence and the travel expenses.

[151] I find the mother’s plan is reasonable, in the child’s best interests and considers the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well being.

[152] The mother is best able to provide care to the child and the father can still have considerable time with the child on weekends, school breaks and virtually or by phone.

Contents of Parenting Order

16.1(4) The court may, in the order,

(a) allocate parenting time in accordance with section 16.2;

(b) allocate decision-making responsibility in accordance with section 16.3;

(c) include requirements with respect to any means of communication, that is to occur during the parenting time allocated to a person, between a child and another person to whom parenting time or decision-making responsibility is allocated; and

(d) provide for any other matter that the court considers appropriate.

[153] Having considered all of the evidence and determined that it is in the best interest of the child for his mother to have sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, I make the following final order:

Pursuant to the Divorce Act

IMMEDIATE RELOCATION

1. The Applicant, L.A.B. (“the Mother”), may relocate the child, D.G.H., born February 2019 (“D.” or “the child”) to Burlington, Ontario to be in her primary care effective forthwith.

DECISION-MAKING

2. The Mother shall have final decision-making authority over significant decisions about D.’s well-being, including with respect to his health, education, culture and language. Each parent shall make decisions about the child’s religion and spirituality and extra-curricular activities when the child is in her or his care.

3. The Mother shall meaningfully consult in advance with the Respondent, R.D.H. (“the Father”), about significant decisions affecting the child’s well-being, but if they disagree about a significant decision, the Mother’s decision prevails.

4. All communication between the Mother and the Father shall be through Our Family Wizard or other mutually agreeable parenting application, except for emergencies affecting the best interests of the child or as otherwise mutually agreed in writing between the parents.

5. Day-to-day decisions affecting the child that are not about a significant issue shall be made by the parent who is caring for the child at the relevant time in accordance with the parenting schedule set out below.

6. If there is a major medical emergency involving the child, the parent who the child is with shall notify the other parent as soon as possible of such emergency. Either parent may make emergency decisions affecting the child if, after reasonable efforts, the other parent cannot be reached in a timely fashion to consult about the decision.

7. Notwithstanding the Mother’s final decision-making authority, either parent may, without the authorization or consent of the other parent, make direct inquiries, consult with, and be given information about the child by the child's teachers, school officials, doctors, dentists, healthcare providers, or other third-party service providers involved with the child.

REGULAR PARENTING SCHEDULE

8. The child shall reside in the primary care of the Mother.

9. The Father shall have parenting time with the child on a regular parenting schedule as follows: a. Until D. starts school in September 2023: i. Alternate long weekends from Thursday at 6:30 p.m. until Monday at 6:00 p.m., at which time the child shall be returned to the Mother. This shall commence on the next Thursday when the child would have been scheduled to be in the father’s care; ii. For an extra weekend during the months in which there are five weekends (but not in December, July or August). The Father is to advise the Mother of his requested weekends two months in advance. iii. Such other times as agreed between the parties. b. After D. starts school in September 2023: i. Alternate weekends from Friday at 6:30 p.m. until Sunday at 6:30 p.m., at which time the child shall be returned to the Mother; ii. If any Friday on which the Father is scheduled to have regular parenting time with the child is a school PA Day, his parenting time shall start on Thursday at 6:30 p.m. or after school instead of Friday at 6:30 p.m.; iii. For an extra weekend during any month not including December, July and August in which there are 5 weekends. The Father to advise the Mother of his requested weekend two months in advance. iv. Such other times as agreed between the parties.

10. The parents may make changes to the regular parenting schedule on mutual consent.

11. Exchanges for the regular parenting schedule shall be at a location approximately two-thirds between their respective homes, closer to the father’s home, as mutually agreed in advance between the parents.

PARENTING SCHEDULE – HOLIDAYS AND SUMMER

12. The holiday and summer schedule shall take precedence over the regular schedule. The regular schedule begins immediately at the end of each summer and/or holiday event.

13. The holiday and summer schedule shall be as follows: a. New Year’s Eve / New Year’s Day: i. The Mother shall have the child for New Year’s Eve and for the New Year’s Day falling on January 1, 2024 and all subsequent even-numbered years. ii. The Father shall have the child for New Year’s Eve and Day for the New Year’s Day falling on January 1, 2023 and all subsequent odd-numbered years. b. Family Day: i. The Mother shall have the child for Family Day in 2022 and all subsequent even-numbered years. ii. The Father shall have the child for Family Day in 2023 and all subsequent odd-numbered years. c. March Break / Spring Break: The parents shall share the child during the March Break as mutually agreed. d. Easter: i. In 2022 and all subsequent odd-numbered years, the Father shall have the child beginning on Thursday at 6:30 p.m. to Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ii. In 2023 and all subsequent even-numbered years, the Mother shall have the child beginning on Thursday at 6:30 p.m. to Sunday at 6:30 p.m. e. Mother’s Day: If the child is not already with the Mother, the Mother shall have the child every Mother’s Day weekend beginning on Friday at 6:30 p.m. to Sunday at 6:30 p.m. f. Father’s Day: If the child is not already with the Father, the Father shall have the child every Father’s Day weekend beginning on Friday at 6:30 p.m. to Sunday at 6:30 p.m. g. Summer Vacation: For 2022 and thereafter, the Mother and the Father shall share parenting of the child during the summer months (July and August) on an alternating week on / week off basis, with exchanges on Monday at 6:30 p.m. until September 2023 when D. starts school, at which time the exchanges will be on Sunday at 6:30 p.m. h. Thanksgiving Monday: i. In 2023 and all subsequent odd-numbered years, the Mother shall have the child for Thanksgiving weekend from Friday at 6:30 p.m. to Monday at 6:30 p.m. ii. In 2022 and all subsequent even-numbered years, the Father shall have the child for Thanksgiving weekend from Friday at 6:30 p.m. to Monday at 6:30 p.m. i. Christmas: The parties shall share the Christmas break as mutually agreed.

14. All other statutory holidays and special occasions, such as birthdays, shall follow the regular parenting schedule unless otherwise mutually agreed between the parents.

15. The parents may make changes to the holiday and summer schedule on mutual consent and exchanges for the holiday and summer parenting schedule shall be at a location mutually agreed in advance between the parents.

PARENTING – GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

16. Notwithstanding the parenting schedule, the child shall be permitted to participate in special family events, such as birthdays, weddings, funerals, special occasion travel such as trips outside Canada, and similar events that cannot be scheduled during either parent's regular parenting time. Consent to attend such events shall not be unreasonably withheld by either parent. The parent requesting that the child attend any such event shall provide the other parent with as much advance notice as possible.

17. Each parent exercising his or her parenting time shall facilitate telephone and/or other electronic access between the child and the other parent who is not exercising parenting time.

18. Either parent may attend the child’s medical appointments, school events, and/or extracurricular activities regardless of the parenting schedule. The parents shall be cordial during these occasions and shall not discuss any child-related arrangements and/or issues at these events.

19. Each parent shall provide the other with information regarding any extracurricular activities the child is involved in so that both parents may attend such activity. Each parent shall ensure the child attends for any extracurricular activities that are scheduled during that parent’s time.

TRAVEL AND DOCUMENTS

20. The Mother shall keep all original documentation for the child, including birth certificates, health cards, passports, and Social Insurance Number. If reasonably required and requested by the Father, the Mother shall provide the Father with any of these documents, provided that the Father shall return the documents to the Mother immediately after their required use.

21. Either parent may apply for and/or renew the child’s passport, and the other parent shall sign any documents necessary to support such application and/or renewal.

22. If either parent wishes to travel with the child outside of Canada for a period in excess of twenty-four (24) hours, the travelling parent shall give the other parent a detailed itinerary at least thirty (30) days before the vacation begins, including the name of any flight carrier and flight times or the vehicle trip, accommodation, including address and telephone numbers, and details as to how to contact the child during the trip. The non-travelling parent shall provide the travelling parent with a signed letter consenting to and authorizing the travel with the child.

CHANGE IN RESIDENCE

23. If either parent intends to make a change in residence that will not have an impact on the child’s relationship with the other parent, including but not limited to the parenting schedule, she or he shall notify the other parent of the intention to change residence, and such notification shall include: a. the date on which the change is expected to occur; and b. the address of the new residence and contact information of the parent who is changing his or her residence.

24. If either parent intends a change in residence that is likely to have a significant impact on the child’s relationship with the other parent, including but not limited to any likely change in the parenting schedule, she or he shall, at least sixty (60) days before the expected date of the proposed relocation, notify the other parent in writing with the following information: a. the expected date of the proposed relocation; b. the address of the new residence and contact information of the parent who intends to relocate; and c. a proposal as to how decision-making responsibility and parenting time could be exercised.

25. The parent who receives notice of the proposed relocation may, no later than thirty (30) days after receiving the notice, object to the relocation by doing one of the following: a. notifying the parent who gave the notice of proposed relocation of the objection to the relocation, which notice shall be in writing and shall set out the following: i. a statement that the non-relocating parent objects to the relocation; ii. the reasons for the objection; and iii. the parent’s views on the proposal made by the parent intending to relocate as to how decision-making responsibility and parenting time could be exercised, or b. making an application to the court for a parenting order that prevents the child from relocating.

26. The parent who has given notice of a proposed relocation as set out above and who intends to relocate the child may do so, as of the date referred to in the notice, if: a. the relocation is authorized by a court; or b. no objection to the relocation is made as set out above; and c. there is no order prohibiting the relocation.

27. Short written submissions on costs shall be served, filed and copied to the Judicial Assistant to my attention within 30 days, or in the alternative, if both parties agree, they can be reserved to a settlement conference to be scheduled before me through the trial coordinator.

Released: April 12, 2022 Justice W. Malcolm