COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-20794

DATE: 20220704

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

KYLE SANVICTORES Applicant

– and –

NANCY SANVICTORES Respondent

Lauri Daitchman, for the Applicant

Self-represented, Respondent

HEARD: June 30, 2022

M. D. FAIETA J.

Reasons for Decision

[1] This is a high conflict proceeding. There have been numerous motions and case conferences heard by this Court. Recently, Justice Papageorgiou was appointed as the Case Management Judge and I was appointed to hear all motions.

[2] The Applicant father brings this motion for a summer parenting time schedule that provides for equal sharing of summer parenting time. He seeks the following Order:

1. An Order that During the summer of 2022, commencing Monday July 4, 2022, the children, namely [CS], born August 10, 2013, and [LS], born October 26, 2015 (“the children”), shall spend time with the Applicant Father, Kyle Sanvictores, as follows:

a. Every Monday from pick-up at the lobby of 2 Rean Drive at 10:00am, until drop-off at the lobby of 2 Rean Drive at 10:00am on Wednesday (unless the children are at camp, in which case drop-off will occur at camp when camp begins, and pick-up will occur at camp when camp ends),

b. Alternate weekends from pick-up at the lobby of 2 Rean Drive on Friday at 10:00am, until drop-off at the lobby of 2 Rean Drive at 10:00am on Wednesday (unless the children are at camp, in which case drop-off will occur at camp when camp begins, and pick-up will occur at camp when camp ends), and

c. Such further and other times to which the parties agree, in writing.

2. An Order that each party, shall have a 7-day vacation period with the children during the summer of 2022, with such period not immediately after that party’s weekend. The Respondent Mother may choose her 7-day period first, followed by the Applicant Father. During each party’s 7-day vacation period, neither party is required to bring the children to camp.

3. An Order that neither party will register the children in any camps without first discussing the details of each camp (e.g. location, contact information, cost, type of camp, dates that the children will attend, and start and end times) with the other party.

4. An Order that if a party registers the children in any camps, that party will immediately notify the other party of the name of the camp, its location, its start and end time, contact information for the camp, and any other relevant information regarding the camp.

5. An Order that if a party registers the children in any camps without the other party’s knowledge and consent, the party that was not consulted regarding the camp will not be required to take the children to said camp (although (s)he may choose to do so).

6. An Order that if a party registers the children in any camps, that party will list both parties as parents of the children who are eligible to pick them off and drop them off at camp.

7. An Order that neither party will interfere with the other’s ability to pick up the children from camp, or drop the children off at camp, in accordance with the Summer Parenting Time Schedule in paragraph one (1) above.

[3] The Respondent mother’s main submission is that: (1) this motion is not limited to summer parenting time and is a “backdoor” attempt to vary the 5/14 year-round parenting schedule: (2) a 50/50 summer parenting time schedule is not in the children’s best interests on the grounds that the Applicant can “barely handle” the existing 5/14 parenting schedule, that has been in place since February 2021, and that the children will be at “significant risk of harm” if the parenting time is expanded.

BACKGROUND

[4] The parties were married in July 2012. Their two children of the marriage - ages 8 and 6. The parties separated in May 2020.

[5] On February 5, 2021, Kraft J. issued an Endorsement that modified an earlier temporary parenting time order and referred this matter to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”). It provides the following context:

The court requests the assistance of the OCL in connection with the parties' two children, [CS], age 7 and [LS], age 5. The parties separated on May 2, 2020. The father issued this application on December 21, 2020. Both children attend Toronto French School. The parties attended a case conference before Pinto, J. on January 5, 2021. The mother did not attend the case conference. After separation, the father had difficulty gaining access to the children. Accordingly, he brought a motion that was returnable before the court on January 14, 2021, in which he sought equal parenting time. Leiper J. made a temporary without prejudice order that the children spend time with the father on a schedule that provides him with 5 nights out of 14, namely, that they reside with the father on Mondays, at 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Tuesdays at 7:30 a.m. to Wednesday morning at 7:30 a.m., and alternate weekends from Friday, at 4:00 p.m. to Monday morning at 7:30 a.m. The parenting exchanges take place at a public location, in the lobby of 2 Rean Drive in North York. Between January 14, 2020 and today there were difficulties with access. The parties appeared before me today for a case conference. The parties have agreed to adjust the parenting schedule once school resumes in person on February 16, 2021, so the children will reside with the father every Tuesday from after school to Wednesday morning, and alternate weekends from Friday, after school to Monday mornings. The parties also agreed to commence using Our Family Wizard for all communication. There is a history of conflict with the parents. They own and operate a business together which has also caused conflict. The police were involved with the family over the last two weeks. The Court requires the assistance of the OCL to conduct an investigation to determine which parenting arrangement would be in the children's best interests, given the children's young ages, and stages of development

[6] On April 9, 2021, a consent, without prejudice, temporary parent order was granted by Nakonechny J. on April 9, 2021 whereby the Applicant father shall have five of 14 overnights in a two week period with the children. The Applicant states that he agreed to this parenting arrangement because it was to be reviewed once the OCL completed their investigation.

[7] On June 25, 2021, at a Settlement Conference, Kraft J. noted in her Endorsement, that despite previously agreeing to the involvement of the OCL, the Respondent mother withdrew her consent and withdrew her participation. The OCL filed a partial s.112 report which could not be completed as a result of the mother's withdrawal from the process.

[8] In July 2021, the Respondent mother reinstated her consent for the involvement of the OCL. However, the OCL declined any further involvement.

[9] On July 6, 2021, Leiper J. granted the Applicant father’s motion for a summer parenting schedule. The Court stated:

Despite the list of dramatic events that allegedly happened during the marriage, the instability alleged by the Respondent toward the Applicant and other concerns, the available evidence is that the Applicant has involved the children in healthy, age-appropriate activities. He has involved them in their extended family, including visits with their grandmother. Of concern are the multiple contacts with the authorities (CAS and police) by the Respondent, which have led to an outstanding charge of public mischief and a referral to counselling for the Respondent. The Respondent did not provide any information about the nature of that counselling, how it might impact (whether positively or negatively) her parenting relationship with the Applicant or the children. This is a significant gap in her material on this motion

[10] On January 27, 2022, the Applicant father brought a motion for an assessment pursuant to s. 30 of the Chilrden’s Law Reform Act . O’Brien J. stated:

… The Applicant now seeks a s. 30 assessment on the basis that there is a great need for qualified third-party expertise to provide input with respect to the parenting issues in this case. The Respondent submits that the court should make an order for disclosure of additional CAS records and of all the Applicant’s clinical notes and records, as well as his OHIP claims history. She submits that after proper disclosure is provided, a judge can later order a voice of the child report if necessary. However, at various times during oral argument the Respondent also said she was not opposed to an assessment but should not have to fund it. …

For the reasons that follow, I find that a s. 30 assessment is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The cost of the assessment shall be shared equally between the parties. …

[11] Amongst other things, O’Brien J. appointed Susan Lieberman to conduct a s. 30 assessment and report to the court and order the parties to cooperate with that assessment and to equally share the cost of that assessment and report.

[12] As of May 2022, the Respondent admits that she has not paid Ms. Lieberman her half of the retainer nor had she delivered the required intake paperwork to Ms. Lieberman.

[13] In June 2022, and only a days before the Applicant’s motion to strike the Respondent mother’s pleadings, the Respondent paid the court-ordered retainer and completed the intake forms for the section 30 assessment that had been ordered five months earlier.

ANALYSIS

[14] The purpose of an interim parenting order is to provide stability to the children and the parties pending trial. It has been long established that the status quo will be maintained on an interim motion for a parenting order unless cogent evidence that the best interests of the child dictates otherwise: Papp v. Papp, 1969 CanLII 219 (ON CA), [1970] 1 O.R. 331 (C.A.), para. 34; Gray v. Canonico, 2020 ONSC 5885, para. 48.

[15] The status quo may be established by reference to the parents’ practice or the child’s routine prior to separation, by any consensual arrangement made after separation, or by court order: Gray v. Canonico, 2020 ONSC 5885, para. 48.

[16] In this case, the status quo of equally shared parenting time during each summer was established by the equally shared parenting regime in the summer of 2021.

[17] Nevertheless, the children’s best interests govern. In assessing the best interests of the child, the Court must give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security and well-being: Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), s. 16(2) (“Divorce Act”); Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 24(2) (“CLRA”).

[18] 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: Divorce Act, s. 16(6); CLRA, s. 24(6); Knapp v. Knapp, 2021 ONCA 305, para. 34.

[19] In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including

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

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

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

(d) the history of care of the child;

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

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

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

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

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

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child: Divorce Act, s. 16(3); CLRA, s. 24(3).

[20] In February 2021, LS told the CAS that: 1) he loves his father the most; 2) he likes that his father takes him to see his paternal grandmother; 3) he likes to play with his father and go to the park with him; 4) he likes that his father gives him different types of food; 5) unlike his mother, his father has never left him and his sister unsupervised; 6) he would like to spend more time with his father and would not like to return to his mother’s home. LS stated that: 1) his mother would not allow him to speak with his father when he requests to speak with him; 2) his mother told him that she feeds him because his father does not want to; 3) he and his sister are not allowed to play in their rooms and must play in the basement and/or the second floor; 4) he does not get breakfast before school at his mother’s house and that he gets cereal and bars after class starts. When asked to show how much he loves his father, LS spread his hands as far apart as possible to show that he loves him very much and he put his hands closer together in the middle to show that he loves his mother less. LS stated that he would like to start eating breakfast before schools starts and would not like to go back to the Respondent mother’s home.

[21] In February 2021, CS told that the CAS that: 1) she likes to be at her father’s home; 2) she gets to play when she is at her father’s home and do arts and crafts; 3) she gets a lot of food at her father’s home; 4) her father has never left her and her brother alone; 5) her mother has left her and her brother alone five times while do the groceries; 6) her mother feeds her and she would like to start feeding herself because she would like to act “grown”; 7) she would prefer to stay at her father’s home.

[22] The Applicant father states that there have been three CAS workers. He states that Respondent mother has accused each of the CAS workers of bias. She has asked the CAS not to interview the children but rather to listen to her question the children. A CAS note dated January 5, 2021 states that “Nancy wished to do the line of questioning for her children. … Nancy shared that she only contacted the Society as she believed it would help with her custody and access case. …”.

[23] The Applicant father states that during the Summer of 2021 he and the children did many things together, such as: 1) they travelled to Barrie, Sauble Beach, Lake Wilcox, Milton and other places; 2) they went hiking, kayaking, fishing and biking; 3) they went to Humber Bay Park, Scarborough Bluffs, Rouge Valley Conservation Park, Kelso Conservation Park and the zoo.; 4) they visited the Ontario Science Centre, the Art Gallery and Niagara Falls for the first time; 5) spent time with their paternal grandmother, aunts, uncles and cousins.

[24] As was the case on the motion before Leiper J, on July 6, 2021, “… the Respondent has argued that this request for a different summer schedule is a veiled attempt to disrupt the status quo schedule. Counsel for the Applicant has clarified that this is not the case, and that any order for expanded time would be during the summer months and until the Labour Day weekend in September.”. Despite the Respondent’s emphatic assertion to the contrary, on this motion it is clear from the words of the Applicant’s Notice of Motion was that the Applicant only seeks to vary the parenting time schedule “during the summer of 2022, commencing on July 4, 2022 …”.

[25] As was also the case on the motion before Leiper J., the Respondent and the Respondent’s mother, Sarah Elyas, made numerous claims that are disputed.

[26] The Respondent claims that CS is struggling with the parenting schedule. Over the last few months, CS has been “crying constantly at night and asking for mom”. In this regard, the Respondent relies on the affidavit evidence of the mothers of two classmates who states that CS told their daughters that she missed her mother and did not want to go to the Applicant’s home. The Applicant states that CS has been excited to spend time with him and she enjoys the many activities that they do together. On the few occasions where CS has stated that she does not want to spend time with the Applicant, he states that the Respondent has coached her to make those statements. The Applicant relies on a statement from a School Guidance Counsellor who apparently told the CAS on April 5, 2022 that CS seemed reluctant, but not scared, to the Applicant’s home and worried that CS was sensitive to her mother’s feelings. She recommended that CS see a licensed therapist that works with family trauma. There is no evidence that CS is seeing a therapist.

[27] Although the Respondent mother denies coaching CS, amongst other things, the following evidence suggests that the Respondent mother has coached CS:

(1) In June 2021, at the end of a visit with a CAS worker, the Respondent mother interrupted the children’s visit with a CAS worker to prompt CS to tell the CAS worker that the Respondent father had fallen asleep on the couch during their visit and that they had to wake him up. The CAS notes state:

Nancy returned toward the end of my conversation with the kids and said that there was an incident last Tuesday that she wanted me to hear about from the kids. She asked the children to tell me about it.

The Applicant father denies that he fell asleep on the couch as alleged and states that his mother was with them on that day in any event.

(2) On March 9, 2022, the Applicant father found pieces of paper in CS’s jacket pocket which she had asked to bring to her mother. These notes included the Applicant’s contact information for his landlord that was copied from his office wall. Another note copied a text message that was taken from his cell phone. CS told the CAS that she took these notes to practice her handwriting and because she wanted to show the Respondent mother her handwriting.

(3) On April 4, 2022, while at the Applicant’s home, CS asked to speak with the CAS worker where no one could hear them. CS told the CAS worker that she and LS had been hurt while sledding with the Applicant father. CS hurt her arms and legs and she could not feel anything for a second. CS said she was hurt only for a second. LS hit his head and was taken to the hospital by the Respondent on the next day. CS told the CAS worker that she told her about the accident so that LS would not have to say it. LS did not mention the accident to the CAS worker.

The Respondent mother exaggerates that there was a “severe bump” on his head and that LS was crying in “severe pain” on the following day. Hospital records show that LS when seen at the hospital he was acting normal and playful. He was described by the Respondent as “slightly more lethargic than he normally is”. LS was diagnosed with a “minor head injury” with a “small amount” of swelling on the right side of his head. There were no lacerations, no loss of consciousness nor any vomiting. The Respondent states that the doctor told her that LS had a concussion however this is not reflected in the hospital record states that LS suffered a “possible concussion”. The Respondent told the CAS that LS had a concussion and a brain injury. The Respondent’s mother called police to report this incident.

(4) The Applicant states that the children keep secrets from him at the Respondent’s direction. For instance, when he has asked about their schoolwork, they have told him to “talk to Mama”. He has also seen CS whisper to LS that he is not allowed to tell the Applicant something.

(5) The children told the CAS that the Applicant had assaulted the Respondent. The CAS file states:

Both CS and LS shared that they did not witness any assault by either parent. They shared that Nancy had spoken to them afterwards and had told them that Kyle had punched her however, they had not seen it.

(6) The Applicant states that the Respondent has dictated what the children have asked for a Christmas gift. For instance, LS had provided the Applicant with a list of things that he wanted from Santa Claus, but later added a Canada Goose jacket. LS told the CAS:

LS said he wanted a Canada Goose jacket for Christmas. Mama says mine doesn’t fit and he needs a size up. LS said that’s what I’m supposed to ask for.

[28] The Respondent makes numerous allegations, including the following:

(1) The implementation of the summer schedule in 2021 as proposed by the Applicant father would have resulted in him have parenting time with the children for 12 consecutive days rather than 7 days. The Applicant states that other than the issues that the Respondent created, the summer parenting time last year went well. The Applicant states that the Respondent falsely accused him of failing to return them to her on time. He also states that the Respondent did not consult with him regarding the children’s camp last summer or this summer.

(2) The Applicant father leaves the children with his “mentally ill mother who is notorious for losing the children”. The Respondent provides no evidence to support her bald assertion that the Applicant’s mother is “mentally ill” or that she loses the children. She states that the children were on the TTC with their grandmother for seven hours on one occasion. The Applicant states that his mother is a lovely and capable woman and that the children enjoy their time with her. He also states that the children rode the subway with his mother. The Respondent objected to this and reported to the CAS that the Applicant’s mother lost the children’s bags. The Applicant states that none of the Respondent’s concerns were validated by the CAS. The Respondent did not dispute this assertion. The Applicant states that these allegations show that the Respondent is discouraging the children’s relationship with his mother.

(3) LS “almost drowned” in the Applicant’s care. This allegation is repeated by the Respondent’s mother. The Respondent states “evidenced in CAS records, CS saved her brother from drowning”. There is no such evidence in the CAS records and the Respondent did not reference the record(s) that she relies on for this assertion. From her own message to the Applicant, it appears that she claims that on June 27, 2021 LS fell off a floating device that he was floating on. He was not wearing a floating device and LS grabbed onto his sister to stay afloat. These allegations were not referenced or verified by the CAS in the records provided to the Court.

On July 29, 2021, the CAS worker sent a message to the Applicant which states:

As we discussed this morning, LS and CS will continue to be appropriately supervised in the pool and have access to multiple floatation devices, including a life jacket. You also mentioned that LS continued swimming on Sunday and wore the life jacket. … [Emphasis added]

There is nothing in the above message from the CAS that suggests that LS was not wearing a life jacket or inappropriately supervised.

The Applicant states that he provided the CAS with a video which shows that LS was wearing a life jacket.

(4) In August 2021, CS walked into the Applicant’s bedroom and saw him “snuggling’ with another man. Both men were wearing underwear. CS told the CAS that this occurred at 1:00 am when she went to use the bathroom in her father’s bedroom as the main bathroom was broken. The Respondent’s mother, Sarah Elyas, states that CS “walked in on Kyle having sex with another man”. The Applicant states that this event never occurred, and that CS was coached into making this allegation to the CAS. There is nothing in the CAS records provided to the Court which suggests that the CAS verified these allegations.

(5) Sarah Elyas states that the “… pajama pants of CS were removed as she woke up in the morning just a few weeks ago this June 2022. I can’t help but genuinely be concerned. The Respondent claims that CS woke up without her pajama bottoms on and that this is indicative that CS is unsafe in his home and that she would take CS to the hospital to investigate this. There is no evidence that she brought CS to the hospital. The Applicant states that he does not know whether CS’s pajama bottoms came down while she slept or how the Respondent would know that this occurred.

The Applicant states that the Respondent recently falsely accused him of using drugs, alcohol and having “strange men” in his home while the children were in his care. There is nothing in the CAS records provided to the Court which suggests that the CAS verified these allegations. The parties exchanged the following messages on June 13, 2022:

Respondent: This cannot wait. CS told me she woke up with no Pyjama pants on? Was there anyone else in your home last night, like another guy? This is concerning. My Mother is insisting on taking her to a hospital for a checkup. Can you explain?

Applicant: Please stop with these wild accusations. She probably kicked them off while sleeping. I will not entertain your intimidation tactics and manipulation. Her regular pajamas were in the wash and the pants she was wearing last night are a bit loose at the waist. I bought the larger size up because her legs are long. I encourage you to really read the CAS records with great detail. Through out it you will see documentation from all the case workers of your habitual manipulation and distorted perception of things.

Respondent: I just asked CS to describe her pants. She said “I wear them all the time”. Please don’t have random strange men at your place EVER while the children are at yours. I don’t know if there’s drugs/alcohol. I don’t trust anyone. … Anyway – my mother has a huge problem with random men at your place while the kids are there. Please don’t let it happen again.

Applicant: I don’t know what you are talking about. Random men? Drugs? You make no sense. And having any kind of rational adult conversation with you is draining. …

Respondent: I am relying on CAS records from last summer. There was a random man at your place while my children were sleeping on August 22, 2021. I do not want to worry about this again. To be clear – I do not want random men at your place3 while my children are there. Especially while they are sleeping. Got it ??? If there was an urgency and emergency, I would call CAS. I am relying on your word as a parent. Don’t mess with me.

[29] In her affidavit, Sarah Elyas threatens that “if there is any sexual assault, molestation or any other severe injuries due to the parenting time, I will make sure that this court is held accountable. … There are plenty of Exhibits, evidence and people who are genuinely concerned. Please take this seriously or I’ll have no choice but to escalate all of this to a higher court”.

[30] The Respondent alleges that the Applicant was physically aggressive and abuse during the marriage. The Respondent states that the Applicant was charged with assault and mischief in relation to having torn the Applicant’s blouse and damaged her phone. These charges were stayed in 2018. These allegations are also denied by the Applicant. He states that the Respondent abused him during the marriage and dictated when he spent time with the children, when he entered their home, when and what he ate, and when he accessed his money, phone, identification and belongings. The Applicant claims that he struggled with mental health issues during their marriage because the Respondent was abusing him. The CAS records indicate that the Applicant’s psychiatrist confirm this view. The Applicant states that he left the matrimonial home with nothing other than the clothes that he wore as the Respondent did not permit him to take his car, his phone, his bank cards, money, identification or electronics. After they separated, the Respondent threatened to remove the children from the country. Much of this evidence is not challenged by the Respondent.

[31] After the Applicant commenced this proceeding, the Respondent denied the children all parenting time with the Applicant and called the police when he tried to see them. The Respondent caused a scene in the lobby of the Applicant’s mother’s building, pulling CS from him and falsely accusing him of assault. The police attended and review the surveillance footage which showed that the Respondent was the aggressor. The Respondent harassed the Applicant at the children’s school in front of the children and called the police to falsely report an assault. The Respondent was charged with mischief. The Respondent states that this charge has been withdrawn. I also note that the CAS has closed its file.

[32] There is much contradictory affidavit evidence that cannot be resolved on this motion. However, I find that it is in the best interests of the children for each parent to have equal parenting time with the children this summer once again on the terms proposed by the Applicant subject to a few modifications to avoid issues that arose last year including which weeks each parent will take this summer with the children. The Respondent’s allegations of impropriety against the Applicant are largely unsubstantiated and unverified. On the other hand, much of the Respondent’s behaviour is inappropriate and not child focused. If the Respondent’s concerns were informed solely by her children’s interests, then she would have cooperated with the OCL in the preparation of their report more than 16 months ago. Instead, her behaviour resulted in the OCL wasting its precious resources after preparing a partial report. It is not surprising that the OCL refused to accept this assignment for a second time after the Respondent changed her mind months after refusing to cooperate. Similarly, the Respondent refused for more than five months to comply with a court order requiring her to cooperate with a section 30 assessment by Susan Lieberman and to equally share the costs of that assessment if her interests were solely child focused. As a result, the section 30 assessment is only now about to commence. The delays caused by the Respondent did not serve the best interests of the children. In the meantime, the Respondent seeks to advance her narrative that the children are at “significant risk of harm” if parenting time with the Applicant is increased from a 5/14 schedule to equal parenting time schedule over the summer when there is insufficient evidence to support her view.

ORDER

[33] Order to go, pursuant to the Divorce Act and the CLRA, as follows:

1. During the summer of 2022, commencing Monday July 4, 2022, the children namely CS and LS, (the “children”) shall spend time with the Applicant father as follows:

a) Every Monday from pick-up at the lobby of 2 Rean Drive at 10:00 am, until drop-off at the lobby of 2 Rean drive at 10:00 am on Wednesday (unless the children are at camp, in which case the drop-off will occur at camp when camp begins, and pick-up will occur at camp when camp ends)

b) Alternate weekends from pick-up at the lobby of 2 Rean drive on Friday at 10:00 am, until drop-off at the lobby of 2 Rean Drive at 10:00 am on Wednesday (unless the children are at camp, in which case drop-off will occur at camp when camp begins, and pick-up will occur at camp when camp ends), and

c) Such further and other times to which the parties agree, in writing.

2. Each party shall have a 7-day vacation period with the children during the summer of 2022. The Applicant’s 7 -day vacation period with the children shall run from August 29, 2022, until September 5, 2022 at 7:30 pm. The Respondent’s 7-day vacation period with the children shall run from August 8, 2022, until August 15, 2022, at 7:30 pm. During each party’s 7-day vacation period, neither party is required to bring the children to camp.

3. Neither party shall register the children in a camp during the summer of 2022 where the attendance at the camp would be on a day that falls on the other party’s parenting time without the prior written consent of the other parent. Neither party will register the children in any camps without first discussing the details of each camp (e.g. location, contact information, cost, type of camp, dates that the children will attend, and start and end times) with the other party.

4. If a party registers the children in any camps, that party will immediately notify the other party of the name of the camp, its location, its start and end time, contact information for the camp, and any other relevant information regarding the camp.

5. If a party registers the children in any camps without the party’s prior written consent, the party that did not provide their prior written consent regarding the camp will not be required to take the children to said camp (although (s)he may choose to do so)

6. If a party registers the children in any camps, that party will list both parties as parents of the children who are eligible to pick them up and drop them off at the camp.

7. Neither party shall interfere with the other party’s ability to pick up the children from camp, or drop the children off at camp, in accordance with the Summer Parenting Time Schedule in paragraph (1) above.

8. The Applicant shall deliver costs submissions by July 11, 2022. The Respondent shall deliver responding costs submissions by July 22, 2022. Each submission shall be no more than three pages exclusive of offers to settle and a bill of costs.

Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta

Released: July 4, 2022