COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-2584 DATE: 2023/05/30

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

BRUNO GRAVEL Applicant – and – CAROLYNE DUFRESNE Respondent

Self-represented Applicant Rodney B. Cross, Counsel for the Respondent Marcel Story, Counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer HEARD: September 19, 20 and 22, 2022

AMended REASONS FOR DECISION – PARENTING ISSUES

The text of the original Reasons for Decision – Parenting Issues was corrected on May 30, 2023 and the description of the correction is appended.

D. SUMMERS J.

Introduction

[1] This case was scheduled for trial in September 2022. The financial issues did not proceed due to gaps in the applicant father’s productions, most notably his pension valuation. Those issues were adjourned to the next available trial sittings. The trial of parenting issues did proceed. The father, Mr. Gravel, sought equal residential parenting time, either on an alternating week basis, or a 2:2:3-day schedule. The respondent mother, Ms. Dufresne, sought to maintain the alternating weekend arrangement for Mr. Gravel, but was prepared to extend his alternate Thursday visit overnight until Friday evening.

[2] Both parents sought sole decision-making authority for the children.

[3] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) represented the children. The OCL also provided a clinician’s assistance.

[4] In addition to the oral testimony of each parent, the clinician deposed an affidavit that was submitted into evidence on consent. Neither party wished to cross-examine the clinician. Her affidavit outlined her visits with the children and their expressed views and preferences with respect to their living arrangements.

Background Facts

[5] Mr. Gravel and Ms. Dufresne began cohabiting in 2006, married on December 6, 2008, and separated on February 6, 2016. They have three children together – A., now 13, and twins, V. and E., who are 11 years of age. Mr. Gravel is a computer programmer with the Canada Revenue Agency. Ms. Dufresne is a nurse. She works part-time at the Ottawa Hospital and teaches nursing at the Université du Quebec, in Gatineau.

[6] Mr. Gravel started this Application in December 2016 seeking equal shared residency and joint decision-making authority. In her Answer, Ms. Dufresne agreed to joint decision-making but asked for primary residential care of the children.

[7] After the separation, Ms. Dufresne and the children remained in the matrimonial home. Mr. Gravel visited during the week, sometimes staying overnight. Subsequently, Ms. Dufresne purchased his interest in the home and Mr. Gravel acquired a new residence. The parties did not have an interim order or written agreement in place, and both were frustrated by the lack of an enforceable schedule. It appears that a pattern developed whereby the children were with their mother four days per week and with their father three days per week, however, this was not consistently the case. Mr. Gravel felt that his parenting time was being reduced over time. Ms. Dufresne felt that she was always the primary caregiver.

[8] On November 13, 2020, Mr. Gravel brought an urgent motion for sole decision-making and a week-about residential schedule. Ms. Dufresne opposed. She also sought sole decision-making and primary residence. The precipitating events were that each parent had withheld the children from the other. As I wrote in my reasons deciding that motion, the mother withheld the children from their father for four weeks during the summer of 2020. When she was hospitalized for a brief period, Mr. Gravel was called to pick up the children. On September 4, 2020, the Children’s Aid Society advised him that he could return the children to her. He did not do so. As a result, the children did not see their mother until returned to her by my order dated November 13, 2020.

[9] Mr. Gravel testified at trial that Ms. Dufresne withheld the children from him that summer because he had refused her request to change his parenting time to accommodate her work schedule. He said he was fed up with these requests and that she kept the children to spite him. He also testified that when he did have the children again, he kept them because he knew she would not bring them back to him. He then brought the matter to court and was disappointed by the outcome of his motion.

[10] My November order provided Mr. Gravel with interim parenting time on alternate weekends from Thursday at 5 pm until Sunday at 7 pm, and during the other weeks, on Thursdays from 5 pm to 8 pm. The order required the party finishing their parenting time to drop off the children at the end of the receiving parent’s driveway. Ms. Dufresne was awarded interim sole decision-making authority for the children’s medical and health care needs. These included orthodontal needs for A., ADHD needs for both A. and E., and the twins’ endocrinological needs for a genetic condition. Presently, V. is being monitored and E. receives injections. No other interim decision-making order was made.

The Trial

[11] Mr. Gravel reiterated his request for equal residential time, either a week-about rotation or a 2:2:3-day schedule. He explained that after separation, his time with the children kept changing. It had started out as six out of fourteen days, then reduced to five out of fourteen days, and finally, under the interim order, to three and one-half days out of fourteen. Mr. Gravel pointed to the OCL clinician’s affidavit that said the children all wanted more time with him. As things are, he did not have enough time to do any activities with the children, giving swimming as an example that all three enjoyed.

[12] Mr. Gravel acknowledged telling the children that he considered it unreasonable that his time with them had been reduced. Although his testimony was somewhat unclear, it appeared he told them that he would prefer to return to six out of fourteen days or to an alternate week schedule. On the whole, Mr. Gravel’s proposal for parenting time was that the regular schedule, as decided by the court, should continue throughout most of the year. He was open to the idea of asking for time off work during March Break and for a week-long vacation in the summer, provided it was affordable.

[13] As noted, Ms. Dufresne works at both the Ottawa Hospital and at the Université of Quebec. In September 2022, she was teaching one class on Mondays and two classes on Thursdays, with office hours in between. The campus where she works on Thursdays is a two-hour drive away. On these days, she usually gets home between 9 - 9:30 pm.

[14] Ms. Dufresne was agreeable to extending Mr. Gravel’s parenting time on alternate Thursdays to overnight visits but opposed other potential changes. Her reasoning was primarily that she liked it the way it was, and she did not see a reason for a change. Notably, Ms. Dufresne did not explain how continuing the existing arrangement would be in the children’s best interests.

[15] Based on the evidence from the OCL clinician, it is apparent that A. and E. are well aware of their mother’s agreement to extend the Thursday visit to an overnight in alternate weeks, and they know she would not be happy were the three of them to spend any more time than that with their father. Ms. Dufresne agreed that she had discussed the request for increased time with the children.

[16] Ms. Dufresne was evasive when answering some questions from the OCL lawyer in relation to the children’s relationship with their father. She admitted they know the routine of going to see him, and that it goes smoothly, but could not say if they enjoyed their time with him, or liked going, only that they did not resist.

[17] Notably, when the OCL pointed out that the children had asked for a full calendar that included a provision for vacations and other events rather than following the regular schedule year-round, Ms. Dufresne answered that she would have emotional concerns for herself if, for example, the children split the two-week school vacation over Christmas equally between her home and Mr. Gravel’s. Asked to respond to the possibility that the court might order alternate weeks during the school summer vacation, Ms. Dufresne just repeated that she had never been away from them and did not know why they would need to start that now.

[18] Ms. Dufresne described a dysfunctional relationship between Mr. Gravel and her. She testified about the lead up to their separation. She said she was afraid of him, that he yelled and screamed at her, punched holes in walls, stabbed a knife into a cutting board which she worried might escalate into more, and had threatened suicide on one occasion.

[19] Mr. Gravel denied these allegations. He agreed that he and Ms. Dufresne do not communicate, and joint decision-making is not possible. Mr. Gravel testified that the few texts she sends him are harassing and he does not answer them but said he would notify her if the children had an accident or other emergency. Ms. Dufresne testified that she had stopped texting him after September 2020 when her request to see the children on her birthday went unanswered for a month.

[20] Mr. Gravel sees himself as the better decision-maker of the two. He was concerned that despite Ms. Dufresne having had sole authority over health care issues since November 2020, she had not yet acted on A.’s orthodontal needs. Ms. Dufresne acknowledged that the orthodontal work had been recommended in 2020, that she had wanted to investigate an alternative, and that there had been a “gap” getting started, but an appointment was upcoming. She wants to continue as sole decision-maker for the children’s health and medical needs. She acknowledges that two of the children have been diagnosed with ADHD and that Mr. Gravel took the lead in this. He wants the children to be medicated for this condition, but she does not. Their differing opinions resulted in Mr. Gravel administering the medication when the children were in his care, whereas she did not when the children were with her.

[21] The children’s schools are almost equidistant from each parent’s home. No changes are contemplated in either regard. Mr. Gravel has a much different approach to schooling than Ms. Dufresne. The children do homework at his house, but he does not monitor or supervise them. He believes they are old enough to take responsibility for their schoolwork. He has never attended a school meeting but does see their report cards online. Mr. Gravel disagrees with what he referred to as the mother’s “obsession” with school and homework. Ms. Dufresne’s testimony was that the children enjoy school and are doing well. She is actively involved in their homework routine and education in general, including during the summer months when she encourages them to read and to continue to do “homework”.

[22] It appears the children do not invite friends over to either parent’s house. Mr. Gravel does not allow it for his own protection saying that Ms. Dufresne had told other parents that he is abusive and violent. Ms. Dufresne said the children have friends over to her house, but according to the children, the twins each have one friend outside of school who comes to play in their mother’s backyard or at a local park. Ms. Dufresne does not play games with the children. Their shared activities include watching PBS, reading, and taking them with her when she volunteers with political parties. The children reported that their father does some activities with them such as trips to the beach, playing card and video games, bike riding, and going to the park.

[23] Mr. Gravel has been diagnosed with minor anxiety and depression. He testified that it is under control, he takes one medication and sees his doctor annually. Ms. Dufresne has been committed for psychiatric care on three occasions. She minimized the significance of her hospitalizations and does not agree with the diagnoses made. She did not produce any medical reports or records.

[24] Ms. Dufresne’s first committal was in May 2018 and lasted three to four weeks. She suggested that a neighbour had overreacted when she was a few minutes late picking the children up from the school bus and further implied that her parents, in particular her mother, were somehow responsible for her committal. Ms. Dufresne testified that her mother, a retired psychiatric nurse, knew what to say to ensure that she was hospitalized. She said she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was prescribed anti-psychotic medications, but only took them for six weeks. Ms. Dufresne did not follow up with her doctor or the bipolar clinic that had contacted her, because, as a nurse, she believes she has PTSD, not bipolar disorder.

[25] The second committal was for three days in August 2020. Ms. Dufresne recalled that the chief of psychiatry diagnosed her on that occasion with mania. She was prescribed medications which she did not take because, in her view, she did not have the requisite symptoms.

[26] The third committal occurred in October 2021, for ten days. Ms. Dufresne said she thought the diagnosis was mania. Despite these committals and apparent diagnoses, Ms. Dufresne has not taken any prescription medications since 2018.

[27] Ms. Dufresne was evasive when answering Mr. Gravel’s questions. She admitted that she had thrown coffee in his face but would not agree that this was an assault. She would not explain how, if she were afraid of him, that she would have done this. She admits to having no relationship with her parents. She does not open the Christmas and birthday cards that her mother sends to the children and to her. Ms. Dufresne explains her decision in this regard saying her mother abused her as a child and did not protect her from sexual abuse. She said she tells the children they have cards from their grandmother, explains why she is not opening hers, and then asks them if they are okay not opening theirs. Ms. Dufresne says the children are fine with that.

[28] Ms. Dufresne was vague when testifying that she had done some counselling with a former doctor but had not done any recently. When Mr. Gravel asked her if any of the psychiatrists had recommended counselling, she said, “not specifically, no.”

[29] Ms. Dufresne maintained her position on the parenting issues throughout the trial, however, Mr. Gravel, in his closing argument, showed concern for her emotional issues that he thought would make it quite difficult for her to accept an equal residential schedule for the children. He said Ms. Dufresne never told him about the sexual abuse and that he was hearing about it for the first time at trial. He then seemed inclined toward something less than an equal residential schedule, however, as will be seen, I have concluded that would not be in the children’s best interests. A trial judge is charged with the duty to make parenting orders that are in the best interests of the children. The judge is not limited to choosing between the options presented by the parents nor even to accept the terms of a formal consent if the judge concludes that doing so is not in the best interests of the child. In this case, equal parenting time has, in some format, been a front and center, live issue between the parties, for quite some time. It, in no way, takes Ms. Dufresne by surprise. The Ontario Court of Appeal has expressed these views in Bors v. Bors, 2021 ONCA 513 at paras. 35 and 37, and A.M. v. C.H., 2019 ONCA 764, at para. 29.

Children’s Views and Preferences

[30] The OCL clinician was Nadine Crowley. She interviewed the children on seven separate occasions between April 2021 and July 2022. All three of the children told her that they would like to have more time with their father. In particular, they agreed the alternate Thursday visits were too short and should be extended to an overnight, until Friday at 7 or 8 pm. All three asked that they share the same schedule, and all wanted vacation periods with each parent. The children agreed that after the November 2020 order, the transitions between homes went smoothly and without conflict between their parents.

[31] A. stated that she finds her mother too strict with homework and makes them do too many hours of homework. Other than that, she said everything was fine at both homes. She had seen conflict between her parents in the past, but not now. Her friends are all school friends whom she does not see outside of school.

[32] A.’s ideas for more time with her father have fluctuated. In June 2021 and early January 2022, she had proposed spending two weekdays with each parent and continuing alternating weekends. She indicated that she had spoken to her mother about the schedule and knew that her mother would be okay with increasing the alternate Thursday to an overnight but thinks her mother “would ‘kinda’ not be happy with us spending more time at father’s house.” Currently, A. expressed that extending the Thursday visit to overnight should happen and other than that, she would be okay with what her parents agree to, or what the judge decides.

[33] A. would like to spend time with each parent over Christmas and in the summer. If her parents were okay with alternating weeks for the summer, that would be good with her.

[34] E. told Ms. Crowley that all is okay at both homes, and she has no worries at either place. She has friends at school and has one friend in the community with whom she plays, either in her mother’s back yard or at the park. E. was not aware of any conflict between her parents. She has consistently expressed that she does not understand why they cannot have more time with their father, however, her views on how to accomplish this have fluctuated. In June 2021, her idea was to spend equal time with each parent by alternating weeks or by spending two weekdays with each plus alternating weekends. In January 2022, E. expressed a wish to extend the alternate Thursday visits with her dad to at least an overnight until Friday evening.

[35] E. currently had two plans that she described as equally acceptable to her: to extend the Thursday night to overnight until Friday at 8 pm; or, alternate weeks with each parent. She told Ms. Crowley that she likes it when things are fair and square but thinks her Mom “would not be happy with us spending one week with Dad and would say we are spending too much time with him.”

[36] E. would like to spend time with each parent at the Christmas holiday, March Break, Easter, and on her birthday. For the summer, she would like the regular schedule unless a parent had a holiday planned but she would not like to be away from either parent for longer than two weeks.

[37] V. advised that he has not seen any arguments between his parents. He reported that outside school, he had one friend he played with, either in the back yard of his mother’s home, or at the park. He confirmed that he liked the alternating weekends they currently spend with each parent and liked how the transitions were occurring with the parent who returns them staying in the car. V. has consistently expressed that he does not like the three-hour visit with his father on the alternate Thursdays, that not seeing his father for a week is too long, and he wants more time with him. In both June 2021 and January 2022, his preference was to have an equal schedule, with two weekdays and an alternating weekend with each parent. V. indicated that his mother had talked to him about this schedule.

[38] V.’s current preference is to extend the alternating Thursday to overnight until Friday at 8 pm and to continue the alternating weekends. He would also be okay with whatever plan his parents agree to. For vacations he wants to spend part of Christmas day with each parent and the rest of the school holiday could be the regular schedule. He would like to go on a vacation which could be during any holiday and for two, three or four weeks. He would like to see both parents on his birthday and each of them on their own birthdays.

Discussion

[39] Section 16 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) applies to this case and sets out the considerations and factors that guide the court’s determination of the children’s best interests:

Best interests of child

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;

(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.

Factors relating to family violence

(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j), the court shall take the following into account:

(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;

(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;

(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

(h) any other relevant factor.

Past conduct

(5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order.

Parenting time consistent with best interests of child

(6) 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.

Parenting order and contact order

(7) In this section, a parenting order includes an interim parenting order and a variation order in respect of a parenting order, and a contact order includes an interim contact order and a variation order in respect of a contact order.

[40] In considering these factors, I find that Ms. Dufresne struggles with her emotions and does not always put the children’s interests first. It appears that she has unresolved issues stemming from alleged childhood abuse. She has not accepted the medical diagnoses provided to her despite three psychiatric committals and essentially the same diagnoses each time. The evidence indicates that Ms. Dufresne needs professional help but does not seek it out. Her emotional state has an impact on the children. They are concerned for her wellbeing, and out of consideration for her, they appear to be influenced toward her point of view when it comes to how much time they should spend with their father.

[41] I accept that both parents have talked to the children about the parenting schedule. The father admitted he told them how he felt about his time being reduced by the November order. My conclusion, though, is that the mother’s expressed views made a significant impact on the children and the changes in their stated views and preferences to the OCL. I have also concluded that their parenting time with their father should not be impacted, or reduced, in consideration of their mother’s emotional status. Rather, I find it to be in the children’s best interests to configure an equal residential schedule that may be more conducive to acceptance by Ms. Dufresne than an alternating week schedule would be.

[42] Ms. Dufresne also appears to struggle to accept the girls’ diagnosis of ADHD. At times it appeared that she preferred her own medical opinions as a nurse to those of the physicians, both in relation to the children and herself.

[43] Ms. Dufresne has had the children in her care for more time than Mr. Gravel has had. She submits that continuing this schedule would provide consistency for the children. That said, the arrangements to date have not been conflict free. Both parents have contributed to the conflict, and both have overheld the children on occasion. Both contribute to their current lack of communication.

[44] The concerns raised by Ms. Dufresne about Mr. Gravel as a parent include his approach to homework and cannabis use. Neither appear to have impacted the children’s well-being. She alleges an abusive relationship during cohabitation. Mr. Gravel denies this. The children did not disclose having seen abusive conduct by their father, other than A. who reported seeing conflict between her parents in the past.

[45] Mr. Gravel is not without his own emotional issues. At the opening of trial, and during his testimony, his behaviour was often argumentative, rude, and sarcastic. Both parents exhibit limiting parenting characteristics: Mr. Gravel may be too laissez-faire with respect to the children’s education and too restrictive in not allowing them to have friends over to his house. He does, however, appear to be the parent who engages more with the children in some leisure activities. For her part, Ms. Dufresne may be too adult-like in her relationship with the children, and too rooted to a no change approach to the time the children spend with their father despite what they say they would prefer.

[46] Despite these parenting traits, the fact is that the children need both parents involved in their lives in a meaningful way, each unimpeded by the other. In the circumstances presented at trial, I conclude this goal is best accomplished by an equal residency rotation on a 2:2:5:5-day schedule such that the children are with the same parent, on the same two days each week, with the weekends alternating between them, such that they have a five-day stretch of time with each parent, as set out below. This schedule may assist Ms. Dufresne by limiting the longest time away from the children to five days, in circumstances other than vacations and special holidays. This should prove easy to follow, provide the children with consistency during the week, and transitions that will ideally take place at school to further reduce the opportunity for parental conflict. Moreover, the schedule increases the time the children have with their father – a change I find they would prefer, if uninfluenced by their mother and their concerns for her.

[47] My order will also provide each parent with vacation time with the children according to a set schedule that will enable advance planning.

[48] Decision-making is also an issue. Each parent asks for sole decision-making authority. Both are strongly of the view that shared decision-making could not work. I agree. Despite Ms. Dufresne being a nurse, I conclude that Mr. Gravel should have decision-making authority over the children’s medical and health-related issues. I base this decision on the fact that Ms. Dufresne did not administer the ADHD medication prescribed for the children, as well as the long delay in getting A.’s orthodontal work underway, and her tendency to prefer her own opinion over that of the third-party medical professionals.

[49] I have also concluded that Ms. Dufresne should have sole decision-making authority over education and school-related matters, up to the end of the children’s secondary school education.

[50] With respect to health care and education, I intend to impose constraints on both parents to ensure that there will be no changes made to the children’s doctors, dentists, or other health care providers, nor to their schools, unless for example, the change is necessitated by a physician’s retirement or a child progressing from elementary school to the local secondary school. Further, each parent will be required to notify the other of important upcoming decisions and outcomes, and both will be entitled to obtain information about their children directly from the children’s third-party service providers.

[51] Given the residential schedule that I am ordering, each parent may arrange activities for the children as they choose, on their own parenting time. The one exception is that the children shall be enrolled in one session of swimming lessons each year, to which both parents are required to take the children on their parenting time.

[52] Mr. Gravel shall have sole decision-making authority in all other categories of decisions that may arise.

My Order

[53] For these reasons, my detailed order is as follows:

1. The applicant father, Mr. Gravel, shall have sole-decision making authority for the children over all health care needs, including but not limited to medical, psychological, dental, and orthodontal care.
2. The respondent mother, Ms. Dufresne, shall have sole decision-making authority over education and school-related matters, up to the end of the children’s secondary school education.
3. Mr. Gravel shall have the sole decision-making authority in all other categories of decisions that may arise.
4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2 above, there shall be no changes to the children’s doctors, dentists, or other health care providers, nor to their schools, unless for example, the change is necessitated by a physician’s retirement or a child progressing from elementary school to the local secondary school, the parties agree, or pursuant to a court order.
5. Each parent shall notify the other of any important upcoming decisions and the outcomes of the decisions taken.
6. The residential parent shall be responsible for all day-to-day decisions affecting the children. Examples of such decisions would include completing homework, spending time with friends, use of electronics, and the like.
7. Each parent is entitled to obtain information about the children directly from the children’s third-party service providers including their physicians, dentists, orthodontists, and schools. For this purpose, each party shall promptly sign any authorization or other documentation required by the third-party provider.
8. The children shall reside with each parent in accordance with a repeating two-week schedule that provides them with the same two consecutive days with each parent every week and then five consecutive days with each parent in alternate weeks, such that they will have two uninterrupted weekends a month with each parent, described as follows and shown on the chart below: (i) The children shall reside with Ms. Dufresne each week from Monday after school until Wednesday morning before school; (ii) The children shall reside with Mr. Gravel each week from Wednesday after school until Friday before school; (iii) In Week 1, the children shall reside with Ms. Dufresne from Friday after school until the following Wednesday morning before school; (iv) In Week 2, the children shall reside with Mr. Gravel from Wednesday after school until the following Monday morning before school.

PARENTING SCHEDULE

Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday	Sunday
M	M	F	F	M	M	M
M	M	F	F	F	F	F
M	M	F	F	M	M	M
M	M	F	F	F	F	F

ROTATION: 2 / 2 / 5 / 5 M = MOTHER F = FATHER

9. The parent whose regularly scheduled parenting time is ending shall be responsible for taking the children to school in the morning and the parent whose parenting time is starting that afternoon shall be responsible for picking up the children at the end of the school day. During school holidays including the summer months, the parent whose residential time with the children is ending shall drop them off to at the other parent’s home at 7 pm. Drop off shall take place at the end of the receiving parent’s driveway. The drop off parent shall not leave his or her car and shall remain at the end of the driveway until the children are safely in the receiving parent’s home.

10. If a child is ill and unable to attend school, or it is a snow day or other unanticipated event on a transition day that results in school closure, as the case may be, the parent whose residential time is ending shall be responsible for childcare that day. If the school closure is anticipated such as a holiday or professional development day, and occurs on a transition day, the receiving parent shall be responsible for childcare that day.

11. Each parent may arrange activities for the children on their own parenting time as they choose, however, they shall enroll the children in one session of swimming lessons each year and both parents shall take the children to their lesson on their parenting time.

12. The following vacation/school holiday/special days’ calendar shall override the regular day-to-day schedule set out in paragraph 8 above, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, in writing, or ordered by the court: (i) Each parent shall be entitled to one uninterrupted vacation week with the children during their school summer break. Mr. Gravel shall be entitled to the first full week in July each year and Ms. Dufresne shall be entitled to the first full week in August each year. (ii) In odd numbered years, the children shall be with their father, Mr. Gravel, from December 24 at 11:30 am until December 25 at 11:30 am and with their mother, Ms. Dufresne, from December 25 at 11:30 am until December 26 at 11:30 am, and with Mr. Gravel from December 31 at 11:30 am to New Year’s Day at 11:30 am. In even numbered years, this schedule shall reverse. (iii) The non-residential parent shall have the option of spending up to 2 hours with the children on each child’s birthday, upon 2 weeks written notice, which shall include the time for pick up and drop off. (iv) A parent celebrating his or her birthday during their non-residential time with the children shall have the option of having the children with them for the day upon 2 weeks written notice to the other parent. If the non-residential parent’s birthday falls on a weekend or school holiday, the children’s time with him or her shall commence at 10 am and continue until 10 am the next morning. If the non-residential parent’s birthday falls on a school day, their time with the children shall start at the end of the school day and continue until the next morning when school resumes or 10 am, if not a school day. (v) The children shall spend Mother’s Day and Father’s Day with the parent being honoured from Saturday at 7 pm until their return to school Monday morning. (vi) The non-residential parent shall have the option of taking the children out trick or treating for one hour on Halloween, at a time of their choosing. The non-residential parent shall give the residential parent 2 weeks’ written notice of the hour selected. The parent with whom the children are residing on Halloween shall be responsible for their costumes.

Divorce

[54] A final order on the terms set out above cannot issue until the divorce is granted. The deficiencies in the material submitted to date in support of a divorce have been identified in my endorsements dated January 11, 2023 and April 12, 2023. Once those concerns have been addressed and satisfactory materials are provided, the approved draft parenting order should include the divorce which I will endorse separately.

Costs

In the event the parties are unable to agree upon the issue of costs related to the parenting issues, they should make written submissions to me through SCJ.Assistants@ontario.ca. The applicant, Mr. Gravel, shall have until June 14, 2023, to serve and file his costs submissions. The respondent, Ms. Dufresne, shall have until June 28, 2023, to file her submissions. Each party’s submissions shall be limited to 3 pages, not including their Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle the parenting issues. The applicant shall then have a brief 2-day right of reply, if one is appropriate, limited to 1 page and due June 30, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. All submissions must be double spaced using 12 pt. font or larger. Payment of the award I make will be stayed pending completion of the trial of the financial issues and any costs or other consequences thereof.

Justice D. Summers Released: May 30, 2023

APPENDIX

Paragraph [55] is amended to add the following after the first sentence ending with scj.assistants@ontario.ca and before the next sentence that starts with the word “Payment”:

The applicant, Mr. Gravel, shall have until June 14, 2023, to serve and file his costs submissions. The respondent, Ms. Dufresne, shall have until June 28, 2023, to file her submissions. Each party’s submissions shall be limited to 3 pages, not including their Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle the parenting issues. The applicant shall then have a brief 2-day right of reply, if one is appropriate, limited to 1 page and due June 30, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. All submissions must be double spaced using 12 pt. font or larger.

COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-2584 DATE: 2023/05/30 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: BRUNO GRAVEL Applicant – and – CAROLYNE DUFRESNE Respondent AMENDED REASONS FOR decision D. SUMMERS J. Released: May 30, 2023