COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-0139-00
DATE: 2023-01-30
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
T.I.
Applicant
- and -
F.I.
Respondent
COUNSEL:
T. Ohman, for the Applicant
Self Represented, for the Respondent
HEARD: January 12, 2023, at Thunder Bay, Ontario
BEFORE: Madam Justice T. J. Nieckarz
Reasons On Motion
OVERVIEW:
[1] The parties are the parents of a soon to be 7-year-old daughter (“DMI”). They are attempting to co-parent in a shared time arrangement in the context of an extremely high conflict separation. The impression I have from the materials before me is that there is very little that they agree on.
[2] DMI’s schooling and extra-curricular activities are but two of the important areas of this child’s life that her parents are arguing over. They initially argued over which school to send her to. Now they have run into a further dispute because the Respondent (“Mother”) is not consistently sending DMI to school or her activities.
[3] The Applicant (“Father”) brings this motion for the following temporary order:
a) That the child shall be required to attend school every day, unless there is a valid medical reason as to why she cannot attend, or the parties otherwise agree in writing to a “parent approved” absence;
b) Requiring the child’s attendance at her extra-curricular activities during the week she is in the Mother’s care;
c) Prohibiting the Mother from posting any pictures or videos of the child on open and public social media platforms that are not subject to privacy controls; and
d) Requiring the Mother’s co-operation in the renewal of the child’s passport.
[4] The Mother acknowledges that the child has been absent from school a number of times while in her care. She further acknowledges her disagreement with, and non-attendance at extra-curricular activities she says were unilaterally chosen by the Father. She argues that the child is struggling with the current parenting arrangement and the time she spends away from her mother. She argues that when she has absented the child from school or activities it has been when the child has been upset and needing more time with her mother, or otherwise not wanting to go. She states that she is concerned about the child’s emotional well-being and is prioritizing DMI’s emotional well-being over school and activities. She has taken steps to engage the school and a school counsellor to assist with these issues and transitioning the child. There is a history of the Father attempting to control her and demonstrating inappropriate behaviour out of anger, much of which the child has also been exposed to. The Mother feels that this motion by the Father is yet another attempt to control her and her parenting of their child.
[5] The Mother has not brought a motion but seeks the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”).
[6] The Father disputes the Mother’s allegations. He argues that this motion is simply him trying to do what is best for the child’s overall well-being by ensuring that she has consistency between the two households and that her education needs are met. He expresses concern as to the Mother’s behaviour with respect to the child and her over-involvement of the child in adult issues. If there are any issues with the child, he says that this, and the inconsistency generated by the Mother are the cause. While he worries about delays caused by an OCL appointment, the Father does not oppose the Mother’s request.
[7] For the brief reasons set out below, the Father’s motion is granted. It is in the best interests of the child to have consistency with respect to attendance at school and her extra-curricular activities. While I recognize that this order will remove some parental autonomy pending trial, it is an unfortunate consequence of the current conflict between the parties.
[8] With respect to the OCL, I find that the appointment of a clinical investigator may have value to a judge attempting to decide the parenting issues on a final basis, and could assist the parties in reaching a resolution without a trial. The involvement of the OCL shall be requested.
BACKGROUND:
[9] The parties were married in 2015 and separated for the final time in 2019. DMI was only 3 years old at the time of separation.
[10] To their credit, and despite the unflattering allegations they hurl at each other in this proceeding, they were able to agree on sharing time with DMI and decision-making responsibility. The shared parenting schedule has been in effect since the summer of 2020.
[11] DMI shares time between her parents on an alternating weekly basis. The exchanges occur Wednesday. Exchanges happen at school.
[12] When it came time to enroll DMI in school the parties could not agree. The Mother’s first language is French and she wanted the child enrolled in Ecole Catholique Franco-Superieur, which is the Catholic French language school in Thunder Bay. The Father is not fluent in French and was concerned about his ability to participate in the child’s education by assisting her with schoolwork. He proposed a Catholic French Immersion school (St. Bernard’s) as a compromise.
[13] The Father scheduled a motion for July 2021 to have the issue determined. The parties ultimately agreed on St. Bernard’s and the motion date was vacated.
[14] DMI attended full-time kindergarten during the 2021/2022 school year. For the 2022/2023 school year, the child is registered in full-time Grade 1 French Immersion.
[15] The Father states that attendance has been an issue from when the child first started school in 2021. He alleges that the Mother frequently causes the child to either miss school or be late on the days she is in her care.
[16] For the 2021/2022 school year the child was absent 61 days and late for 16 days. Some of these absences may have been attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions on school attendance if various symptoms were present. As of November 2022, the report card shows that the child had been absent for 7 days and late 6 times. The Father says that as of the date of his affidavit (December 8, 2022), that number has increased to 11 days absent for the fall school term. During the fall school term, the child was in the care of the Mother for 23 school days, meaning she has been absent for almost half that time, and late for 6 of the remaining 12 days.
[17] The child has missed full weeks of school while in the Mother’s care. The Father points to the periods of November 10 to 16 and November 24 to 30. The Father states that he is not advised of the absences or reasons for them when they occur. He learns of them after the fact. He became even more concerned when the Mother expressed a desire to homeschool the child at a trial management conference on November 29, 2022.
[18] The Mother states that when she agreed to St. Bernard’s it was for one-year only, on a trial basis. She says she did not consider the day-to-day implications of agreeing to have the child attend this school. One such implication is the time associated with the 1 hour and 40 minutes of driving, round trip daily. Another is the cost of gasoline. She has spoken with the child about possibly changing schools but says the child “was absolutely terrified”. She is alleged to have told the Mother that she was scared the Father would “kill me” if she did that.
[19] The Mother is concerned that the child is exposed to negative comments about her and other negative influences when with the Father. She feels that the Father is engaging in parental alienation. The Mother is concerned that the child is not adjusting well to the current shared parenting schedule. She attributes this to these negative experiences while at the Father’s house and to the fact that the child misses the Mother when she is gone for a full week. To ease the transition the Mother allowed the child to stay home one day a week. It became evident that her distress was even more severe than the Mother originally anticipated, with her crying most evenings and telling her Mother she did not want to go to school because she missed the Mother too much. She is alleged to have said repeatedly she wants to be with the Mother full-time.
[20] The Mother has been homeschooling the child when she is in her care. She is also teaching her various “mindfulness” and “self-regulation” techniques. The Mother feels that this time at home is better for the child’s emotional and mental well-being than forcing her to attend school. She is working with the school and hopes to engage a social worker to assist the child with the issues she is currently facing.
[21] Overall, the Mother argues that this motion is yet another attempt by the Father to control her and interfere with her parenting of the child. She cites a long history of alleged domestic violence concerns pertaining to emotional and psychological abuse, anger management, and control issues. She has expressed concern that the Father is taking an unnecessarily “litigious approach” and essentially using the court system to perpetuate the abuse against her.
[22] With respect to activities, the child participates in piano and hockey. Piano occurs each Wednesday from 3:30 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. and hockey takes place Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Saturday at 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
[23] The Father says that the child loves piano and hockey and looks forward to it when she is in his care. At hockey she has friends, and it is a good opportunity for socialization. The Mother attends to watch while the child is in the Father’s care.
[24] The Mother’s evidence is different. She says that these are activities that the Father wants the child to participate in, and are not reflective of the child’s interests. She says that the child frequently does not wish to attend. She worries that particularly on Wednesday, which is a transition day for DMI, it is too much for her and she becomes overwhelmed or tired by both activities. The Mother also states that with Wednesday being a transition day, often the child just wants to be with the Mother and to spend time with her after not seeing her for a week. She is concerned about the child being overscheduled. She is concerned that the Father does not respect either her wishes or those of the child with respect to activities, and simply does as he wishes. The Mother also expresses concern about the activities being on the opposite end of town and wishes the Father had found something “on my side of town to alleviate some of the driving”. She feels that the child should participate in only one activity with each party alternating final say over that activity. Otherwise, she feels that the child is sufficiently enriched with non-structured activities such as swimming, hiking, skiing, yoga and workouts, dancing and crafts done at home.
[25] The Father acknowledges having unilaterally enrolled the child in hockey and piano. He says he did this because he has been unable to obtain the Mother’s cooperation with any activities, even when he suggested activities the Mother herself has participated in and enjoyed. He feared that the child would miss out on participating as she did last year, because the parties could not agree. Therefore, he enrolled the child and paid all costs for registration and equipment without seeking any contribution from the Mother.
[26] The Mother states she has had a number of conversations and interactions with the child, that support her concerns including:
a. Many times, when the child has expressed that she “fears for my safety when I am around the Applicant” [whenever quotation marks are used throughout this paragraph, they are taken from the Mother’s affidavit as alleged to be the exact words spoken by the child].
b. The child says, “she is terrified to have me and the Applicant in the same event at school or anywhere else”. She did not want to attend a school excursion, saying she “was afraid to go because she wanted her mom to attend the excursion with her but was afraid that her Applicant [sic] would also show up”. She was afraid that the parents “would argue and that the Applicant would hurt me, and she refused to attend school that day out of fear”. When the child had her Christmas play and the Father expressed an intention to attend, the Mother spoke with the child about it and asked if it was okay and if she felt “safe” if the Mother went also. The child replied “no, because you’re going to get in trouble with my Dad.” “I don’t want to go to school that day because I don’t want my dad to come see me”. “I don’t want you both to be there because you will start talking about – why don’t you bring DMI to school…” The child did not attend her Christmas play.
c. When the Mother is feeling sad or anxious the child will come see her and give her a hug and ask “what’s wrong mom”.
d. The child has expressed many times that she does not want to go to school and asks if she can be “homeschooled full time and I don’t enjoy the long drive to and from school”. She has also made comments such as “I really really don’t want to go to school tomorrow but I’m scared my dad will be grabbing me out of the house and bringing me”. The Mother’s response to this was to assure the child she would protect her and not open the door. The child also says regularly that she does not want to go to school because she misses the Mother too much and wants to spend time with her.
e. The child does not always tell the truth. She has told her “I don’t want to tell dad the truth because I’m scared he will get angry and scream at me”.
f. The child does not like playing hockey and regularly tells the Mother that she “only does it to make her dad happy”.
g. The child says she is regularly “quizzed” by her father and paternal grandmother as to why she does not go to school when with her mother. She did not feel comfortable telling them the truth so she told them things such as “My mom did not want to drive me”.
h. The Mother repeatedly rehearsed with the child to tell her Father “Dad don’t put me in the middle of this. Take it up with mom”. The Mother feels this allowed the child to tell the truth and remain safe.
i. The child says regularly that the Father has told her “that he hates you mom” and that the child “shouldn’t like Kyle, hug him or be nice to him” (the Mother’s partner).
j. The child has told her negative comments made by members of the Father’s family about the Mother.
k. The child has suggested going to different grocery stores because she was “very scared” and did not want to run into the Father, saying “Kyle if my dad sees you he will literally get his gun to kill you”. This is a commonly expressed fear.
l. The night before exchanges the child will cry “I don’t want to go see my Dad this week. I am going to miss you too much. Can I stay home from school tomorrow because I am going to miss you too much when I am with my dad”.
m. The child will regularly tell the Mother “I don’t have enough time with you” I don’t want to go to school” “Can you pick me up early from school” “Can you drop me off late” “Time goes by too fast when I am with you”. “I have to go to school everyday when I’m with my dad and I don’t have time to do what I want to do, like crafts and stuff”.
n. The child asked her in November to send a text to her father saying “Dad I’m really sad and I don’t want to leave my mom’s house because I have too much fun with her.”
o. The Mother will ask the child if she forgets about her and stops missing her when she is at school, to which the child will reply “not when I’m with you. I don’t like doing anything away from you when I am with you. I have too much fun when I’m with you, I don’t want to leave you.”
p. She has cried in her class after being dropped off by her mother on exchange days. She has also cried in the front lobby while the Mother held her, requiring the principal to come to support the child’s transition into the school. The teacher says she adjusts well after 30 minutes or so.
q. She tells her Mother that she does not like her activities but does them “to make the Applicant happy but doesn’t truly enjoy them”.
[27] The court proceeding is ongoing. The parties have tried mediation but have been unsuccessful in resolving their issues. This case will proceed to trial if there is no resolution.
[28] This motion first came before me on December 22, 2022. The Mother sought an adjournment to file materials and possibly retain counsel. The Father did not oppose the adjournment but sought terms. At that time, I made a temporary order requiring the child’s attendance at school and activities. The Father alleges that the Mother has attempted to circumvent the order by taking the child to school but picking her up early. The Mother says the Father’s complaints are hypocritical given that he kept the child out of school for the first day following the holiday break as he had been working during the holidays and had not had sufficient time to spend with her.
DECISION:
[29] The sole consideration in deciding the issues in this motion is the best interests of the child. The wishes or rights of the parents are secondary to a consideration of DMI’s best interests.
[30] I am extremely concerned about the short and long-term emotional well-being of this child. Both parents complain about the other having adult conversations with the child. Both parents say that the child tells them different things when she is with them. The Father says that the child is happy to go to school and activities and enjoys them. The Mother says differently. The Father worries that if the child is saying the things attributed to her by the Mother it is because she is telling her what she wants to hear. The Mother says that the child does the same thing with the Father. Both parents believe the child is telling them the truth and lying to the other parent.
[31] The Mother’s affidavit reveals a child who is so acutely aware of the level of conflict between her parents that she will likely tell each of them what they wish to hear to curry their favour and alleviate the parent’s anxiety about a particular situation. More significantly and more concerning, if the Mother’s statements attributed to the child are true, this is a child who is terrified of having both of her parents in the same room together at either her activities or school events, or otherwise. It is impossible to resolve credibility issues with respect to the domestic violence claims on a motion. I am neither discounting nor minimizing the Mother’s concerns. I am faced with two affidavits that say very different things. I cannot resolve such issues, requiring credibility assessments, on the basis of affidavits.
[32] At this stage, I do not attribute fault for the child’s fears to one or the other parent, but to both. This child is obviously very aware of the level of conflict between her parents. I find that it is likely she is exposed to negative comments about each parent when in the care of the other. She strikes me as a child who, due to past and current experiences, wishes to avoid her parents being together at all costs, even missing her Christmas school play. It saddens me that it appears lost on the parents that their child missed out on such an important school event because she was worried about their respective abilities to behave themselves.
[33] If the language used by the Mother in her affidavit is actually the language she uses in conversations with the child (which she says in her affidavit it is), I am particularly concerned about the messages the Mother is sending to the child. One example is reflected in paragraphs 126-128 of the Mother’s affidavit. She describes how she attended a hockey practice while the child was in her father’s care. The paternal grandparents had brought the child. When the child asked her Mother why she did not come see her and give her a kiss after practice, the Mother “explained to her I was trying to be respectful of her feelings and that I didn’t know if grandma and nono would be okay with it”. The Mother goes on to say “We talked about this experience a lot “ and agreed that the next time the Mother would go see the child. The next time the Mother attended while the paternal grandparents were present she went to go see the child while she was with her grandparents, but the child said “go mom, Go. (in a dry, fearful, assertive way).” The Mother says the child later told her she “was just afraid grandma and nono would get mad at me”.
[34] The Mother cites this as an example of how the child is not free to express herself when with the Father and as to the negative influence of the Father’s family. The Mother lacks any insight as to how her earlier conversations with the child may have instilled this fear or concern unnecessarily in the child. Similarly, the use of language such as “safe” with such a young child in other conversations may send a message she has reason not to feel “safe”. This is troubling.
[35] I am concerned about some other conversations the Mother has had with the child. This is a 6-year-old child, soon to be 7. Conversations have been had with this child about things such as changing schools, without first discussing and consulting with the other parent. This is not appropriate. Given her age, this is not a child with the maturity to make those decisions for herself, let alone daily decisions about whether she should attend school. By having these discussions with her without first securing the Father’s agreement, the Mother risks placing the child and her father in conflict. These are decisions for parents to make, not for a 6-year old to make.
[36] It is also clear from the conversations that the Mother has had with the child and the statements made in her affidavit that the child is acutely aware of her mother’s emotions and feelings and wishes to comfort her mother and relieve the Mother’s anxiety, fears and frustrations. Comments attributed to the child about matters such as the driving to and from school suggest the child is parroting the Mother’s frustrations.
[37] I was happy to hear at the last motion that the parties are exploring counselling at the Children’s Centre Thunder Bay that is geared to families in high conflict parenting arrangements. I hope that they participate and take to heart this counselling. The best predictor of a bad outcome for children of separation and divorce is high conflict. The parties fail to realize that none of the issues they are arguing over in this litigation will be as damaging to their child as the level of conflict between them and the negativity they express to or about the other. Even if the parents do not make any specific negative comments about the other to the child (which I do not believe to be the case), as the Mother has noted, the child is incredibly perceptive and is quickly capable of picking up on their emotions whether it is sadness, anxiety, fear, anger or otherwise. Both parents strike me as loving and devoted to their only child, but they need to do better to shield her from their own feelings about the other parent and the conflict between them.
[38] The Father is not free from blame. His actions in not facilitating a videocall between the child and her mother on her mother’s birthday was not child-focused. That very same day he kept the child out of school so they could spend more time together, while he criticizes the Mother for doing the same. My order was clear that the child is to attend school. It applied to both parties. Neither of them has complied.
[39] Both parties are guilty of ‘pushing each other’s buttons’. The interaction described by the Mother when she was driving the child to school late and the Father texted her repeatedly demonstrates their lack of respect for each other. The Father inquired as to whether she had dropped the child at school. Rather than simply tell him she is on her way, the Mother texted “Sorry, I can’t talk right now”. When the Father pushed for a response, the response was “I am on the other line. Please contact me on family wizard I don’t believe this is an emergency.” The interaction continued with the Father pressing for an answer and the Mother refusing to give one. Both were at fault. The Father then tried to call the Mother no less than 15 times. The Father did not respect the boundaries set and persisted when it was obvious the Mother was not going to answer, while the Mother failed to give a simple answer. Both parties participated in perpetuating yet another unnecessary conflict.
[40] I have no doubt that if the child is experiencing any challenges surrounding transitions from one parent’s care to another (which the Father denies), it is as a result of this conflict. Keeping her out of school and her activities, is not the answer. Stopping the conflict is the answer.
[41] I am not satisfied that the child’s emotional or mental well-being requires her to remain home from school when she is in the care of her mother. I have no doubt the child misses each parent when she is with the other. I have no doubt that she is excited to spend time with that parent when it is their turn to care for her. The child still needs a regular routine, including school. It is entirely possible that school is one of the few places this child is free from the conflict between her parents.
[42] My impression from the Mother’s evidence is that the child is very aware of the Mother’s feelings about her attending school and is telling the Mother what she thinks she wants to hear (i.e. I miss you too much, I want to stay home from school and be homeschooled). The child may also be manipulating the Mother’s feelings to get what she wants. I do not intend for this to be a derogatory comment about the child; it is a common childhood behaviour.
[43] The following quote attributed to the child is telling:
I have to go to school everyday when I’m with my dad and I don’t have time to do what I want to do, like crafts and stuff.
[44] I have no doubt that like most children, the child does not always want to go to school and would rather stay home to do fun “stuff”. It remains a parent’s responsibility to ensure she attends. It also remains a parent’s responsibility to ensure she supports that transition to school. It should not be the responsibility of the principal.
School:
[45] The child’s mid-term report card for the first term of the 2022/23 school year does not suggest that the child has any concerning emotional or behavioural issues while at school. She is described by her teacher as “adjusting well to the new routines of the Grade One French Immersion Program”. Her learning and work habits are assessed as “good” or “excellent”. The Mother herself has acknowledged hearing from the teacher that DMI quickly settles even if she is upset when she arrives at school. The only comment of concern made by the teacher in the report card is that the child “has had a number of absences to date, which sometimes causes additional work upon return…”
[46] I find that it is in the child’s best interests to have consistency in her attendance at school. Not only will this avoid her having the stress of additional work to catch up on at school it will provide her with a predictable routine that is consistent regardless of whether she is in her father’s care or her mother’s. If the child is missing a parent as a result of being in the care of the other for the previous week, the parents will need to learn other strategies to overcome or assist the child with this. This may be something they explore in their counselling.
[47] This requirement shall apply regardless of whose care the child is in. I agree that it was hypocritical of the Father to keep the child at home on the first day after the holiday break to engage in fun activities because of their inability to spend time together over the holidays, yet criticize the Mother for doing the same. I acknowledge that there is no evidence of the Father making this a pattern, and in most circumstances, there is absolutely nothing concerning about a child missing the odd day of school to engage in family time. Unfortunately given the level of conflict between the parents and the issues raised in this proceeding, the parents cannot have the freedom to make those decisions themselves.
[48] I do have some concerns that the Father’s suggestion of his ability to verify any non-attendance for illness risks by videochat places the child in the middle of further conflict. On the other hand, I acknowledge that having no way of verifying an alleged illness could result in this excuse being used repeatedly without consequence. If there are multiple “excuses” of illness while the child is in the care of one parent and not the other, this will be a signal to a trial judge that this order is not being complied with. Non-compliance with court orders is a factor a court is entitled to take into consideration at trial in deciding parenting issues, including whether one parent should have primary decision-making responsibility over the other. My primary concern at this stage is ensuring better attendance for the child and removing her from the conflict she has been exposed to. For these reasons I am not going to order either parent to place the child on a video call with the other parent to attempt to verify an illness. I do wish to make it very clear to the parents that they are subject to a court order that they are both expected to obey, failing which there could be consequences that further limits their responsibilities and autonomy as parents.
Activities:
[49] Similarly with respect to activities I find that it is in the best interests of the child to have regular attendance at her activities when she is in the care of each of her parents. The child will benefit most from these activities if her attendance is not sporadic. She will also benefit from having a predictable routine regardless of which parent she is with.
[50] I do share the Mother’s concern about loading the child up with activities on a transition day. Given the level of conflict between the parents and apparent differences between their parenting, I accept as a possibility that transition days are stressful for the child. The hockey schedule is not something that can be changed. I would urge the Father to consider changing piano to a different day, in consultation with the Mother, if the teacher is able to facilitate the change. If not, the child shall attend.
[51] Two formal activities are not onerous but should be the maximum. I note that the Father has indicated that the child has expressed an interest in also attending karate lessons. This is something the parties may wish to explore in the Spring. If they cannot agree pending trial, the Father shall decide Fall/Winter activities and the Mother shall decide Spring/Summer. Each party is also free to participate in additional activities with the child when she is in their care, that the other parent shall not be expected to do unless they agree. This applies to registered or less structured activities.
[52] Finally, I do not accept the distance the Mother has to drive as a valid reason for school non-attendance, tardiness, or lack of participation in activities. The time estimates the Mother has provided for travelling seem excessive given the location of her home and the location of school and activities. Thunder Bay is a relatively small city and the time it takes to drive the child is not onerous.
Passport:
[53] The child should have a passport. The Mother says that she has not consented to renewing the passport because she wants the child’s name changed and hyphenated. The Father does not agree to changing the surname of the child and this will have to be determined at trial. A trial has not yet been scheduled. In the meantime, the Mother shall cooperate with any step required to renew the child’s passport.
Child’s Image in Social Media:
[54] While I agree with the Father that it is preferable to have images of the child only in private accounts on social media, I am not prepared to order this. There is no indication of any inappropriate images having been posted or there having been any risk to the child as a result of the Mother’s postings. I am not prepared, at this stage, to interfere with the Mother’s discretion as a parent to choose what photographs of her child she wishes to share through social media.
OCL:
[55] If there are important parenting issues that cannot be resolved such as parenting time and decision-making, I agree that the involvement of the OCL with a clinical investigator could be of considerable assistance to the court and the parties given the high conflict nature of this case, concern with respect to over-involvement of the child, and the Mother’s allegations of domestic violence.
ORDER:
[56] For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that:
a. The appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer is requested pursuant to s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, to provide a report to the court.
b. Pending a trial of this matter, each party shall ensure that the child attends school each school day that she is in their care, that she attends for a full-day, and they shall make their best efforts to ensure she attends on time.
c. Other than absences for illness, any absence of the child from school shall require the consent of both parents, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Examples of appropriate absences may include important family events, travel (for a reasonable duration), or travel for activities (such as hockey tournaments).
d. Except for holidays and vacation periods, each party shall also ensure that the child attends her extra-curricular activities and attends on-time.
e. The child shall participate in a maximum of two organized activities that both parties are expected to take her to.
f. Either party is free to schedule any other activity on their time, at their expense.
g. The child shall not be required to attend an activity on a particular date if both parties agree, in writing, she will not attend. Consent to non-attendance shall not be unreasonably withheld.
h. The child shall not be required to attend school or activities if she is ill and is unable to attend.
i. If a child is unable to attend school or activities due to illness the parent who has care of the child shall immediately notify the other in writing of the symptoms experienced by the child and any proposed care including but not limited to whether they intend to seek medical attention.
j. If, pending trial, the parties are unable to agree as to the child’s activities, the Father shall have final decision-making authority over Fall/Winter activities and the Mother over Spring/Summer.
k. The Father shall renew the child’s passport and the Mother shall co-operate with the renewal. The parties shall share the cost of the passport renewal.
l. If the parties are unable to agree as to costs:
i. The Father shall serve and file written costs submissions not exceeding 5 pages, double-spaced, within 30 days of this decision being released, failing which costs shall be deemed to have been resolved.
ii. The Mother shall serve and file her written costs submissions, not exceeding 5 pages, double-spaced, within 30 days of receiving the Father’s.
iii. The Father shall have 15 days to serve and file a Reply, which shall be limited to 2 pages, double-spaced.
iv. The pages limits do not include necessary attachments such as bills of costs, dockets, offers to settle, relevant correspondence or caselaw.
“Original signed by” The Honourable Madam Justice T.J. Nieckarz
Released: January 30, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-0139-00
DATE: 2023-01-30
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
T.I.
Applicant
- and –
F.I.
Respondent
REASONS ON MOTION
Nieckarz J.
Released: January 30, 2023