Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FC-21-37-01 Date: 2024/10/08
Ontario Superior Court of Justice Family Court
Between:
LIANNE HOANG (DUPUIS) Applicant
Counsel for the Applicant: Greg Parrack Kassandra Kurek
- and -
ROBERT MICHAEL JOSEPH DUPUIS Respondent
Counsel for the Respondent: Mark Simpson
Heard: April 9, 10, 11, 12, 2024
Before: Tranquilli J.
[1] The parents ask the court to decide the allocation of parenting time of their three young children, aged 11, 9 and 7. The evidence indicates the children are doing well with each parent. The central issue in this dispute is whether equal parenting time is in the best interests of the children.
[2] The father seeks an order for equal parenting time organized over a biweekly schedule during the school year and summer that would establish a week-about schedule subject to some midweek overnight parenting time with the other parent. He submits this schedule is in the children’s best interests because it would minimize conflict between the parents and recognize the important role each parent has in the children’s lives.
[3] The mother seeks an order continuing the children’s interim biweekly interim parenting schedule. This provides parenting time with their father on two days after school in the first week, and three consecutive overnights on the second week, as well as one day after school. She submits the children are accustomed to her role as primary caregiver and are still in the process of getting used to the expanded schedule that has been in place since August 2023. The children are still at the stage where they need their “home base”, which they have known since birth. She submits this parenting schedule should remain during the summer, except for agreed-upon generous summer parenting time consisting of two uninterrupted non-consecutive weeks for each parent with the children.
Background
[4] The parties married in 2008. In 2010, they moved to London and lived together with the maternal grandmother in North London. The parties’ three children were born into this arrangement: Robert in 2013, Alia in 2015 and Elise in 2017. The parties separated in 2018, shortly after Elise’s birth.
[5] The applicant Lianne Dupuis is 42 years old. She is employed as a high school librarian in the London District Catholic School Board. She is completing her Master of Counselling Psychology from Yorkville University. The respondent Robert Dupuis is 43 years old. He is employed as a high school teacher with the Thames Valley District School Board. He has remarried. Mr. Dupuis and his partner, Nataline Dupuis, are both currently employed as teachers at a Glencoe high school.
[6] Ms. Dupuis commenced the application for divorce, which was granted by Tobin J. in August 2021. Ms. Dupuis is now known by her original surname of Hoang. Although formally designated in this proceeding as the “respondent”, it was Mr. Dupuis who later continued this application to address the parenting and support orders. For clarity, I will largely refer to the parties as “the mother” and “the father” in balance of these reasons.
[7] The parties separated in February 2018, when the children were 5, 3 and several months old. The mother, maternal grandmother and the three children have continued to reside in the North London home. The father and his partner now reside in their home in Komoka.
[8] The parties initially entered into a separation agreement in April 2018 that dealt with the matrimonial home. They reached a further separation agreement in May 2019 that purported to deal with all issues, including parenting. This separation agreement provided that the father would have parenting time with the children on Mondays and Wednesdays between 4:00 pm and 7:00 pm and on Saturdays for seven hours, or such other times as agreed upon by the parties. Parenting time could be reviewed in 18 months from a child-focused perspective.
[9] The father testified that he felt that he was taken advantage of with this separation agreement and that the mother imposed the parenting terms upon him. He resented his “marginalized” parenting role. He began asking for overnight parenting time shortly after the agreement was signed. The mother was resistant. At trial, the mother acknowledged she was initially rigid in her position about the father’s parental rights. She has since acknowledged the importance of his role in their children’s lives and has been more flexible. She also explained that the children were very young when the parents first separated, making the parenting schedule a challenge. The parties eventually agreed to expand parenting time in July 2022 to one overnight with the father and then in April 2023, they further expanded parenting time with the father to two overnights.
[10] In the meantime, father continued this application seeking joint decision-making, equal parenting time and the consequent adjustment to child support.
[11] The parties were unable to agree on a further interim expansion to parenting time. This was addressed by motion before Moore J. in August 2023. Father sought a schedule that would provide him with six overnights in a two-week schedule. Mother opposed such an increase, given the distance for commuting to school from their father’s Komoka residence, and the additional parenting time already agreed to. She proposed that any further expansion to parenting time be deferred to trial.
[12] Justice Moore determined that in all the circumstances, it was time for the regular parenting schedule to expand on a bi-weekly basis, but on a more gradual basis than as sought by the father. Moore J. ordered parenting time in Week 1 for one weekday overnight and one weekday after school, and in Week 2 for one weekday after school and three consecutive overnights from Thursdays after school until Sundays at 7:30 pm. The court noted it may be a significant change for the parents and children that would require coordination of lunch bags and school materials between the two households.
[13] Their son Robert is now 11 years old and daughters Alia and Elise are aged 9 and 7 years old, respectively. They regularly attend public school in the catchment area of their mother’s home. Outside of school, they are involved in several extracurricular activities depending upon the season, including gymnastics, hockey, and soccer. The children regularly attend church and bible studies with their mother. The father’s partner teaches the children music. The parties communicate about the children through the Talking Parents app.
[14] By the time of trial, the parties had been following the interim parenting schedule as ordered by Moore J. for several months, with some minor adjustments on consent to better accommodate their schedules. The interim parenting order requires the father to have the children returned to the school bus stop the morning following overnight parenting. Due to his teaching schedule, the father has relied on his partner to take the children to the bus stop before she goes to work. Because of their dual job demands, the father and his partner also relied on extended family to help bring the children to the bus stop. Sometimes they have also dropped the children directly at school. Father and his partner would like to be able to have the flexibility of school drop-offs as well as using a before-school program. Mother would prefer the drop-off terms to remain unchanged.
[15] The issues for trial originally included decision-making, parenting time and specific provision for holidays and special occasions, and the impact of these issues on child support. All was in issue until shortly before trial. To their credit, the parties achieved partial minutes of settlement on a substantial number of issues.
[16] The partial minutes of settlement provide that the parties shall make important decisions about the children “together”. They shall exchange information from any third-party professionals relevant to the decision and will engage in discussions with the third-party professional(s) in the event of disagreement. However, following those consultations, the mother retains the right to make a final decision on the issue as it relates to education, major non-emergency health care, and major recreational and religious activities.
[17] The partial minutes address specific holiday and special occasion parenting time. The parties agree they shall each be entitled to two uninterrupted non-consecutive weeks of summer vacation. However, the parties remain in dispute as to the allocation of parenting time for the balance of the summer.
[18] The terms also address other important issues such as the terms of daily communication by the parents with the children, the parents’ attendance at children’s activities and events, and the exchange of information and personal items.
[19] The trial proceeded on the discrete issues of regular and summer parenting time. The court heard testimony from the father, his partner, the mother, and the maternal grandmother.
The Proposed Plans
[20] The father submits that equal sharing time would demonstrate to the children that their parents care for them equally. The children would have the opportunity to see their father in a more significant role in their lives. He and his partner testified that the children have asked why they cannot spend more time with their father. The children are frequently upset when they must return to their mother’s home in the evenings after parenting time with their father. The father submits that equal parenting time would eliminate conflict because there would be fewer issues to discuss between the parents. As the children attend school in the catchment area of their mother’s home in North London and the father and his partner need to ensure they are at work for the beginning of the school day, they intend to register the children into a before-school program for the weekday mornings for which the children are in father’s care. While he proposes a “week-about” equal parenting schedule, the schedule proposes that the children spend two of those weeknights with the other parent, in recognition that the schedule may otherwise separate the children from the other parent for too long a duration.
[21] The proposed “week about” schedule is as follows as between Parent “A” and Parent “B” on a Monday-to-Monday two-week cycle:
| Week | Mon | Tues | Wed | Thurs | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A @ 4pm | A | A – 4 pm B @4 pm | B | B – 4 pm A @4 pm | A | A |
| 2 | B @ 4pm | B | B – 4 pm A @4 pm | A | A – 4 pm B @4 pm | B | B |
[22] The regular summer parenting schedule outside of the specified summer parenting time would follow the above schedule, with the exception that the transition times would be at 9:00 am instead of 4:00 pm.
[23] The mother seeks a continuation of the current schedule in place since the interim order of Moore J. in August 2023. She contends the children are still adjusting to the changes since that order. They are still very young and have difficulty with the transitions between homes, school, and their activities. They benefit from still having the home base that they have known since birth.
[24] The mother’s proposed parenting schedule is as follows:
| Week | Mon | Tues | Wed | Thurs | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mother | Father 4:00 pm -7:30pm | Mother | Father 4:00 pm -7:30pm | Mother | Mother | Mother |
| 2 | Mother | Father 4:00 pm -7:30pm | Mother | Father @ 4:00 pm | Father | Father | Father – 7:30 pm |
[25] Mother submits this schedule should continue into the summer, but for the specific summer parenting time. The parents have already allocated four of the approximate eight weeks of summer vacation to specified summer parenting time. She submits it is otherwise in the children’s best interests to have the regular schedule continue for consistency.
Legal Principles
[26] The court shall take only the best interests of the child into consideration when deciding the allocation of parenting time: Divorce Act, s. 16(1). Determining the best interests of the child is a heavy responsibility for the court, with profound impacts on children, families, and society. In many cases, the answer is difficult — the court must choose between competing and often compelling visions of how to best advance the needs and interests of the child: Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22 at para. 8.
[27] The Divorce Act sets out the primary factors that must be considered in the determination of the best interests of the child: ss. 16(2), (3), (4). I have considered those factors in reaching my decision as to the allocation of parenting time that is in the best interests of the children.
[28] The Parenting Plan Guide prepared by the Ontario Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC-O) (“Parenting Plan Guide”) is a useful resource in the exercise of making child-focused and realistic parenting plans that reflect the developmental needs of young children. It provides a useful summary of basic social science knowledge about the effects of separation on child development and parenting: Bala, N., Himel, J. “Using the AFCC-O Parenting Plan Guide and Template: Resources for Ontario Family Lawyers and their Clients”, (2020) Annual Institute of Family Law, 2020Docs 3849. The Parenting Plan Guide offers valuable information about formulating parenting arrangements that meet the needs of the children: McBennett v. Davis, 2021 ONSC 3610, at para. 92; Melbourne v. Melbourne, 2022 ONSC 2299, at paras. 19-21.
[29] The Divorce Act requires the court to 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: s. 16(6). However, the “maximum contact principle” does not necessarily require equal parenting time. The objective of the maximum contact principle is a child-focused approach to achieving as much parenting time as possible. It may end up being equal time, it may not. The principle is a guide to benefit the child: Knapp v. Knapp, 2021 ONCA 305 at paras. 30-34.
Analysis
[30] It was evident that there is a history of acrimony and conflict between the parties, although there is nothing to suggest “family violence,” as that term is broadly defined in the Divorce Act.
[31] The court understood the situation has improved since the time immediately following the 2018 separation. However, the evidence demonstrated that communications between the parents still tend to be dysfunctional and not consistently child focused.
[32] The children nevertheless appear to be doing well in the care of both parents. Each parent impressed the court as being deeply involved with the children. Each parent understandably wants as much time as possible with the children during these precious years. The father poignantly observed that he has about eight years left to be an engaged father with his son, and that he wants as much time as possible.
[33] Each parent demonstrated their focus on providing the children with a safe and loving environment and enriching activities. There is no question that they are each devoted to their children. Despite the tension, each parent expressed that the other is a good parent to their children. Each recognizes that the children need both parents in their lives. Mother testified she also recognizes and supports that the children enjoy a bond with their father’s partner. She appreciates his partner’s interest in and care for the children. Step-parent Nataline explained that she is bonded with the children like they are her own. She does not seek to replace their mother but has told the children she is like their “bonus” mother. The maternal grandmother also has an important role in the children’s lives. The children have lived with their grandmother all their lives. She is regularly involved with them as a caregiver and support in the family.
[34] Each parent presented thoughtful parenting plans. The father’s parenting plan involved elaborate and detailed written materials with photographs, charts, graphs, and text providing information about his home with his partner, the children’s bedrooms, well-supplied activity and play areas, their extended paternal family, and the children’s schedules and “day in the life” routines.
[35] A perplexing issue in this trial was the role of parental conflict in the appropriate determination of parenting time. The father and his partner testified equal parenting time would reduce opportunities for friction as there would be less need to communicate with one another. The court found this perceived solution difficult to comprehend where, to their credit, the parties have agreed to a form of shared decision-making. The consent terms of shared decision-making on major decisions will necessarily involve effective communication between the parents, irrespective of the allocation of parenting time. The father’s proposed parenting schedule would also still require ongoing communication and coordination between the parents that is focused on the children’s best interests.
[36] The mother testified she thought the parties had navigated the coordination of parenting time and issues reasonably well in the last several months, but for occasional issues which will be reviewed later in these reasons. Mother acknowledged that at the time of separation she took the position that the father had relinquished his parental rights. She also acknowledged that she was initially rigid in her expectations regarding parenting of the children and initially told the father that his partner was not welcome to be present during parenting exchanges or parenting time. She has since changed and recognizes his role and that they need to communicate effectively for the benefit of their children. For her part, she has consciously decided that some issues are not worth a disagreement and has disengaged from what would otherwise be endless debates with the father about parenting issues or the schedule.
[37] The father clarified that he agreed communications had improved and conflict lessened but maintained that his schedule would still further reduce the need for interactions that lead to conflict.
[38] The father limits parental communications to Talking Parents or other writing and avoids in-person or direct discussions with the mother. He said this was because of his negative experiences in speaking with the mother about parenting issues in the past. He had also previously taken to recording conversations with the mother. His partner assists him at times in drafting his communications to the mother on Talking Parents.
[39] The mother testified to wanting to be able to discuss parenting issues with father and for them to be able to attend the children’s activities together. She saw that this could only benefit the children and promote a sense of security. However, both the father and his partner appeared to feel inhibited by the history and ongoing litigation and preferred to keep direct contact to a minimum and communication to writing.
[40] Overall, the parties have made notable gains in navigating the changes to the parenting dynamic since separation. However, the court also finds that there is an ongoing power struggle and tension that appears to be fueled by the father’s resentment of the initial parenting arrangement upon separation and a belief that anything less than equal parenting time fails to respect his role as the children’s father.
[41] For example, the father initially testified to noting an improvement in academic performance and school attendance in the months since his parenting time expanded. This did not appear to be borne out by the report cards. The children have historically done well and continue to do so. Father later clarified he did not intend to suggest the children’s school performance was compromised when they were largely in their mother’s care, but rather that they had continued to do well with the expansion of parenting time. He also clarified that he thought the mother was an effective parent. The reframing is noted, and the court acknowledges that the father and his partner are engaged in supporting the children’s academic development. However, it was the court’s distinct impression that the original tenor of father’s testimony was an implied criticism of mother’s effectiveness, with the suggestion that school performance was lacking until he had the opportunity for more regular involvement with the children.
[42] Father’s partner testified to feeling uncomfortable when dropping the children at their school bus stop after parenting time because the maternal grandmother had been there on occasion. The father wrote to mother to accuse the maternal grandmother of “stalking” his partner. Both the mother and maternal grandmother denied there had been any such conduct. Grandmother testified to this concern in a straightforward fashion. She acknowledged that she would have looked unhappy or unwelcoming to the father in the period following the initial marriage breakdown and with the initial involvement of the father’s new partner. She explained that matters had stabilized with time and that she does not bear them any ill will. She does not stalk or try to intimidate the children’s stepmother. She happened to be out for a walk one morning when Nataline was dropping the children off at the bus stop near their home. I accept the grandmother’s explanation.
[43] Another issue of debate was how their son’s arm came to be bruised when in his mother’s care last year. The court heard evidence that the father saw the bruise. On inquiry, the children told him it was caused by the mother pinching their son on his arm. Father took photographs of the bruise, emailed the images to the mother, and accused her of mistreatment. The mother offered to explain what had happened, but father said he did not care to hear her version of the incident. In emotional testimony, mother explained the bruise happened when she was trying to settle the three children in the rear passenger seat of her car. Their son was seated in the middle and leant against one of his sisters, pinning her hand against her car seat and hurting her. He did not obey his mother’s repeated direction, so she leaned into the middle of the car and pinched his arm to stop him. I accept mother’s explanation that this was an isolated and regrettable incident and that she only did this to intervene. It was unclear as to why this incident came up in the evidence. Father explained that it showed he parented differently. He had raised it with the mother as he was concerned about what had happened. This begs the question as to why he told the mother he was not interested in hearing her explanation and why he involved their son in the issue by taking photographs. The entire tenor to his communication was threatening and did not appear to be focused on the child’s well-being.
[44] Other examples of questionable child-focused communication between the parents that the court heard about, and which suggest the driving issue is control include:
a) Father had taken their daughter Alia with him to work during his parenting time because she felt unwell. He refused the mother’s request to facilitate phone contact between her and Alia. Father’s explanation was that Alia was fine and that they were enjoying their time together. b) Their son returned to mother’s care upset because he forgot his favourite stuffed toy at a hotel while he had been with his father. Mother followed up with father to ensure there were arrangements to retrieve the toy and to find out when “Tundra” could return to their son. Father responded that he had not told mother about the issue because they did not communicate well and that their son could tell her when the toy had arrived. In testimony, the father explained this communication as his effort to make their son responsible for his belongings. c) Mother had previously given home baked Christmas cookies to their son to give to the father and his partner when they picked up the children from her home. Father later told the mother not to send treats with the children again. He testified it made their son uncomfortable. He did not think it was appropriate to involve their son and believed that she had made the gesture in order to “put on a show” in front of her extended family who were present when he picked up the children. The court fails to understand how this gesture could make the child uncomfortable unless he was sensitive to his father’s negative reaction. d) Mother had taken their son to a London Knights hockey game on a special occasion with friends. The schedule became confused, and it occurred during father’s parenting time. The daughters went for their parenting time with father and the plan was for their son to have make-up time with father. Mother did not know when the game would end and asked father to drop their daughters back at her house with their grandmother at the conclusion of parenting time. The father refused to do so until the mother was home, notwithstanding that the maternal grandmother has been part of the children’s homelife since birth and before marital separation. e) On one busy summer weekend, the parents had to coordinate overlapping soccer and church activities. Their son was with his father at the soccer game and needed to get to the church where his mother and sisters were. A family friend known to the father offered to mother that he bring her son from the soccer game to the church. This led to an unpleasant encounter between the father and family friend. Father also later communicated to mother his objections about her reliance on a family friend. This attitude is perplexing given the flexibility father seeks with drop-off terms for school. f) Father and his partner planned a family trip to Florida and wanted to purchase sunglasses for the children through an optometrist of their choice. The couple declined mother’s request to also attend the appointment. Father testified that they were reluctant to attempt this arrangement on the eve of trial. To include mother in the appointment would be “a hard pill to swallow”.
[45] One occasion concerning a school project particularly highlighted a concern about the impact of this power struggle on the children. It also speaks to the question of whether it is the best interests of the children, or a parent’s need to be recognized, that is fueling this issue.
[46] One of their children was to make a school presentation about people she admired. She first selected her sister and her mother. She then also prepared a second project about her stepmother and her sister. This second project became a topic of discussion between the parents on Talking Parents. At trial, father vaguely explained that the second version of the project came about because there was “some concern” that the children were not including their second home and second family and that it was disrespectful to his partner. He claimed that the second project was something his daughter wanted to do and that he and his partner therefore encouraged it. Father also explained that he wanted to continue to do things separately from the mother’s home as “more often than not the projects do not make it to my home.”
[47] This attitude raises some concern about recognition of the child’s need for security and stability and a tendency to at least indirectly involve the child in the parental conflict. The court doubts the child embarked on a second version of the project entirely of her own accord. It is more likely that it was as a result of encouragement or sensitivity to her father’s reaction. Was this second project encouraged in the child’s best interests or to address a parent’s emotional needs?
[48] Father’s testimony and the Talking Parents correspondence demonstrates suspicion or mistrust of mother, and a need to control the discussion and to have the last word. This same pattern revealed itself in cross-examination, where father identified questions that he did not want to answer or wanted asked in a different way. It is challenging to understand how equal parenting time would reduce the conflict, but for quelling the father’s acknowledged resentment of the parenting time status quo since separation. Conflict avoidance is for the benefit of the children. Both father and his partner testified that they wanted “fair” parenting time, and that equal parenting time was what is “fair” in the circumstances. This concept of fairness is not a child-focused rationale for the allocation of parenting time.
[49] The court is without the views and preferences of the children. The parties did not seek involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. This may well not have been practical given the age of the youngest child. In any event, the father and stepmother testified that the children expressed that they wanted to spend more time with their father and that there are often tears when it is time to leave and go to their mother’s home. Mother testified that she had noticed the children appeared to be struggling with the transitions between the homes. Grandmother also noticed some changes in the children’s behaviour since the expansion of parenting time, where one of the children will try to sleep with her at night.
[50] Setting aside any dispute about the children’s views and preferences, which I cannot resolve, it would seem to be a common understanding that the children understandably have had challenges with moving between the homes and will need the support of their parents and caregivers to feel secure and stable in both environments.
Decision
[51] The determination of the most appropriate allocation of parenting time depends upon many factors, including the age of the child, the child’s temperament, the child’s stage of development, schedules of the parties and the child, proximity of residences, the child’s ability to manage transitions, and school location. The schedule must accord with the child’s best interests: K.M. v. J.R., 2022 ONSC 111 at para. 373.
[52] Neither parent proposed individualized parenting schedules. I would tend to agree that given the children’s ages, their school, their extracurricular activities, and the practicalities of the relative distances of the parents’ homes, that it is in the children’s best interest for parenting time for all three of them to be on the same schedule at this stage, particularly as the children can offer security, continuity, and stability for one another in the changes between family households. It may be that as the children mature, develop separate interests, and make their views and preferences known, more individualized parenting time schedules will be necessary.
[53] But at this time in their lives, I conclude that it is in the children’s best interests for the current interim parenting schedule to continue as the regular parenting schedule.
[54] The children should have a primary residence. Their primary residence should continue to be in their mother’s home. Their mother’s house has been their home base since birth. Their school is in that catchment area. This arrangement is consistent with the status quo since each child’s birth and since their parents’ separation. I have not applied any “presumption” in favour of the status quo. This longstanding arrangement is but one factor that I have considered in making this determination.
[55] The Parenting Plan Guide recognizes that a “home base” model can be appropriate because of practical concerns regarding school, extracurricular activities, and peer relationships – Parenting Plan Guide p. 22. This is not to be confused with preferring one parent to another.
[56] I understand the father’s resentment of the initial parenting arrangement and schedule; however, it is not entirely surprising that the mother would have assumed primary care of the children at the time of separation. The children were very young; the youngest was nursing. These factors may well have had initial significance in the plan. The mother has been the children’s primary caregiver throughout their young lives. The children have thrived with that arrangement.
[57] There is no doubt the children are also flourishing while in their father’s care and that they regard his partner as part of their family. It is in their best interests for him to continue to have a meaningful and significant role in their lives. In my view, the current regular parenting schedule promotes that bond.
[58] The court’s impression from the evidence is that the father defines his parental status as commensurate with equal parenting time and that he sees it as a logical conclusion that equal parenting time is in the best interests of the children - anything less means his role is secondary. This is not the case. The children benefit from their father’s involvement. Despite the issues I have raised about communication, cooperation and whether certain actions have been motivated by child-focused concerns, he should continue to have a significant role in their lives.
[59] The parties should expect that the parenting plan will evolve with the children’s ages, schooling, and activities and particularly as their views and preferences become known. I cannot predict how the plan or plans may evolve in this case.
[60] While the father’s proposed week-about parenting schedule is commendable in its efforts to promote equality, it is not in their best interests at this time for the regular parenting time to expand on the terms proposed.
[61] Parents must be realistic about their capacities and commitments. Issues such as work schedules, and the relative locations of homes and transportation, will all affect parenting schedules: Parenting Plan Guide, p. 12. In that context, I find the week-about plan within the regular parenting schedule is not practical and child-focused when considering the children’s ages, their activities, the distance between the parents’ homes and the location of their school. This plan would regularly entail long commutes for the children to and from their father’s home to school and needs to be balanced with their activities, friendships, parents’ work schedules and other demands. It is more likely that the demands of this schedule would undermine the quality of the time enjoyed by the children with each parent than promote it. The schedule necessarily involves frequent transitions for the three children, with two weekday overnights with the other parent. Transitions by their nature are difficult. The parties all testified to the children having difficulty with the transitions. Adding mid-week transitions of this nature and to this extent risks adding to their burden. Fewer transitions would present fewer opportunities for stress to the children. Moreover, I do not accept that this schedule would be the emollient to parental conflict as urged by the father, other than to perhaps quell his concern about fairness. This schedule would demand a level of child-focused communication, cooperation and coordination between the parents that appears to be challenging for the parties at present.
[62] However, I find it is in the children’s best interests to move to a week-about parenting schedule as proposed by the father during the summer holiday months, subject to the terms for specified summer parenting time agreed to by the parties.
[63] This summer schedule would account for approximately four weeks of the summer holiday and gives effect to the goal that each child should have as much time with their parent as is consistent with their best interests. The children are flourishing in each parent’s care. This summer schedule will afford an opportunity for the children to enjoy both families without the pressures of the school year schedule and with some time to ensure they do not miss the other parent. They can enjoy week-about parenting time during this period without the need to navigate and account for the practical demands of school and the parents’ respective work schedules, given that the parents are both employed in the public education sector. It would be expected that each parent would consult one another and accommodate the children’s summer programming into their respective parenting schedules, such as summer camps, lessons, recreation, celebrations, children’s visits, and activities with friends, and of course, to be flexible and consider the expressed views and preferences of their children.
Order
[64] For these reasons, a final order shall issue under the Divorce Act as follows:
a. A final order shall issue in accordance with the partial minutes of settlement signed April 9, 2024. b. The Respondent shall have parenting time with the children, Robert Michael Joseph Dupuis, born October 14, 2023, Alia Anna Dupuis, born December 15, 2015, and Elise Christine Dupuis, born October 8, 2017 (“the Children”) as follows: a) Week 1: Tuesday after school (or 4:00 p.m.) to Wednesday at the bus stop (or 9:00 a.m.) and Thursday after school (or 4:00 p.m.) to 7:30 p.m. b) Week 2: Tuesday after school (or 4:00 p.m.) to 7:30 p.m. and Thursday after school (or 4:00 p.m.) until Sunday at 7:30 p.m. c) Such other times as the parties may agree in writing. c. Commencing on the first day of summer vacation and subject to each party’s two uninterrupted non-consecutive weeks of summer vacation with the Children, the parenting schedule shall be as follows: a) Week 1: The respondent, Robert Michael Joseph Dupuis shall have the Children in his care from Monday at 9:00 a.m. until the following Monday at 9:00 a.m. The applicant Lianne Dupuis shall have the Children in her care from Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. to Friday at 9:00 a.m. b) Week 2: The applicant, Lianne Dupuis shall have the Children in her care from Monday at 9:00 a.m. until the following Monday at 9:00 a.m. The respondent Robert Michael Joseph Dupuis shall have the Children in his care from Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. until Friday at 9:00 a.m. c) Such other times as the parties may agree in writing. d) At the conclusion of summer vacation, the regular parenting schedule shall resume.
Child Support
[65] The court understood that the parties agreed the issue of child support would be assessed and reviewed after the determination of parenting time. If the parties are unable to agree on any recalculation of child support flowing from this decision, they may write to my attention for further direction.
Costs
[66] If the parties are not able to resolve the issue of costs, the applicant may make written submissions within 10 days of the release of these reasons. The respondent will have 10 days after the receipt of the applicant’s submissions to respond. There shall be no reply without leave.
[67] The parties’ submissions shall be no more than three pages, double-spaced and a minimum 12-point font, excluding any offers to settle and a bill of costs. The party opposing a claim for costs shall include documentation showing their own fees and expenses in the documentation: Family Law Rules, r. 24(12.2).
