Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-23-114-000 DATE: 2024/11/25 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Kristina Caniga, Applicant AND: Brandon Thwaites, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice M. Tweedie

COUNSEL: A. Sohail, Counsel for the Applicant E. Carroll, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: October 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 2024

Reasons for Judgment

1The issue before the Court is what decision-making regime and parenting schedule is in the best interests of Violet Rose Gail Thwaites, born March 8, 2022.

2The parties lived together from approximately July or August 2021 until May 29, 2022.

3On the morning of May 29, 2022, while the Applicant mother was sleeping, the Respondent father took the child to the home of his parents, the paternal grandparents, who lived nearby. Such was done so the mother could remain sleeping, and the father could rest while the infant was cared for by the father’s parents. The father texted the mother to let her know where he and the child were. The mother attended the paternal grandparents’ home when she woke and learned that the paternal grandparents had taken the child to visit her paternal great grandmother at a retirement home. The mother was extremely upset, both about the father taking the child to the paternal grandparents’ home, and about the child being taken to the retirement home. This dispute led to the parties’ separation.

4After the separation, the child resided with the mother. the Respondent father had parenting time as arranged through the mother. There were no overnight visits. The father would text the mother each week and the mother would determine whether the visit would take place on Saturday or Sunday. The visits lasted from approximately 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

5The parties entered into counselling in approximately October 2022. The mother believes that the counseling was for the purpose of working on and resuming their romantic relationship. The father believes the counseling was for the purpose of working on their co-parenting relationship. Whatever the purpose of the counseling, the parties did not resume a romantic relationship and did not resume cohabiting.

6From October 2022 to February 2024, the father would visit with the child both when he spent time with the mother and when he exercised parenting time alone with the child. He began having the child for overnights, usually every other weekend from Friday after he was done work until sometime on Sunday. The mother determined the pick-up time on Sundays, and it would vary. This schedule was inconsistent, and the mother would unilaterally change it from time to time.

7On Family Day 2023 the mother became upset with the father. She testified that they had made plans to spend Family Day together with the child, however, the father did not return her messages and calls that day. She attended his home, angry and upset. When she realized he was not home, she entered his home and accessed his computer. She was charged on February 24, 2023, with break and enter on a dwelling house, and unauthorized use of a computer. Her undertaking prohibited her from communicating with or having contact with the father, except though legal counsel or a third party specifically for making parenting arrangements.

8On June 10, 2024, the mother was convicted of the offence of being unlawfully in a dwelling. She is subject to a 12-month probation order, which prohibits her from having contact with the father “except pursuant to a family court order made after June 10, 2024, in the presence of or through legal counsel, for the purposes of making contact arrangements through a mutually agreed upon third party for, or having contact with, [her] child.” She is also prohibited from being within 100 meters of any place where she knows the father to be, except for required court attendances, pursuant to a family court order made after June 10, 2024, and in the presence of or through legal counsel.

9The mother testified that she is participating in the PARS program.

10After the mother’s arrest on February 24, 2023, the father made efforts to arrange parenting time with the child through the maternal grandparents. He was unsuccessful.

11The mother commenced these proceedings on March 12, 2023.

12At that time, the father was still not being provided with parenting time and he brought an urgent motion. An urgent case conference was held on June 13, 2023, and the father resumed parenting time.

13The current order relating to parenting is the order of Justice Madsen dated July 13, 2023, which was made on the consent of the parties. Pursuant to this order the father has parenting time on alternate weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and each Wednesday from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

14There is no current order relating to decision making.

15Each parent has re-partnered and is cohabiting with their new partner. The mother has another child with her new partner, who was approximately 6 months old at the time of the trial.

16On June 14, 2024, the parties signed final partial minutes of settlement that resolved the issues of exchange of and access to third party information about the child, primary residency as with the mother, holiday parenting time, exchange of the child for parenting time, relocation, travel, child support, s.7 expenses, and life insurance. A final order was granted pursuant to these minutes of settlement on October 2, 2024.

[17] The mother seeks an order as follows: (a) That she have sole decision-making responsibility for the child, and that she shall consult with the Respondent on all major decisions and provide him 48 hours to provide his input. (b) That the Respondent have parenting time as follows:

• commencing October 1, 2024, every Wednesday from 5 pm to 7 pm, and on alternating weekends from Friday 5 pm to Sunday 7 pm;
• commencing January 1, 2025, every Wednesday from 5 pm to Thursday morning at 8:30 am, or drop off to daycare, and on alternating weekends from Friday 5 pm to Sunday 7 pm;
• commencing January 1, 2026, every Wednesday from 5 pm to Thursday morning at 8:30 am, or drop off to daycare, and on alternating weekends from Thursday 5 pm to Sunday 7 pm.

[18] The father seeks an order as follows: (a) That the Applicant and Respondent shall have joint decision-making responsibility for the child. They shall consult and confer in writing, unless otherwise agreed, with respect to all major decisions affecting the child’s well-being. (b) That the Respondent shall have parenting time as follows:

Week one:

• Wednesday from end of daycare/school, or 5:00 p.m., until Friday morning at the start of daycare/school or 7:00 a.m.

Week two

• Wednesday from end of daycare/school, or 5:00 p.m., until Friday morning at the start of daycare/school or 7:00 a.m.; and
• Friday from the end of daycare/school, or 5:00 p.m., until Monday morning at the start of daycare/school or 7:00 a.m.

The Law

19Section 20 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 12, sets out that except as otherwise provided in the CLRA, a child’s parents are equally entitled to decision-making responsibility with respect to the child. It further provides that if the parents of a child live separate and apart and the child lives with one of them with the consent, implied consent, or acquiescence of the other, the right of the other to exercise the entitlement to decision making responsibility is suspended until a separation agreement or order provides otherwise.

20Section 24 of the CLRA provides that, in allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child. This is not a presumption of equal parenting time.

21Section 24 of the CLRA further provides that the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child when making an order relating to decision making and parenting time. The court is directed to consider all factors relating to the circumstances of the child and give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security and well-being. Section 24(3) of the CLRA provides a non-exhaustive list of factors relating to the circumstances of the child, all of which this court has considered, some of which are specifically discussed.

Evidence of the Parties

The Mother’s Witnesses

22The mother testified and called her partner, Thomas Purcell, as a witness.

23Mr. Purcell was a credible witness. While his answers were brief, he answered questions without hesitation. He testified what he had observed, even if it might have been construed as being favourable to the Respondent.

24The mother, however, did not present as a credible witness. She answered all questions in a manner to convince the Court that she was the superior parent. She would not agree to any facts that would suggest that the father was a good and responsible parent.

25The mother’s conduct during cross examination was concerning. During her examination in chief, she recalled events very clearly. In cross examination, she claimed to not remember facts that were very likely known to her, such as how far away the paternal grandparents lived from the parties when they cohabited. Further, she was reluctant to admit that a text exchange, presented as an exhibit, was between her and the father, even though it was evident on the face of it. Upon further cross examination she did eventually agree. When challenged on cross examination about some actions and words, she would become defiant and attempt to justify her decisions, instead of acknowledging that she could have done better.

26During cross examination the mother would not answer questions put to her, questioning out loud how they could possibly be relevant. This court had to remind her several times that it was the Court that decides relevance, and that her counsel was able to make objections on her behalf. She would become upset, angry, and defiant. The mother even refused on cross examination to provide the name of her partner, who she was calling as a witness.

27The mother also had difficulty following the direction of the Court. She did not attend the first day of trial in person, although her request for a virtual hearing had been denied and her lawyer had directed her to attend. This was a wasted day. After the mother’s non-attendance, I reluctantly acceded to the request of her lawyer to continue the trial virtually. I was not confident the mother would attend in person and given the amount of time that the matter had been outstanding, and the father’s request for expanded parenting time, it was important to ensure that the matter proceeded.

28The mother’s conduct during the father’s portion of the trial, while it continued virtually, was concerning. She interrupted the proceedings. She talked back to the Court. She did not pay attention and engaged in other tasks. Proceedings had to be paused as a result. She was frequently reminded that her participation and attention were necessary to properly instruct her counsel. She disregarded my comments. She failed to return to virtual court after the lunch break on the third day of trial, and an afternoon of trial time was wasted. As a result, I ordered that the trial resume in person. This is addressed in my endorsement dated October 3, 2024.

29The mother failed to disclose criminal charges she was facing at the time she swore her 35.1 Affidavit on March 2, 2023. Subsequently, she did not provide an updated 35.1 Affidavit for trial that reflected her new living arrangements with Mr. Purcell and his child with whom he exercises parenting time.

30The mother also advanced contradictory evidence. The mother testified that the child cannot be away from her for long periods of time, yet advanced evidence that she attends daycare every weekday from at least 9:15 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and she is thriving in that environment. On the second day of trial, a Thursday, the mother failed to return to court after the lunch recess. She claimed to her lawyer that she needed to pick up the child from daycare. However, she had earlier testified that the child was picked up from daycare by the maternal grandparents every Thursday and spent the evening at their home.

The Father’s Witnesses

31The father testified. He also called as witnesses his friend - Donald Runstedler, his father - Robert Thwaites, and his partner - Laura Steffler.

32Mr. Runstedler and Ms. Steffler were straightforward in their answers. They required little prompting in examination in chief, and their evidence was not challenged in cross examination.

33While Robert Thwaites was generally straightforward in his answers, he was somewhat argumentative in cross examination. He would not directly answer some questions put to him, instead turning the answer into a further allegation against the mother. The animosity between the mother and Robert Thwaites was evident.

34There was evidence given by the mother, father, and Robert Thwaites, regarding a telephone conversation the day of the parties’ separation when the child was approximately 2 ½ months old. The mother and father both testified that the conversation was between the mother and Robert Thwaites. Robert Thwaites testified that it was a conversation between the father and himself. I find the evidence of the father to be most credible and that the conversation happened between Ms. Caniga and Robert Thwaites.

35Ultimately, I find the evidence as to what happened during that conversation to have little weight on the determination of the issues. The mother relies on the conversation to establish that the child was in distress because she could hear the child crying during the call. If the child was crying, while in the care of the paternal grandparents, this alone is not evidence that she was at risk.

36The father answered all questions with thought and consistency. He did not evade questions in cross examination. He remained calm and measured throughout his evidence. While he was firm and consistent in his cross examination, he was able to speak comfortably about the strengths of the mother as a parent, despite his belief that she has minimized his role as the child’s father. His credibility was not impeached on cross examination.

37If there is any discrepancy in the evidence, I prefer the evidence of the father.

Analysis

38Both parents love their daughter very much. When describing her the faces of both parents lit up, and they spoke of the little things she does with love and affection. This was the same for all witnesses. Violet has the benefit of the love and support of many family members and friends.

Nature and Strengths of Relationships

39The child has a good relationship with both parents.

40Both parents can provide connections to extended family. The child has good connections with her maternal grandparents, her mother’s new partner, and her half sibling. The child has good connections with the father’s new partner and her family, paternal grandparents, and paternal aunt. It is important that the child’s time with each parent be sufficient to allow for the meaningful development of these relationships, in order to feel a member of both her maternal and paternal family.

Plan of Care and Ability to Meet the Child’s Needs

41Each parent can provide appropriate care to Violet. Each described daily routines that are child focused, age appropriate, and ensures the child’s needs are met. Each parent has external family, friend, and community supports to assist them as required in raising Violet.

42The mother raised concerns that the child often got sick while in the care of the father. The illnesses complained of were minor ailments. The mother alleges that the child contracted hand foot and mouth disease while in the care of the father. The mother testified that she self-diagnosed the child with this ailment and did not take the child to a doctor for verification or treatment. Accordingly, there is no compelling evidence before the court that the child had hand foot and mouth disease, and there is no evidence to suggest that the father recklessly exposed the child to anyone who had the disease.

43There is no evidence to suggest that the father recklessly exposes the child to any illness. The mother submits that on the date of separation the father, and the paternal grandparents, were reckless and exposed the child to harm when the paternal grandparents brought the child to visit the paternal great grandmother at her retirement home without the mother’s knowledge or permission. The risk alleged was due to the potential exposure to Covid-19. However, there is no evidence that there were any forms of lock-down, disease outbreak, or other restrictions that would establish that the child was at risk when visiting with her paternal great grandmother.

44I find that the mother and father are equally skilled in meeting the child’s day to day needs.

Each Parent’s Ability to Support the Child’s Relationship with the Other Parent

45The evidence establishes that the mother is not fully supportive of the child’s relationship with the father, nor fully recognizes the importance of the father’s involvement in the child’s life.

46The mother’s position is that the child needs to remain on the current parenting schedule so as to enable the child to strengthen her relationship with Mr. Purcell and the new child that Mr. Purcell and the mother have just had.

47The mother and Mr. Purcell testified that the child has a connection to her half sibling and is a great big sister. I agree that it is important for the child to continue to be able to strengthen this sibling relationship. However, this relationship is not to be given priority over the child’s relationship with her father.

48Mr. Purcell testified that he attends the child’s medical appointments, when he can, and that he and the mother make decisions about the child. Contrast this with how the mother involves the father. She does not involve the father in the child’s medical appointments, nor does she engage him in decision making. The mother testified that she does not tell the father when she attends medical appointments, she only tells the father if there is medication prescribed that must be administered during his parenting time.

49The mother chose the child’s daycare without advising the father.

50The mother’s original application sought an order permitting her to change the child’s name to remove the father’s surname, although, that order was not pursued at trial.

51There is also a pattern of the mother limiting the father’s time with the child.

52Various text messages were introduced into evidence by the parties. There were messages shortly following the parties’ separation in which the mother said that the father would not see the child until he returned certain items to the mother. In cross examination, the mother agreed she would become angry with the father when he would not respond to her messages in which she wished to discuss the status of their relationship. She further agreed that she would thereafter not respond to his messages when he asked to see the child. In cross examination, the mother was confident that her threats to withhold the child were justified and appropriate.

53Eventually, starting in October 2022, the father had parenting time with the child every other weekend from Friday after work to varying times on Sunday. The father testified that on occasion the mother would not allow the child to visit according to this schedule if she was upset with the father. There are text messages from early 2023 in which the mother details her upset with the father for not continuing their romantic relationship. There is a specific text message, from this period, in which the mother states that she has blocked him on all platforms, will not be able to contact him, and asks him to stay away from her and the child.

54On February 24, 2023, the mother was charged with breaking and entering the father’s apartment and unauthorized use of a computer. She became subject to a criminal undertaking prohibiting contact with the father except through a third party for making arrangements for parenting. The father tried to obtain parenting time by reaching out to the maternal grandparents, but with no success. He knew of no other person to contact. The mother made no effort to enable the father to have parenting time and as a result, the child did not see the father from February 24, 2023, until June 13, 2023, following an urgent case conference initiated by the father.

55In March 2024, the mother threatened to withhold the father’s parenting time after he renewed the child’s health card when the renewal notice arrived at his address.

56Contrast this with the father’s evidence. He agreed in partial final minutes of settlement that the child’s primary residence is to be with the mother. He did not make allegations of inappropriate parenting by the mother. He allowed the mother to determine his parenting time following separation. He attempted to avoid litigation despite the mother’s inconsistency in offering parenting time.

57The father testified that there are days where the child says she just wants to sleep at his home, but he tells her that she needs to return to see the mother. The father testified that the child is excited to see her mother when he returns her at the end of parenting time, just as she is excited to see him at the beginning of his parenting time. Conversely, the mother testified that the child is emotionless when she sees the father at the beginning of his parenting time.

58The father’s tone in his messages with the mother is respectful, brief, and encourages focus on the child’s needs and interests.

59The father acknowledged that, despite times that the mother has withheld or controlled parenting time, there have also been occasions where she has accommodated his requests for changes.

60At the end of his evidence in chief, the father was asked if there was anything else he wanted to tell the court. He stated that he wanted the court to know that his actions were all in the best interests of raising “our” daughter. His hopes are that he and the mother can eventually come to “some coparenting ability together” because that is in the child’s interests and animosity does not benefit anybody. After the completion of the trial, I have the impression that this is a genuine reflection of the father’s views on coparenting with the mother.

Parenting Time Schedule

61The mother asserts that the child’s age requires the mother to be the primary caregiver. She submits that maintaining the status quo will promote stability for the child, and that the child is unable to transition back and forth between the parents’ home without significant disruption to the child’s mood and demeanour.

62The father asserts that his proposed parenting time schedule is consistent with s. 24(6) of the CLRA, which states that in allocating parenting time the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child. He asserts that he is able to meet the child’s needs, as competently as the mother, and is supportive of the child’s relationship with the mother.

63Although mother’s counsel did not refer to it specifically in oral submissions before the court, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – Ontario Chapter (AFCC-O) Parenting Plan Guide Version 2.0 (2021) (“the Guide”) was referred to in the Applicant’s case brief, and other written materials uploaded to Case Center by the Applicant. Accordingly, I will make some comment on the Guide here.

64The Guide is a summary of social science research about the needs of children at various ages and provides guidance as to what types of parenting arrangements can meet these needs.

65The mother relied on the Guide to support her position that the father’s parenting time be gradually increased. She based this on her assertion that the father has had limited parenting time with the child and that his current parenting time is an “appropriate normal parenting time schedule for a 30-month-old”, based on the recommendations found in the Guide.

66The suggestions relevant to this family, as found in the Guide, are as follows:

Schedules for toddlers, 18 to 36 months: If parents have fully shared in the caretaking arrangements before the child has reached this age, the child has an easy temperament, or there are older siblings sharing a similar schedule, parenting time can be shared equally - as long as the separations from each parent are not too long (no more than two to three days or two nights for example).

If the child has some trouble with transitions, or is not particularly adaptable or flexible, or if the parents are unable to effectively communicate with each other about the child, it may be better for a child this age to have a primary residence with one parent and frequent contact, including some overnight visits, with the other parent (for example three contacts during the week, made up of one or two 4 to 6 hour blocks and one or two non-consecutive overnights).

Schedules for pre-schoolers, aged 3 to 5 years : Preschoolers can tolerate longer absences from a parent, but a child’s temperament and the pre-separation parenting arrangements must be considered. Transitional objects, such as a favorite toy, stuffed animal or blanket, moving between the two homes can help a preschooler manage sadness and anxiety.

If one parent was primarily responsible for the child and the other parent had limited involvement with the child’s daily routine, the child should continue to reside with that parent, with a possible plan of step-up care to increase the involvement and skills of the other parent. This might start with two or three 4-hour blocks of parenting time per week, building up to one longer block (likely on a weekend) that may include an overnight. As a child becomes more comfortable moving between the two homes, one or two overnights a week might be added.

If the child has trouble adapting to transitions, or one parent has less time available for childcare or less experience with the care of the child, parents may find that a plan that involves a child spending more time with one parent provides greater stability for the child through this stage of development. This arrangement may involve a schedule of care with the other parent having some midweek contact and care every other weekend. The weekend could start with one overnight and may then be extended over time to include Friday night, or Sunday night, or both.

If both parents were employed outside the home at the time of separation and were equally involved in the child’s care, it may be appropriate to have an arrangement with roughly equal care, but not more than 3 nights away from either parent. At the early stages of separation, the parents might consider splitting each weekend so that the child has one full stay-at-home day and overnight with each parent as well as some weekday contact. While this may not be the best long-term plan for the parents, it may help the child at this stage of development. This type of arrangement may be a “2-3-2-2-3-2” schedule, with care transition days starting at 10 am or at the end of daycare or school.

67There is much value in the Guide. It is a helpful reference for parents and their lawyers as they plan coparenting schedules upon separation. It can also provide helpful, research-based information about child development to the court while making determinations in the best interests of children. However, the court must be cautious and not use the Guide as a default position. The Guide should be used as reference tool only when determining the best interests of the child, an analysis which must also include a thorough consideration of the cognitive and social development, temperament, needs, and history of the specific child before the court, together with an analysis of the history of family dynamics.

68The child is already spending weekend overnights in the care of the father. These visits go well and there is no evidence that the child’s well-being is compromised by those visits.

69The evidence establishes that the child has spent time in the care of several different caregivers: the mother, the mother’s partner, the mother’s parents, daycare, the father, the father’s parents, and the father’s partner. There is no evidence that she does not do well in the care of all these caregivers, or that the transitions between them are problematic for her.

[70] The evidence establishes the following: (a) the child thrives at daycare; (b) the child enjoys spending time in the care of both sets of grandparents; (c) the child has good relationships with each parent’s new partner; (d) the child easily formed positive relationships with the mother of the father’s partner and the father’s friends; (e) the child does not have any concerning behaviours during parenting exchanges; and (f) the child is a happy, busy, engaging toddler and appears to be meeting all developmental cognitive and social-emotional milestones.

71There is no evidence that there were disruptions in the child’s demeanour, mood, or presentation in the hours or days following the transition from one parent’s care to the other’s.

72A graduated increase is not necessary for the child’s best interests, nor is it consistent with the principle set out in s.24(6) of the CLRA. The child has a strong and established relationship with her father. Her father is able to meet all her needs in this moment.

73Further, the Court is not confident that the mother will follow a term which provides for gradual access. Her attitude towards agreements, orders, and the authority of court is of significant concern. There is a risk that her attitude will at best result in her assigning her own interpretation to how the increases are ordered and thereby, in turn, not accurately follow the order. At worst, the mother may conduct her own assessment at the time of increase, deem for herself that it is not in the child’s best interests for parenting time to expand, and then simply not comply.

[74] The following evidence establishes that the mother has difficulty following court orders, alongside a reduced respect for the court process: (a) She broke into the father’s apartment and accessed his personal computer. Even when cross examined on this, at trial, she had no remorse. In fact, she was defiant and continued to assert that she was justified in her actions as the father should have been responding to her text and the door was unlocked when she broke in. It is unclear to the Court whether the child was with the mother when she broke into the father’s home. (b) The mother consistently attends parenting exchanges, which is in direct breach of her probation order. She testified that she was told by her criminal lawyer that she was allowed to be present, however, the terms of her probation order are very clear in that she is not to be within 100m of the father except pursuant to a family court order made after the probation order (of which there is none), or in the presence of legal counsel. (c) The mother has at the last minute not honoured agreements about parenting time. Further, the mother has not followed the court’s order as it relates to parenting time. (d) The mother twice used the phrase “tit for tat” as her rationale for her non-compliance with agreements and orders: once when testifying that she did not need to share information about the child if the father did not ask, and another when justifying her denial of parenting time because she wanted to celebrate her birthday with the child (the father had the child on his birthday, so she should have the child when she wanted to celebrate hers). (e) Lastly, as noted earlier, the mother’s conduct during the trial demonstrated a lack of respect for the judicial process, the authority of the Court, and court orders.

75For all of the above factors, the Court finds that the parenting schedule in the child’s best interests is that proposed by the father.

Decision Making

76Justice Madsen summarized the law as it relates to decision making in Gaynor v. Cruz Belliard, 2024 ONSC 1661, at paras. 88-90:

88 The level of conflict between the parties is a crucial consideration in determining whether joint decision-making is appropriate. Joint decision-making is frequently contraindicated where there is significant conflict: see Kaplanis v. Kaplanis (2005), 10 R.F.L. (6th) 373 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 10-11. It is a misuse of sole decision-making responsibility where information is not shared or worse, where access to information is blocked. Awarding sole responsibility for major decision-making where a party has misused this on a temporary basis rewards past inappropriate behaviour: see J.Y. v. L.F.-T., 2019 ONSC 1718, 22 R.F.L. (8th) 272 (Div. Ct.), at para. 15; and T.T.U. v. A.M.U., 2024 ONSC 677, at para. 18.

89 Decision-making authority helps ensure that a parent’s relationship with their child is not marginalized. See Rigillo v. Rigillo, 2019 ONCA 548, 31 R.F.L. (8th) 356, at para. 12; Khurmi v. Sidhu, 2022 ONSC 6413, at para. 14; and T.T.U., at para. 18.

90 The goal in crafting an appropriate decision-making regime is to promote the child’s “right to grow up within a parenting regime that is co-operative and effective, where decisions are made in a child-focused way and with the least amount of acrimony and stress.”: see McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, at para. 96, citing J.B.H. v. T.L.G., 2014 ONSC 3569, at para. 354; and Mane v. Mane, 2023 ONSC 5343, at para. 85.

77It is important to a child’s well-being for them to know that both parents, to the extent that it is in their best interests, participating in their life. This participation does not only include spending time with the child but also playing an active role in making decisions that will shape the child’s life.

78The mother submits that she has been the sole decision maker for the child since her birth and the status quo should continue. However, this is a status quo that she has manipulated. She has never involved the father in decision making. She gatekeeps information about the child. She is selective in the information she provides to the father. She does not appreciate that it is in the child’s best interests that the father have knowledge of all important events in the child’s life.

79The mother minimizes the father’s role in the child’s life. More than once during her evidence she stated that on the day of separation, the father “took the baby without my permission.” The parties were not separated at the time, and the father messaged the mother to tell him where he and the child were. Being the child’s father, he was entitled to decide to take the child to the paternal grandparent’s home. He did not need permission. Further, the mother has made decisions in the absence of the father without even advising him of these decisions. She takes her to the doctor without advising, she enrolled her in daycare without advising, she moved without advising.

80The mother’s communication with the father is inconsistent, both in frequency and in tone. She is often rude and dismissive, includes comments that are not respectful, and focuses on things unrelated to the wellbeing of the child. She does not engage in dialogue and open sharing of ideas. She merely imposes her expectations on the father regarding the care of the child. The father, on the other hand, for the most part is respectful and child focused. He provides information and reaches out for guidance about the child’s meals, routine, and health.

81Parental disagreements about decisions to be made regarding children are normal. This is the nature of co-parenting whether the parents are co-parenting while in a romantic relationship or not in a romantic relationship. Perfection in communication is not required. However, there needs to be some evidence that the parents are able to have discussions that result in effective decision-making. See Jackson v. Jackson, 2017 ONSC 1566.

[82] There is sufficient evidence that these parents can make decisions together. There are times when these parents are able to set aside differences for the benefit of the child. For example, (a) exchanges go well; (b) they have successfully coordinated the child’s toilet training; (c) the parties agreed on the child’s baptism and both parents attended; (d) the parties are able to communicate about treatment of the child’s illnesses; and (e) the parties are able to communicate about the child’s diet and nutrition.

83There is no evidence that either parent has made or will make poor decisions for the child. As stated earlier, both parents love the child very much, and want to ensure her emotional and physical well-being. An order for joint decision making is in the child’s best interests.

Order

84The Applicant, Kristina Caniga, and the Respondent, Brandon Thwaites, shall have joint decision-making responsibility for the child, Violet Thwaites (female), born March 8, 2022. They shall consult and confer in writing, unless otherwise agreed, with respect to all major decisions affecting the child’s well-being.

85The Respondent, Brandon Thwaites, shall have parenting time with the child, Violet Thwaites (female), born March 8, 2022, as follows:

WEEK ONE: Wednesday from the end of daycare/school, or 5:00 p.m., until Friday morning at the start of daycare/school or 7:00 a.m.

WEEK TWO: Wednesday from the end of daycare/school, or 5:00 p.m., until Thursday morning at the start of daycare/school or 7:00 a.m.; and Friday from the end of daycare/school, or 5:00 p.m., until Monday morning at the start of daycare/school or 7:00 a.m.

86The Applicant, Kristina Caniga, shall forthwith provide to the Respondent, Brandon Thwaites, the names, addresses, and contact information for all dental and medical professionals involved with the child and the child’s daycare.

87The Applicant, Kristina Caniga, shall forthwith provide to the Respondent, Brandon Thwaites, notarized copies of the child’s birth certificate and health card.

88All other claims are dismissed.

89The parties shall have meaningful discussions to resolve the issue of costs. If they are unable to resolve said issue, the parties shall file written submissions, no longer than 4 pages, double spaced, together with Bills of Costs by January 8, 2025. Submissions shall be filed through the online portal and then emailed to Kitchener.SCJJA@ontario.ca noting the portal confirmation number. Extensions will not be granted. If submissions are not received, it will be presumed that costs have been resolved.

M. Tweedie J.