Stewart v. Hunter, 2011 ONCJ 902

Simcoe Registry No. F233/06 DATE: 2011·XII·16 CITATION: Stewart v. Hunter , 2011 ONCJ 902 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: BRANDI STEWART, Applicant, — AND — JOSEPH HUNTER, Respondent. Before Justice Kevin A. Sherwood Oral Reasons for Judgment delivered on 16 December 2011 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS CITED Child Support Guidelines , O. Reg. 391/97 [as amended],

section 7 . Children’s Law Reform Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C-12 [as amended],

section 24 , subsection 24 (2),

section 29 and

section 36 . Applicant Brandi Stewart .................................................................................... on her own behalf Respondent Joseph Hunter ................................................................................... on his own behalf [ 1 ] JUSTICE K.A. SHERWOOD ( orally ):— Brandi Stewart and Joseph Hunter began dating in 2003. In August of 2003 they began living together. They separated in May of 2005. Ms. Stewart and Mr. Hunter are the biological parents of the child Madison Mercedes Anne Hunter, born on 25 October 2003. [ 2 ] In June of 2006, Ms.

Stewart commenced an application to deal with custody and access of the child. That application was subsequently resolved by a final order of Justice Lawrence P. Thibideau dated 5 September 2007, which was made pursuant to minutes of settlement that were filed. [ 3 ] The 5 September 2007 order of Justice Thibideau provides that the applicant, Ms. Stewart, and the respondent, Mr.

Hunter, are to share joint custody of the child, whose residence and day-to-day care is to be in the home of each of the parents as follows: To be with the father each day, Monday to Friday, from 6:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on alternate weekends from Friday at 6:30 a.m. to Friday at 6:30 p.m., and from Saturday at 9:30 a.m. to Monday at 5 p.m.

The order also provides that, in odd years, the father is to have Christmas Eve at noon until Christmas day at noon with the child; and in even years, from Christmas Eve at noon until Christmas day at noon, with the mother, and that the child be with the mother at all other times. That order also permitted that decision making be delegated such that the mother, Ms. Stewart, is responsible for all school and education-related activities and extracurricular activities, and that the father, Mr. Hunter, is responsible for all medical decisions, as well as anything regarding religion.

Both parties are to have equal entitlement and access to third party information relating to the health, education and welfare of the child. [ 4 ] Based upon the respondent’s then gross annual income of $41,246 and the applicant’s then gross annual income of $27,088, Mr. Hunter was to pay child support of $164 each month to Ms. Stewart, commencing on 1 September 2007.

The $164 would have been approximately the difference between what each of the parties would have had to pay to the other, based upon the child support guideline amounts payable for one child, based upon their respective incomes, and would be reflective of the time that the child would be in the care of each parent. [ 5 ] The order of Justice Thibideau further provides that, in addition to the monthly child support, Mr.

Hunter shall pay to the daycare provider 50 percent of the child’s day-care expenses, and 50 percent of the child’s extracurricular activity expenses, both to be paid on the first day of each month. Also, that Mr. Hunter shall maintain for the child, coverage under any existing or future medical

and dental insurance plans available to him through his employment; also that Mr. Hunter shall forthwith advise Ms. Stewart of any change in his address or employment, and shall provide Ms. Stewart and the Family Responsibility Office full particulars of such changes in writing within 15 days of such change; and finally, that Mr. Hunter shall serve and file, on or before 1 June, starting on 1 June 2008, income tax returns and notices of assessment for the previous year, and documentary proof of year-to-date income for the current year. [ 6 ] Before the court now is a motion by Mr.

Hunter to change the final order of Justice Thibideau, dated 5 September 2007. This motion to change was commenced by Joseph Hunter in February of 2009, seeking an order that he have sole custody of the child and to terminate the child support order, effective 1 February 2009. In his motion to change, Mr. Hunter seeks an order that Ms. Stewart’s access with the child be supervised and according to a

schedule to be determined by the court. His motion alleges that the child had been exposed to inappropriate sexual behaviour between Ms. Stewart and her boyfriend while in the care of Ms. Stewart. [ 7 ] On 13 February 2009, a weekend when the child was to be in the mother’s care, he called Ms. Stewart to tell her that he was keeping the child for the weekend and that this was on the advice of the children’s aid society. He continued to keep the child and kept her out of school and, according to Ms. Stewart, he also contacted the child’s doctor to initiate a change in her address. Accordingly, Ms.

Stewart brought an emergency motion seeking her daughter’s return to her care and supervision of Mr. Hunter’s access. [ 8 ] In her response to the motion to change, Ms. Stewart asked that Mr. Hunter’s claims be dismissed with costs, and requested changes of her own, namely, that she be given sole custody of the child and that Mr. Hunter be allowed access on alternate weekends from Friday evening until Monday morning, and on each Thursday in the evening until the following Friday morning, with drop-off to be at the day care. She also requested that the provisions of the order be enforced by police, if necessary.

Her stated reason for the requested change of custody is that the parties cannot get along and make joint decisions regarding the child. [ 9 ] On 23 February 2009, on the initial return of the parties’ respective motions for a temporary order, Justice Thibideau confirmed the provisions of his 5 September order, with changes to the father’s time with the child to become alternate weekends from Friday at 6:30 p.m. to Monday at 6:30 a.m., and each Thursday at 5 p.m. to Friday at 7:30 a.m., with day-care drop-offs, and further provided that the terms of this interim order are to be enforced by police, if necessary. [ 10 ] On 16 April 2009, Mr.

Hunter brought a motion to change the times on the temporary order to alternate weekends from Friday at 6:30 a.m. to Monday at 6:30 p.m., and each Thursday at 6:30 a.m. to Friday at 7:30 a.m. [ 11 ] On 3 June 2009, Justice Thibideau varied Mr. Hunter’s time with the child to be alternate weekends from Friday at 7:30 a.m. to Monday at 5:15 p.m., with pick-ups and drop-offs to be at a Tim Horton’s; and for June, July and August of that year, each Friday at 7:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. when there was no access weekend. The order also provided for some specified summer access for each of the parties. [ 12 ] In October, Ms.

Stewart brought a motion seeking a variation of the child support to be in accordance with the child support guidelines for Mr. Hunter’s then current income. On 21 October 2009, Justice Thibideau, by further temporary order and in accordance with draft minutes of settlement filed that day, ordered that Mr. Hunter was to have the child on alternate weekends from Friday after school until Monday morning, and each Thursday after school until Friday morning; and provided that Mr. Hunter was to pay child support of $235 per month commencing on 1 November 2009. I note that, in that order, Mr.

Hunter’s then current income was not specifically addressed or confirmed. [ 13 ] In July of 2010, Ms. Stewart brought a motion seeking, amongst other issues, a further variation of child support and requesting that it be set at $378 per month to reflect Mr. Hunter’s 2009 income. That motion was resolved by an order of Justice Gethin B.

Edward, made pursuant to minutes of settlement filed, which did not address the child support variation but did put the motion to change to the ready list for trial. [ 14 ] The order of Justice Edward, dated 21 July 2010, a further temporary order, provided for the child to be with Mr. Hunter from 8 August to 13 August and on 15 August for a specified period of time. [ 15 ] On 1 October 2010, Mr. Hunter brought another motion for four hours of access over Thanksgiving. [ 16 ] On 5 October 2010, Ms. Stewart brought a motion for access for two hours on Halloween. [ 17 ] On 15 October 2010, Mr.

Hunter brought a motion for an order finding Ms. Stewart in contempt, and requesting that she be committed to jail. [ 18 ] On 26 October 2010, Justice Thibideau dismissed the contempt motion and ordered that Ms. Stewart have the child for Halloween from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. [ 19 ] On 13 December 2010, Mr. Hunter brought yet another contempt motion, again requesting that Ms. Stewart be committed to jail. [ 20 ] On 20 December 2010, Ms. Stewart brought a motion seeking to somehow limit the number of times that the parties have been required to attend at court; a psychiatric evaluation of Mr.

Hunter; and an order preventing him from attending at her place of employment or residence. [ 21 ] On 20 December 2010, Justice Thibideau ordered that Mr. Hunter shall not contact Ms. Stewart except through e-mails or through the day-care provider, Sandra Lee; and that neither party shall attend within 50 metres of the other’s residence, place of employment or business; and that, if and when the child is taken for medical care to someone other than the regular family doctor, the parent taking the child shall inform the other person forthwith.

The provisions of that order, that are of a restraining order, have been continued to date.

[ 22 ] The trial of this matter commenced on 16 February 2011, and continued for six days. Over the six days of trial, and through the several volumes of materials that have been filed, there is a great deal of evidence. Unfortunately, much of the evidence focused on the animosity between the parties. [ 23 ] Mr. Hunter called evidence of Marcia Schnepf, the child’s karate instructor. Ms. Schnepf indicated that Madison is a healthy and happy child and she described, in positive terms, the relationship of the child with Mr. Hunter.

She also confirmed that she had no concerns regarding her observations of the relationship of the child with her mother. [ 24 ] Mr. Hunter also called Jennifer Munroe, his mother. She spoke positively of Mr. Hunter’s relationship with his daughter. She described her involvement in occasionally caring for Madison and in facilitating pick-ups and drop-offs of the child at exchanges, and described an incident when she cut Madison’s hair and that this apparently upset Ms. Stewart. [ 25 ] Mr. Hunter also called Andrea Blackie. Ms. Blackie is the mother of Mr. Hunter’s older child, Bo Hunter, born in 2000. Ms.

Blackie described positively the current relationship that she has with Mr. Hunter, and his relationship with their son, Bo. It seems that Ms. Blackie and her current husband have an open relationship with Mr. Hunter in which he often attends and spends time at her home. She described how Mr. Hunter’s current residence is an appropriate home for the children. Ms. Blackie is a nurse and, at Mr.

Hunter’s request, she apparently engaged in questioning Madison about the allegations that she may have observed inappropriate sexual behaviour while in her mother’s care and, after doing so, reported this to the children’s aid society. [ 26 ] Mr. Hunter gave evidence on his own behalf, describing in detail the acrimony between him and Ms. Stewart and the considerable number of motions that have preceded this trial as they have fought over access times and terms. He described an incident in September of 2010 when Madison suffered an injury while in her mother’s care and he was not informed of this directly by Ms.

Stewart, but apparently found out about it through the babysitter. [ 27 ] Mr. Hunter, in his evidence, described how he would often tape telephone calls or messages with Ms. Stewart, and subsequently have these transcribed. He described concerns he had about Madison not being buckled into a car seat, or about Ms. Stewart’s smoking in the child’s presence. He had complaints about the type of lunches that Ms. Stewart provides for the child. Interestingly, during Mr. Hunter’s evidence, Ms. Stewart readily acknowledged that he has a bond with the child and that she was not concerned about Mr.

Hunter’s care for the child when she was with him. [ 28 ] Mr. Hunter described Madison as very energetic; a very affectionate child; that she has a thirst for learning; she’s a fast learner; she likes to be active; and she was learning to become more organized. These observations are of interest, because when it suits his purpose, Mr. Hunter also tends to exaggerate the child’s health issues or apparent injury. His evidence, in this regard, conflicts. [ 29 ] Ms. Stewart gave evidence on her behalf.

She described the incident in September of 2010, when Madison had apparently fallen from her bicycle and fractured a small bone in her wrist. She indicates that she tried to contact Mr. Hunter but his message machine was full. She described an incident in May of 2011 in which her vehicle was in a minor collision with another vehicle, apparently at the fault of the other driver. Madison was a passenger in her vehicle at the time. She advises that there was no damage to either of the vehicles. Ms. Stewart indicates that Madison exhibited no injury and made no complaint to either herself or the babysitter.

Accordingly, she did not take Madison to the doctor. When Mr. Hunter found out about this, subsequently, he did take the child to the doctor. Mr. Hunter took it upon himself to buy a suitcase with wheels for the child so that she could take her belongings to and from school without having to use a small backpack that had been provided by Ms. Stewart. Mr. Hunter, in his questioning of Ms. Stewart, repeatedly refers to this accident as a car crash. This is yet another example of Mr. Hunter’s exaggerating circumstances to support his position or his strategy in the ongoing litigation with Ms. Stewart. [ 30 ] Ms.

Stewart also called the child’s daycare provider, Sandra Lee. Ms. Lee, who has had a long relationship with the child, describes Madison as happy and apparently well adjusted. Ms. Lee also described problems that she has had with Mr. Hunter being rude to her; complaining about the services that she provides, and her home; about photographing from outside of the residence; and about not paying her on time on occasion. Ms. Lee also gave evidence regarding events concerning the minor motor vehicle collision in the spring of 2011.

She confirms that the child was not expressing any distress to her, or any apparent injury. She felt that providing the child with a suitcase with wheels was totally unnecessary, and also that the child appeared to be embarrassed by using this. [ 31 ] The issues in this motion to change are as follows. Firstly, pursuant to

section 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C-12, as amended, has there been a material change in circumstances since Justice Thibideau’s order of 5 September 2007 that affects, or is likely to affect, the best interests of the child? If so, is it necessary to vary the provisions of Justice Thibideau’s order and, if it is, what order is then in the best interests of the child, pursuant to the considerations set forth in

section 24 of the Act? [ 32 ] On reviewing all of the evidence, I am satisfied that there has been a number of material changes since 5 September 2007, which warrant a variation of Justice Thibideau’s order. First, at 5 September 2007, Madison was not yet four and was not attending school. Madison is now eight years of age and is in full-time attendance at school. Her schedule, and accordingly her availability to spend time with each parent, has changed significantly. [ 33 ] At 5 September 2007, Mr.

Hunter was either not working or was working an afternoon shift, such that he was available to care for and spend time with the child during the daytime hours that Ms. Stewart was working. Very shortly after the 5 September 2007 order, Mr. Hunter’s employment changed such that he was working primarily day shifts and he no longer was available to care personally for the child during the day. [ 34 ] At 5 September 2007, Mr. Hunter’s income for child support purposes was expressed at approximately $40,000 per year. Apparently, on the basis of the considerable amount of time that the child would have been in Mr.

Hunter’s care pursuant to that order, there was either a shared parenting set-off of the parties’ respective child support obligations resulting in a child support order for Mr. Hunter to pay child support in the monthly amount of only $164, or his income for child support purposes was assessed on a much lower level due to his temporary unemployment. In either event, there has been a material change in that he has since returned to work shortly thereafter, and since then has, for the most part, been employed or in receipt of employment insurance benefits.

Also the child, by court order of 21 October 2009 and since, has not been in his care for sufficient amount of time on an ongoing basis to warrant a shared

parenting setoff of child support. Further, and significantly, at 5 September 2007, it was clearly anticipated that Mr. Hunter and Ms. Stewart would be able to co-operate sufficiently to jointly parent the child. This is reflected in the fact that the order of 5 September 2007 was made pursuant to minutes of settlement filed. [ 35 ] On all of the evidence, and particularly given the number and nature of interim proceedings, including motions for relatively minor access variations; and two motions by Mr. Hunter requesting contempt findings against Ms.

Stewart and actually requesting her incarceration; and finally, the petty conduct of the parties in dealing with each other, and the fact that, since 20 December 2010, the parties have remained under mutually requested restraining orders not to contact each other or to attend at each other’s residence or place of employment — from all of this, it is abundantly clear that the joint parenting plan has become totally dysfunctional and that it is not possible for these parties to jointly parent their child. [ 36 ] Is it necessary to vary the provisions of Justice Thibideau’s order of 5 September 2007? Yes.

That order is clearly unworkable in the present circumstances as I have described them, and the provisions regarding custody, access and child support must be varied to reflect the present circumstances. [ 37 ] What, then, is the order that is in the best interests of Madison?

Taking into account the considerations set forth in subsection 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act , Madison needs an order that: (1) promotes the love, affection and emotional ties that she has with each parent, free from interference or undermining behaviour and tactics of the other parent; (2) an order that will reasonably facilitate her ongoing contact with members of her extended families; (3) an order to allow to continue what stability she has enjoyed as far as her primary residence, day care, and access, in which she seems to be thriving despite the considerable level and ongoing conflict between her parents. [ 38 ] All of these objectives require an order which minimizes the areas of and opportunities for ongoing conflict between her parents; in other words, an order which is very specific as to custody and access, void, wherever possible, of ambiguity; and which effectively restricts the contact and communication between the parents. [ 39 ] I am satisfied, on the evidence before this court, that the mother has demonstrated the greatest ability to put Madison’s best interests to the forefront; and that where any discretion is to be exercised, she is the most likely to exercise it fairly, and in doing so, consider what is best for Madison. [ 40 ] I am satisfied that Mr.

Hunter, if given any discretion, would exercise it arbitrarily to further his own position in his ongoing conflict with Ms. Stewart, as opposed to considering what might be best for Madison. [ 41 ] Ms. Stewart is the parent least likely to exaggerate circumstances for her own gain. She is the parent more likely to be conciliatory and allow concessions and reasonable variations where warranted. [ 42 ] Mr. Hunter has a significant and beneficial relationship with his daughter. He should have a significant role in her life and he should have generous access, but it needs to be a very detailed access order.

The provisions have to be spelled out in black and white. If there are any grey areas, I am satisfied that Mr. Hunter will continue to distort those to gain advantage. [ 43 ] The child support needs to reflect the parties’ current incomes and an arrangement and situation where Ms. Stewart has custody of the child and Mr. Hunter regular and generous access. [ 44 ] Ms. Stewart has produced her financial information and it clearly indicates that she is on a salaried income of $45,000 per year. Mr.

Hunter’s income has varied from time-to-time, and it would appear that occasionally, in the course of his employment, he is subject to layoffs or transitions during which times he receives employment insurance benefits. For 2010 we have his income tax documentation which was finally provided very late in the trial. That documentation confirms his income for that year of $42,646. Child support guideline amount, based on that income, is $392 per month. [ 45 ] In 2011, Mr. Hunter’s income came from three sources; first, his employment with Comstock.

His pay stub to the date of 19 November 2011 indicates total year to date earnings from this employment of $31,095.83. At his current rates, he should continue to earn a further $6,347.82 for the remainder of the year. During 2011, Mr. Hunter also received employment insurance benefits totalling $6,792. Finally, Mr. Hunter receives rental income in the gross amount of $8,400 per year. In reviewing that income with Mr. Hunter in the course of the trial, it was acknowledged that a fair assessment of his net income from the rental would be $200 per month, or $2,400 per year. All totalled, I find that Mr.

Hunter’s 2011 income will be $46,635.65. The child support guideline amount payable on income at that level for one child is $431 per month. [ 46 ] Child support was initially set by Justice Thibideau in the 5 September 2007 order. It was then varied on 21 October 2009 to $235 per month commencing on 1 November 2009. Ms. Stewart brought a motion in July of 2010 to vary the ongoing child support to reflect Mr. Hunter’s then current income. That aspect of the motion was not addressed at that time, as Justice Edward placed this matter on the trial list.

Nevertheless, child support, or a variation of child support, was then a live issue. [ 47 ] Mr. Hunter has not complied fully with providing his income information. Although he was ordered to do so by Justice Edward in late 2010 or early 2011, it was not until near the conclusion of the trial that he finally produced full information regarding his 2010 income. Accordingly, Ms. Stewart is entitled to a retroactive variation of the child support back to 1 August 2010 when the issue was made live by her motion. [ 48 ] Madison is engaged in a number of activities including karate, day camp, aquatics and baseball.

These are reasonable special expenses for the child and have, on a consistent basis, been shared by the parties. They should continue to do so. [ 49 ] For these reasons, there will be an order which varies or essentially replaces the order of Justice Thibideau dated 5 September 2007. That order will be as follows. Madam Clerk, if you could hand these to the parties, please.

Custody 1. The applicant, Brandi Stewart, shall have sole custody of the child, Madison Mercedes Anne Hunter, born on 25 October 2003; and Ms. Stewart, as custodial parent, shall be the one responsible for making decisions relating to the child’s education, health care, religion and upbringing. 2. Ms. Stewart shall provide the respondent, Joseph Hunter, with disclosure regarding matters affecting the health, education, and activities of the child, including the provision of signed consents for access to the child’s education and health records. 3. Ms.

Stewart shall not change the child’s place of residence to a point outside the radius of 100 kilometres of the City of Brantford, Ontario, without either the written permission of Mr. Hunter or permission of the court obtained on notice to Mr. Hunter in advance of any such proposed move. 4. Neither Mr. Hunter nor Ms. Stewart shall speak disparagingly of the other to, or in the presence of, the child, nor shall they allow other adults, in the presence of the child, to do so. Access 5. Mr.

Hunter shall have access with the child on the following terms and conditions: During the period of 16 December 2011 through 4 January 2012: (

a) On Thursday, 22 December 2011 from after school, approximately 3:20 p.m., until Friday, 23 December 2011 before school at 8:45 a.m.; (

b) On Friday, 23 December 2011 from after school, approximately 3:20 p.m., until Sunday, 25 December 2011 at 12 noon; (

c) On Thursday, 29 December 2011 from 4:30 p.m. until Friday, 30 December 2011 at 9 a.m.; Regular Access

Schedule commencing 5 January 2012: (

d) During the school year (September through June): (

i) Commencing on 5 January 2012, each Thursday from after school, approximately 3:20 p.m., until Friday before school at 8:45 a.m. If Friday is a school holiday and Mr. Hunter is off work, the access will be extended to Friday at 4:30 p.m. (ii) Commencing on 6 January 2012, alternate weekends from Friday after school, approximately 3:20 p.m., until Monday before school at 8:45 a.m. If the Monday is a school holiday and Mr. Hunter is off work, the access will be extended to Tuesday before school at 8:45 a.m. (

e) During summer school break, July and August: (

i) Each Thursday from 4:30 p.m. until Friday at 9 a.m.; (ii) Alternate weekends from Friday at 4:30 p.m. until Monday at 9 a.m. If the Monday is a statutory holiday, the access will be extended to Tuesday at 9 a.m.; Regardless of the Regular Access

Schedule (

f) Summer Holiday Time (

i) Ms. Stewart shall have 2 weeks, 14 days, of uninterrupted summer holiday time with the child, to be from 4:30 p.m. on the Monday closest to 1 July, until 4:30 p.m. on the second following Monday; (ii) Mr. Hunter may have up to 3 weeks, 21 days, of summer holiday access time with the child, to be during (

a) the two weeks, 14 days, commencing at 4:30 p.m. on the Monday that is the termination of Ms. Stewart’s summer holiday time as calculated in paragraph (f)(

i) and until 4:30 p.m. on the second following Monday, provided that he is to be off work for at least 9 of those 14 days; and (

b) during the one week, 7 days, commencing at 4:30 p.m. on the second last Monday in August, and until 4:30 p.m. on the last Monday in August, provided that he is to be off work for at least 4 of those 7 days; (iii) If Mr. Hunter is not going to be off work for at least the prescribed amount of summer holiday access times, the regular access

schedule will apply for that period of time; (

g) Christmas Holidays (

i) In even numbered years, commencing 24 December 2012, Ms. Stewart shall have uninterrupted time with the child from 24 December at 12 noon until 25 December at 12 noon, and Mr. Hunter shall have access with the child from 25 December at 12 noon until 26 December at 4:30 p.m.; (ii) In odd numbered years, commencing 24 December 2013, Mr. Hunter shall have access with the child from 24 December at 12 noon until 25 December at 12 noon, and Ms. Stewart shall have uninterrupted time with the child from 25 December at 12 noon until 26 December at 4:30 p.m.; (

h) March Break (

i) In even numbered years, commencing March 2012, Ms. Stewart shall have uninterrupted time with the child from Monday of the March break at 9 a.m. until Friday at 4:30 p.m.; (ii) In odd numbered years, commencing March 2013, Mr. Hunter shall have access with the child from Monday of the March school break at 9 a.m. until Friday at 4:30 p.m. (

i) Mother’s Day On Mother’s Day each year, Ms. Stewart shall have time with the child from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. (

j) Father’s Day On Father’s Day each year, Mr. Hunter shall have access with the child from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. (

k) Child’s Birthday (

i) In even-numbered years, commencing October 2012, Ms. Stewart shall have time with the child on 25 October from after school, approximately 3:20 p.m., if it is a school day, or from 4:30 p.m. if it is not a school day, until 26 October before school at 8:45 a.m., if it is a school day, or at 9 a.m. if it is not a school day; (ii) In odd-numbered years, commencing October 2013, Mr. Hunter shall have access with the child on 25 October from after school, approximately 3:20 p.m., if it is a school day, or from 4:30 p.m. if it is not a school day, until 26 October before school at 8:45 a.m., if it is a school day, or at 9 a.m. if it is not a school day. (

l) Halloween (

i) In even-numbered years commencing October 2012, Mr. Hunter shall have access with the child on 31 October from 4:30 p.m. until 1 November before school at 8:45 a.m., if it is a school day, or at 9 a.m. if it is not a school day.

(ii) In odd-numbered years commencing October 2013, Ms. Stewart shall have access with the child on 31 October from 4:30 p.m. until 1 November before school at 8:45 a.m., if it is a school day, or at 9 a.m. if it is not a school day; Other Access Provisions (

m) Unless other arrangements have been confirmed and consented to by Ms. Stewart in advance, Mr. Hunter, for his access times, shall be responsible on school days for the pick-up and/or drop-off of the child at the school, or if he is unable to do so, for the pick-up or drop-off of the child at the daycare providers, provided he has given at least 24 hours advance notice to Ms. Stewart and the day-care provider. If Mr. Hunter is dropping the child off at the day-care providers on the morning of a school day, he shall do so by 8 a.m. If Mr.

Hunter is picking the child up from the day-care provider after a school day, he will do so between 4:30 p.m. and 5 p.m. Ms. Stewart will not unreasonably withhold her consent to reasonable alternative arrangements that are convenient to the schedules of the parties and the child, and will not unduly interrupt the child’s established routines. (

n) Mr. Hunter shall have reasonable telephone and internet access with the child, subject to the child’s wishes. While the child is with Mr. Hunter during access, Ms. Stewart shall have reasonable telephone and internet access with the child, subject to the child’s wishes. Such telephone and internet access is not to interfere with the other parent’s time with the child, or interrupt events or activities that the other parent has planned for the child. (

o) Ms. Stewart will not register the child for activities or planned events for the child during Mr. Hunter’s access time without prior consultation with him and obtaining his prior approval, which is not to be unreasonably withheld. In the event that Ms. Stewart does register the child for such activities or events, the child is not required to attend same during Mr. Hunter’s access times. (

p) Police Enforcemen 6. Pursuant to

section 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act , the police force having jurisdiction in any area where it appears the child may be, shall locate, apprehend and deliver the child to the person entitled to custody of, or access, pursuant to this order. For the purposes of locating and apprehending the child, a member of the police force may enter and search any place where he or she has reasonable and probable grounds for believing that the child may be, with such assistance and such force as are necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. Child Support and

Section 7 Special or Extraordinary Expenses 7. The order of Justice Thibideau dated 21 October 2009, as it relates to child support, shall be varied to provide: (

i) Commencing on 1 August 2010, Mr. Hunter shall pay to Ms. Stewart child support for the child in the amount of $392 per month, being the child support guideline amount for his 2010 income of $42,646; and (ii) Commencing on 1 January 2011, Mr. Hunter shall pay to Ms. Stewart child support for the child in the amount of $431 per month, being the child support guideline amount for his 2011 income of $46,635.65. 8. Mr. Hunter, having already paid child support of $235 per month for the period of 1 August 2010 to 31 December 2011, arrears owing by Mr. Hunter to Ms.

Stewart for that period are fixed in the amount of $3,137. 9. Mr. Hunter owes Ms. Stewart $65 for his unpaid portion of the child’s 2011 summer camp and baseball fees, taking into account the offset of karate equipment that he has purchased for the child. 10. Daycare expenses : Ms. Stewart and Mr. Hunter shall share equally the reasonable daycare expenses for the child, with their respective contributions to be paid by each of them directly to the child’s daycare provider. Unless other arrangements are agreed upon with the daycare provider in advance, Mr.

Hunter shall make his payments to the daycare provider every other Friday commencing December 23, 2011. In the event that Mr. Hunter fails to make his required daycare payments, Ms. Stewart may enforce such obligations through the Office of the Director of the Family Responsibility Office. 11. Other

Section 7 expenses : (

i) Ms. Stewart and Mr. Hunter shall share the costs of the child’s reasonable special and extraordinary expenses in a ratio proportionate to their respective incomes.

As their 2011 incomes are approximately the same, those expenses will currently be share equally(50/50); (ii) Special or extraordinary expenses for the child shall include health care related expenses that are not covered by any health insurance benefits available to either parent through their employment, extraordinary expenses related to the child’s school education, and extraordinary expenses related to extracurricular activities that the child has regularly been involved in, such as summer camp programs, swimming, baseball and karate. (iii) Ms.

Stewart shall not enrol the child in further extracurricular activities without first consulting with Mr. Hunter and obtaining Mr. Hunter’s consent, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. (iv) Ms. Stewart shall deliver to Mr. Hunter any receipt or invoice with respect to such

section 7 expenses within 30 days of incurring the expense, and Mr. Hunter shall reimburse Ms. Stewart his appropriate share of the expense within 15 days of receiving the receipt or invoice. In the event that Mr. Hunter fails to reimburse Ms. Stewart for his share of such expenses, Ms. Stewart may enforce this obligation through the office of the Director of the Family Responsibility Office; 12. Each of Mr. Hunter and Ms. Stewart shall maintain the child as beneficiary on any health or medical benefits that they may have available through their respective employment; 13.

On or before 15 May of each year, commencing on 15 May 2012, Mr. Hunter and Ms. Stewart will each provide to the other a complete copy of their respective income tax returns, together with copies of all completed schedules and supporting documents, documentation of their current year to date income, and a copy of their notice of assessment or reassessment within 2 weeks of receiving same. 14. Each of Mr. Hunter and Ms. Stewart shall forthwith notify the other of any change in his or her address or employment, and shall provide in writing to the other full particulars of same within 15 days of any such change.

Other Orders 15. Except with the prior written revocable consent of the other, neither Mr. Hunter nor Ms. Stewart shall attend within 50 metres of the other’s residence or place of employment. 16. Except with the prior written revocable consent of the other, neither Mr. Hunter nor Ms. Stewart shall contact or communicate directly or indirectly with the other except through e-mail, personal telephone, or regular mail, or through Ms. Sandra Lee for the purpose of arranging and facilitating access, or through or in the presence of legal counsel.

17 Except with the prior written revocable consent of the other, neither Mr. Hunter nor Ms. Stewart shall contact the other at their place of employment, save and except in the event of an emergency involving the child. 18. A support deduction order shall issue and this order shall bear post-judgment interest at the current applicable rate. [ 50 ] Mr. Hunter, Ms. Stewart: that is the order of the court which resolves the motion to change application.