Castro v. O’Quinn, 2011 ONCJ 684

Milton Registry No. 171-10 DATE: 2011·VI·28 CITATION: Castro v. O’Quinn , 2011 ONCJ 684 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: NELSON JORGE MORAIS CASTRO Applicant — AND — NICOLE O’QUINN Respondent Before Justice Sheilagh M. O’Connell Heard on 14-16 February 2011 Reasons for Judgment released on 28 June 2011 Nida Hussain .......................................................................................................... for the Applicant Jacob T. Walinga ................................................................................................ for the Respondent JUSTICE S.M.

O’CONNELL J.: 1: OVERVIEW [ 1 ] On April 6, 2010, the applicant father commenced an application for joint custody and specified access regarding the child Remy O’Quinn-Castro, (“Remy”). The respondent mother sought an order for sole custody, specified access, and child support for Remy. 2: ISSUE [ 2 ] At the time of the trial, the primary issue was whether the parties should have joint custody of Remy or whether there should be an order of sole custody in favour of the mother. [ 3 ] The father does not dispute that Remy’s principle residence should continue with the mother.

To their credit, the parties have largely resolved the issue of the father’s access time with Remy pursuant to temporary minutes of settlement reached before trial, however, there were a number of minor access issues that the parties asked the court to determine.

The parties have also resolved the issue of child support payable by the father to the mother, pursuant to a final consent order of Justice Roselyn Zisman, dated July 20, 2010. 3: POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES [ 4 ] The applicant father submits that although Remy should continue to primarily reside with the respondent mother, it is in Remy’s best interests that the parties have joint custody regarding important decisions affecting his life.

It is the father’s position that he and the mother have a history of co-parenting and that they are able to communicate effectively regarding Remy regardless of their own differences. The father is also very concerned that the mother will exclude him from Remy’s life. The father believes that a joint custody order will ensure that he will always be an important and valued person in his son’s life. [ 5 ] The mother submits that she and the father are unable to have joint custody of Remy because they are unable to communicate effectively about Remy and they have very different approaches to parenting.

The mother states that she has ongoing concerns about what she describes as the father’s harsh approach to disciplining Remy, and his disrespectful and angry attitude towards her. She does not believe that they are able to make joint decisions together.

4: BACKGROUND FACTS [ 6 ] The parties became involved in 2004 and started cohabiting in February of 2005. They never married. They have one child, Remy, who was born on August 14, 2005. Remy is now almost 6 years old. The parties separated on or about November 1, 2005 when Remy was approximately two and one-half months old. Mr. Castro left the family residence and Ms O’Quinn remained in the home with Remy. [ 7 ] The parties attempted to reconcile near the end of 2008, although they did not resume living together during that time.

However, the parties were spending a significant amount of time together as a couple during that period, and also with Remy. This attempt at reconciliation failed and the parties ended their relationship in May of 2009. Remy was almost four years old at the time. [ 8 ] The respondent mother has always been Remy’s primary care-giver.

In the Agreed Statement of Facts filed at the outset of trial, both parties agree that Remy has resided primarily with the mother since the parties stopped living together in November of 2005. [ 9 ] It is not disputed by the parties that in May of 2009, around the time of their failed attempt at reconciliation, the parties and Remy went to Memphis, Tennessee together on a holiday. Even after their relationship ended, the parties and Remy continued to go on camping trips together: one in August of 2009 and one in September of 2009.

In October of 2009, the parties and Remy also celebrated Thanksgiving together at the maternal grandparents’ home. [ 10 ] In February of 2010, the mother terminated the father’s access to Remy, for reasons to be discussed later in this decision. In April of 2010, the father commenced his court application for custody and access. On July 20, 2010, the parties consented to an order which provided that the father have alternating weekend access to Remy, from Friday evening to Sunday evening, and one mid- week evening every Wednesday for a period of two hours.

The parties also consented to an order that neither party shall have physical contact with the child when disciplining him. [ 11 ] Although the parties disagree about how much time the father spent with Remy during his infant and toddler years, since this court application was commenced, the father has exercised regular access with Remy on alternating weekends and on every Wednesday evening during the week, in addition to holiday access. 5: THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL 5.1: The Applicant Father [ 12 ] Mr. Castro is a building operator for a property manager in Toronto, Ontario. He is 36 years old.

He has lived in Mississauga since 1998, with the exception of the brief period of time that the parties cohabited from February to November of 1995 in Burlington, Ontario. [ 13 ] Between 2005 and 2009, from Remy’s birth until he was approximately 4 years old, Mr. Castro was employed on a contract basis with Toronto Parks and Recreation while attending school at both Humber and Seneca colleges to acquire the necessary training to become a building operator. Mr. Castro testified that during this time period, he was working full-time, attending classes, doing home work assignments and studying for exams.

It was a busy period for him. He testified that his time with his son was “manageable” during that period, and that he usually saw Remy “every couple of weeks, sometimes during the week”. [ 14 ] Mr. Castro testified that the time spent with Remy every couple of weeks usually involved visiting Remy at Ms O’Quinn’s residence in Acton, Ontario, where she relocated after the parties’ separation. The parties and Remy would often have dinner together at Ms O’Quinn’s home and then Mr. Castro would spend time with Remy at the apartment or take Remy to the park or the mall.

He testified that often the three of them would do things together. Sometimes, Mr. Castro would spend time alone with Remy while Ms O’Quinn stepped out to run some errands. Mr. Castro testified that his relationship with Ms. O’Quinn was “fine” during that time. [ 15 ] In approximately 2007, Mr. Castro started taking Remy to his parents’ home in Mississauga on alternating weekends. Mr. Castro was living with his parents at the time. Mr. Castro testified that he also saw Remy every Christmas and on other holidays during that time period and that he would often spend Christmas in Acton with Ms O’Quinn and Remy.

Both parties spent time with the other parent’s family, and they got along well and had civil and respectful relationships with each extended family. Mr. Castro continued to exercise alternating weekend access during 2008, although it was unclear how consistent those visits were from Mr. Castro’s testimony. [ 16 ] Mr. Castro testified that it was Ms O’Quinn’s idea that the parties try to get back together in 2008. When the parties attempted to resume their relationship in late 2008, Mr. Castor’s time with Remy increased during the week.

Mr Castro testified that he would see Remy at least three days each week (on the weekends and during the week), again usually at Ms O’Quinn’s home in Acton. [ 17 ] Mr. Castro testified that the parties’ relationship deteriorated in early 2009. In May of 2009, the parties travelled to Memphis Tennessee with Remy for Ms O’Quinn’s birthday. It was a four day trip and a sixteen-hour drive both ways. Mr. Castro testified that although the trip was tense and although they were not successful in repairing their relationship, the parties “managed”.

The parties broke up shortly after that trip. [ 18 ] As indicated earlier, the parties took two further trips together with Remy a number of months after they terminated their relationship. In August of 2009, they travelled to Quebec together with Remy for a three day camping trip. In September of 2009, they did a further three day camping trip with Remy. Mr. Castro testified that the camping trips were “fun” and the he and Ms O’Quinn “got along well enough to survive” during those trips.

[ 19 ] In addition to these post-separation trips with Remy together, Mr. Castro testified that both parents and Remy went ‘trick or treating’ together in Halloween of 2009. They also celebrated Thanksgiving together with Remy at the maternal grandmother’s home in October of that year. He further testified that in 2009, the parties and Remy celebrated Christmas together at Ms O’Quinn’s home in Acton. Mr.

Castro testified that he saw Remy regularly after May of 2009 and that they did “the same stuff that we always do”, which included taking Remy to the park and the movies, or spending time with Remy at Ms O’Quinn’s home. [ 20 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Castro admitted that during the first four years of Remy’s life, he cancelled visits with Remy because of work, classes, homework assignments and studying for exams. He did not recall cancelling to play basketball, nor did he recall Ms O’Quinn’s reaction when he cancelled his visits with Remy.

He also testified that he did not know that the reason Ms O’Quinn came on the camping trips with he and Remy after their separation was because Ms O’Quinn was afraid to leave Remy alone with him. However, he admitted that after one incident that occurred in May of 2009 (‘the bicycle incident’ to be described later), Ms O’Quinn did not want Mr. Castro to take Remy out of her home for access visits. [ 21 ] Mr. Castro further testified that during this period, the parties did not have any major disagreements regarding Remy’s health, religion, or education. Both parties are Catholic and although Mr.

Castro cannot recall deciding this issue with Ms O’Quinn, Remy was enrolled in a Catholic school in the Acton area. Remy does not have any special health needs, although Remy does have a specific allergy (which Mr. Castro could not recall) and he also needs orthotics. Mr. Castro testified that he is usually the parent who takes Remy to his podiatrist appointments. Ms O’Quinn usually arranges the dentist and doctor appointments although Mr. Castro testified that he has attended some of Remy’s doctor’s appointments with Ms O’Quinn. [ 22 ] Mr.

Castro testified that the events leading to his court application occurred in February and March of 2010. In February of 2010, Mr. Castro wanted to pick up Remy after school to celebrate Mr. Castro’s birthday. Ms. O’Quinn refused to permit this and told Mr. Castro that he could only see Remy at her home in Acton. Mr. Castro told Ms. O’Quinn that he would not pay child support after she refused to let him take Remy on his birthday. An argument ensued. Mr. Castro further testified that Ms. O’Quinn reneged on the agreement to permit Mr.

Castro to take Remy to his mother’s birthday party in March, something that Remy has done in the past. [ 23 ] Mr. Castro testified that he was “fed up with her controlling attitude” and commenced these proceedings. [ 24 ] Mr. Castro appeared to characterize Ms. O’Quinn’s interference with his access to Remy as a disagreement over child support. He did not agree in direct or cross-examination that Ms. O’Quinn terminated his access because she was concerned about his parenting of Remy, although he acknowledged that this is Ms.

O’Quinn’s position and that there is a dispute regarding the parties’ parenting styles. [ 25 ] Mr. Castro testified that although he does not have any concerns about Ms. O’Quinn’s parenting style, he is concerned that he is being “accused” of having a very different parenting style that was “more forceful and aggressive.” Mr. Castro described his parenting style as “normal” and “not aggressive” although he sometimes has to be “more forceful” than Ms. O’Quinn when disciplining because Remy does not spend as much time with him.

He testified that the impact of what he says to Remy does not carry as much weight as what Ms. O’Quinn says to Remy. He further testified that he cannot do “time-outs” with Remy because he does not have enough time with him, so his approach to discipline is different. However, he also testified that Remy rarely misbehaves because he is not with him long enough and most of their time together is “fun and giggles.” [ 26 ] Mr. Castro testified that he no longer uses physical discipline with Remy and that the last time he did so was in May of 2009.

On that occasion, he admitted that he gave Remy “a whack on the back of his head” because Remy was not paying attention while he was trying to teach him to ride a bicycle. Remy was four years old at the time. In cross-examination, Mr. Castro admitted that he “whacked him” a couple of times. Ms. O’Quinn was present during that incident and told him to stop. [ 27 ] After the “bicycle incident” in May of 2009, Mr. Castro testified that Ms. O’Quinn would not let him see Remy outside of her home until he got counselling. He testified that he agreed to take individual counselling to “appease” Ms.

O’Quinn because she thought that he had “anger issues.” He denies agreeing with Ms. O’Quinn that he needed anger management counselling, however he did attend individual counselling over the course of 2009 and completed the counselling in October of that year. He testified that he went to see the counsellor to make Ms. O’Quinn “happy” and that he did not have “anger issues”, rather Ms. O’Quinn and he had “communication issues” at that time. [ 28 ] In cross-examination, Mr.

Castro further admitted that in February of 2010, he grabbed Remy and removed him from the soccer field because Remy was not listening to his coach during soccer practice. He testified that he removed Remy from the field and reminded him what he needed to do and that he should not be “fooling around”. He denied yelling at Remy during this incident and being angry at him for crying or that he told him to “be a man”. [ 29 ] Mr. Castro further admitted that in March of 2010, during another soccer practice, and shortly before he commenced these proceedings, he removed Remy from the soccer field for misbehaving.

He admitted to pulling Remy off the field and taking him into a hallway to talk to him about how to behave on the field. He denied yelling at Remy, although admitted to grabbing him and pulling him off the field. [ 30 ] In May of 2010, shortly after Mr .Castro commenced these proceedings, he admitted to “flicking Remy’s ear,” however he did not recall doing it as a form of discipline. [ 31 ] Since these incidents occurred, and after he commenced the litigation, Mr. Castro enrolled in a number of courses. Mr.

Castro successfully completed and eight week “Anger Management Course for Parents”, which he successfully completed in December of 2010. Mr. Castro testified that the course was about effective discipline techniques for parents and that he found it helpful. He further testified that a lot of what was taught “made sense” and that he was applying it anyways. Mr. Castro also registered for another parenting course but it was cancelled due to lack of enrolment. Mr.

Castro testified that these courses have affected his parenting in a positive way and he now uses “consequences” rather than any physical discipline with Remy. [ 32 ] Mr. Castro testified that since he commenced these proceedings, communication has been civil between he and Ms.

O’Quinn, and more recently “normal and pleasant.” Their communication is largely by e-mail, although they have also had some telephone conversations. Access has proceeded without incident and Mr. Castro is content with the current arrangement, but for some minor adjustments. [ 33 ] In both direct and cross-examination, Mr. Castro admitted that before the litigation commenced, he has called Ms. O’Quinn a “bitch” on numerous occasions during arguments and even a “fucking bitch”, however he denied saying this in front of Remy. He testified that since this litigation, he has not called Ms.

O’Quinn any derogatory names, although he did admit that he told her on one occasion that she needed to get a sense of humour. He further testified that there have been no heated exchanges between the parties since the litigation commenced more than one year ago. He testified that they have less arguments “because we are on the same page” and that he has no difficulty communicating by email. If he needs to call because of last minute changes to the schedule, he will call Ms.

O’Quinn to discuss and there has been no difficulty with these conversations. [ 34 ] Since the court proceedings commenced, Remy’s parenting journal, prepared by his school, goes back and forth between the parents on their respective weekends. Mr. Castro testified that he has been able to participate in events at Remy’s school without difficulty, such as the “Snuggle up and Read” evening, the Christmas pageant and his parent-teacher interview. Mr. Castro described Remy as doing well at school, he is in the top third of his class academically, his social skills are good and he is an exuberant boy. [ 35 ] Mr.

Castro testified that during his telephone access with Remy, Remy has sometimes hung up on him because he is distracted. Mr. Castro testified on these occasions he has repeatedly called back to speak to Remy because he does not like this. He testified that telephone calls are important because it shows “respectability” and it is more important for Remy to be speaking to his parent than watching television. He has told Ms. O’Quinn to encourage Remy to stay on the telephone and not to have distractions in the room. He has told Remy that he does not like it when he hangs up on him and not to do it.

He testified that he has told Remy “if you are distracted, remove yourself from the room.” 5.2: The Respondent Mother [ 36 ] Ms. O’Quinn is employed full-time at Fort Motor Company of Canada. She lives in Acton, Ontario with Remy, having moved to Acton in February of 2006 from Burlington. Ms. O’Quinn moved to Acton to be closer to her parents, who assist in caring for Remy while Ms. O’Quinn is at work. She has resided with Remy in the same home in Acton for the past five years. [ 37 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that the parties first met when they worked together at Ford.

They started dating in July of 2004 and moved in together in February of 2005. She testified that when the parties separated in November of 2005, Mr. Castro left the family residence and returned to live with his parents in Mississauga, Ontario. [ 38 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that the parties first separated in 2005 because they could not communicate very well. She described one incident before the separation in which Mr. Castro “blew up at her” because she questioned the way he was changing Remy’s diaper. Mr. Castro told her that she was “fucked”.

Ms O’Quinn told him that they needed to communicate better and get counselling regarding their communication given the “volatile encounters”. The parties started counselling together in the last week of October, but according to O’Quinn, the counselling only lasted for one week, as Mr. Castro moved out. Mr. Castro also confirmed in his evidence that their counselling occurred close to their separation and was brief. [ 39 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that there were no arrangements for access after Mr. Castro left. She testified that Mr.

Castro’s access to his son during the early years was sporadic, inconsistent, and very limited. Mr. Castro would come by “once in a while” and “just drop by the apartment and spend a couple of hours” with Remy. After Ms. O’Quinn moved to Acton in February of 2006, there were still no arrangements for access. If Mr. Castro wanted some time with Remy, he would call Ms. O’Quinn and arrange to come by and visit Remy at her home or with her. [ 40 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that she wanted a consistent and regular

schedule for Remy and in 2007; she retained a lawyer to negotiate a separation agreement, although she did not follow through with this. She testified that there was a period of time in 2007 when Mr. Castro started to exercise regular, alternating weekend access with Remy, however that lasted only a short period of time and Mr. Castro would start cancelling the visits again, often at the last minute or on the day of the visit. [ 41 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that again in 2008, Mr. Castro consistently cancelled his visits with Remy because of school, work, and for recreational activities.

She testified that telling Remy that his father was not coming for a visit as a result of a last-minute cancellation was hard. She repeatedly tried to talk to Mr. Castro about starting a regular and consistent

schedule for Remy, however he refused. She stated that they had constant disagreements about his lack of consistency regarding visits, his lateness and his cancellations. [ 42 ] She testified that she felt it was very difficult to discuss these issues with him because he would “freak out” about everything and become verbally abusive. If she tried to raise issues of his cancellations and lack of consistency, Mr. Castro told her she was a “fucking idiot’, “fucking irrational” or generally “fucked”. She denied ever calling Mr. Castro a nasty name. She confirmed Mr.

Castro’s testimony that most of their heated exchanges did not occur in Remy’s presence although she described one incident in March of 2009 when Remy was present during a heated exchange between the parties. [ 43 ] Ms. O’Quinn described the parties’ attempt at reconciliation between December 2008 to May 2009 as “a dating relationship” and not an attempt at reconciliation. She testified that Mr. Castro stayed at her home with Remy and Ms O’Quinn quite regularly during that time period, usually every weekend and during the week. She testified that Mr.

Castro spent most of the time with Remy at her at home, although he would often fall asleep. [ 44 ] Ms. O’Quinn also described the Memphis, Tennessee trip in May of 200, which the parties took just shortly before their second separation. She described the trip as her birthday trip, which she had organised, even “throwing in a baseball game” for Mr. Castro. She described the first day of the trip as “okay”, but then said Mr. Castro “picked a fight with her” because “apparently, I needed to lower my voice when I was speaking to him”.

When asked how she would describe their communication on that trip, she testified that “you get along as best as you can until you get home – you swallow your pride and try to get along with someone who is not respectful

to you.” [ 45 ] Ms. O’Quinn also testified about the May 2009 “bicycle incident”, which occurred after the parties’ second separation. She testified that the parties had gone to the park together with Remy to teach him how to ride a bike. Remy was very distracted and was looking around a lot while on the bike. She testified that Mr Castro repeatedly smacked Remy on the back of the head when he became distracted. She testified that she told Mr. Castro that she would not tolerate this and that there “were obviously some issues” with him. She advised Mr.

Castro that until he got counselling, he was not permitted to have unsupervised access with Remy. All visits between Mr. Castro and Remy would take place in her home until further notice and he proved that he had undergone counselling. [ 46 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that Mr Castro acknowledged to her that he needed counselling and that he did start counselling after the bicycle incident. After May 2099, for a period of several months while Mr. Castro attended counselling, all of Mr. Castro’s visits with Remy were in Ms. O’Quinn’s presence or supervised. [ 47 ] Ms.

O’Quinn testified that she agreed to go on the camping trip with Mr. Castro and Remy in August of 2009 because he told her that he was in counselling. She further testified that in September of 2009, Mr. Castro wanted to go camping before Remy started school and she agreed to come on that trip as well. Ms. O’Quinn testified that this was not a condition that she imposed and that Mr. Castro simply invited her to attend, to which she agreed. Ms. O’Quinn testified that the parties also celebrated Christmas Day of 2009 together at her home, although she had wanted Mr.

Castro to spend Christmas Eve with Remy. [ 48 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that in October of 2009 around Thanksgiving, she observed that Mr. Castro seemed to have calmed down, that he was “more gentle” and “not so volatile”. He advised her that he had completed his counselling and in her view; he seemed to have a “far more different parenting style.” [ 49 ] Consequently, in November of 2009 Ms. O’Quinn permitted Mr. Castro to take Remy to his office Christmas party alone and to a friend’s baptism. She testified that after May of 2009, these were the only two times that she permitted Remy to be alone with Mr.

Castro. [ 50 ] Despite her observations in the fall of 2009 that Mr. Castro’s parenting had improved, Ms. O’Quinn testified that in January and February of 2010, two further incidents occurred that greatly concerned her regarding Mr. Castro’s parenting. As a result, in March of 2010, she once again terminated Mr. Castro’s unsupervised visits with Remy and advised him that he could only see Remy at her home in Acton. [ 51 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that during a weekend visit with Mr. Castro on January 9, 2011, Remy was sick with a fever. Ms. O’Quinn advised Mr. Castro to let Remy relax that weekend but instead Mr.

Castro took Remy out late on Saturday night and again on Sunday. Mr. Castro advised Ms. O’Quinn that Remy had no fever on Saturday night but that the fever had returned on Sunday. When Remy returned home after that weekend, his temperature was very high and he missed three days of school. [ 52 ] In February and March of 2010, both parents attended Remy’s soccer games and practices at an indoor soccer club in Acton. Ms. O’Quinn testified that Remy’s soccer lessons were every Saturday at 8:30 a.m. in Acton and that both parties would attend the games, although Mr. Castro had missed three that term. Ms.

O’Quinn testified that during one soccer game on February 12, 2010, Mr. Castro repeatedly went out onto the field, grabbed Remy’s arm and pulled him off the field because Remy was distracted and not focusing. She testified that Mr. Castro told Remy that “we are not going to bring you back here if you do not focus”. Ms. O’Quinn testified that she told Mr. Castro not to grab Remy’s arm and pull him off the field and to let the coach do his job. She testified that Mr. Castro refused to listen to her. [ 53 ] In March of 2010, a further incident occurred on the soccer field. Ms. O’Quinn testified that Mr.

Castro once again became very upset with Remy, grabbed him and pulled him off the field. Remy was crying and calling for Ms. O’Quinn. Ms. O’Quinn went over to Remy and Mr. Castro said, “No, you do not get your mummy right now,” and took Remy out into the hallway to discipline him. Ms. O’Quinn testified that “against her better judgment” she did not follow them. However, after that incident, she told Mr. Castro that he was no longer permitted to attend soccer games and that if he wanted to see Remy, he was only permitted to see him at her home. She acknowledged that Mr.

Castro’s visits with Remy stopped after that and did not resume again until after this court action in April. [ 54 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that since Mr. Castro’s visits have resumed in April 2010, he has seen Remy regularly and without incident on alternating weekends, mid-week and on holidays. She testified she felt that as long as the court was involved there was some safety in agreeing to reinstate Mr. Castro’s weekend and mid-week access.

The temporary court order that the parties consented to also contains a provision that neither party shall have physical contact with the child when disciplining him. [ 55 ] She testified that since the court proceedings commenced, the parties really do not talk any more, except occasionally to discuss scheduling issues or emergencies. Most of their communication is now through e-mail although Ms. O’Quinn has spoken to Mr. Castro on a number of occasions on the telephone to address last minute cancellations due to bad weather or other scheduling issues. For example, Mr.

Castro called to arrange to attend Remy’s first day of school in September of last year. Ms. O’Quinn did not report any issues with the email communication or the handful of telephone conversations the parties have had since the court proceedings commenced. [ 56 ] Mr. O’Quinn testified that since the parties negotiated the access

schedule which is incorporated into the consent court order, Mr. Castro has consistently attended his access visits. She agrees with Mr. Castro that a consistent and specified

schedule is beneficial to Remy, although the parties differ on some of the minor terms in each of their access schedules proposed at trial. [ 57 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that the parties have never had disputes or disagreements about religion, health, or education because Mr. Castro has never been involved in the decision making process regarding these issues, so there was no discussion. [ 58 ] In cross-examination, Ms. O’Quinn confirmed that throughout the years prior to this litigation, the parties spent Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas and other holidays together with Remy. She testified that she never started court proceedings to obtain a custody order because it was not necessary.

[ 59 ] Ms. O’Quinn admitted that she has also used physical discipline with Remy when he was approximately two years old. She testified that she has spanked Remy on a couple of occasions because he had terrible tantrums at that time. However, she observed that this style of parenting did not work and she went back to talking things through with Remy. [ 60 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that during their relationship, there have been two instances of physical altercation: one shortly before the parties’ second separation in the spring of 2009 when Mr.

Castro pushed his way into her home and demanded to know who was with her, and one other occasion when he grabbed and pushed her during an argument. She did not report either incident to the police and there have been no other physical altercations between the parties. Ms. O’Quinn testified that Mr. Castro’s swearing at her occurred prior to this litigation and she did not report any abusive language by Mr. Castro since the litigation commenced. [ 61 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that she has not always told Mr. Castro about Remy’s doctor or dentist appointments, but Mr.

Castro does not always tell her about Remy’s orthotics appointment and she does not expect him to tell her. She testified that she has attended many of Remy’s orthotics appointments with Mr. Castro and if not, she will ask Mr. Castro how the appointment went when Remy is returned to her. [ 62 ] Ms. O’Quinn testified that there have been issues with telephone access because Mr. Castro will get upset when Remy hangs up on him. She stated that the television is sometimes on when Mr. Castro calls but generally it is turned off. When Remy hangs up on his father, Ms. O’Quinn will encourage him to call his father back.

She will tell Remy that it is rude to hang up on his father and dial the telephone phone number for him to call him back. [ 63 ] Ms. O’Quinn confirmed that in 2011 she enrolled Remy in swimming lessons on Saturday mornings during Mr. Castro’s access time with Remy. She testified that it did not occur to her to discuss the swimming with Mr. Castro because she did not think it would be an issue. 5.3: Joyce O’Quinn, Maternal Grandmother [ 64 ] Mrs. Joyce O’Quinn is Remy’s grandmother. She and her husband live close to Remy and his mother in Acton and provide child care for Remy when Ms. O’Quinn is working.

Since the court proceedings commenced, Mr. Castro picks up Remy from their home on alternating Fridays and Wednesdays and calls to speak to Remy on Monday evenings and alternating Fridays. Before the court proceedings, Ms. O’Quinn did not have regular contact with Mr. Castro, although he occasionally came to their place to pick up Remy for a visit. Since the court proceedings, she sees him on a regular, often weekly basis. [ 65 ] Mrs. O’Quinn testified that she got along well with Mr. Castro before the court proceedings and does not have any problems now. She still talks to Mr. Castro.

She has never seen him swear at her daughter and she has never had any reason to call the police, although one occasion he told her that her daughter was “a bitch” prior to the court proceedings. [ 66 ] Mrs. O’Quinn testified that prior to the court proceedings, Mr. Castro did not call Remy at her home but he now calls regularly. She testified that at first Remy did not want to talk to his father but now it is better and she and his grandfather encourage him to talk on the phone. [ 67 ] Similarly, with access visits, Mrs. O’Quinn testified that when the

schedule first started Remy did not want to go. She testified that Remy is now always excited on Wednesdays and runs up and hugs and kisses his father when he arrives to pick him up. She testified that Remy looks forward to the visits to McDonalds, which is where his father usually takes him for the Wednesday visits. She testified that Remy has never returned crying from an access visit, but he has occasionally been upset. [ 68 ] Mrs. O’Quinn testified that Mr. Castro also refuses to come to her door when he picks up Remy. He will stay in the car until she brings Remy out t him.

This creates a problem in the fall and winter months because it is dark in the evening and she does not know who is outside or sometimes does not know that Mr. Castro is outside waiting until he calls on his cell phone. Mrs O’Quinn lives in the country and her home is set far back from the road on a very long driveway, approximately 800 feet long. She and Remy are often in the kitchen at the back of the house and she cannot see Mr. Castro coming down the road. Mr. Castro has complained to her that he has been outside waiting in his car for fifteen minutes. Mrs O’Quinn has asked Mr.

Castro to come to the door, which would be better for Remy, but he has refused. 6: THE LAW [ 69 ] The governing legislation is the Children's Law Reform Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C-12, as amended. Section 20(1) of that Act states the following: "Except as otherwise provided in this part, the father and the mother of a child are equally entitled to custody of the child." [ 70 ] Section 24(1) of the Act provides that the merits of an application regarding custody shall be determined on the best interests of the child.

Subsection 24(2) sets out the criteria to be considered when determining the best interests of the child as follows: Best interests of child

(2) The court shall consider all the child's needs and circumstances, including, (

a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and, (

i) each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child's family who reside with the child, and (iii) persons involved in the child's care and upbringing; (

b) the child's views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained; (

c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment; (

d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, thenecessaries of life and any special needs of the child; (

e) any plans proposed for the child's care and upbringing; (

f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live; (

g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and (

h) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application. [71] Subsection 24(3) provides that the past conduct of a person is not relevant to a determination of custody unless theconduct is relevant to the ability of the person to act as a parent. Subsection 24 (4) provides that in assessing a person’s ability to act as aparent, the court shall consider whether the person has at any time committed violence or abuse against, (

a) his or her spouse; (

b) a parent of the child to whom the application relates; (

c) a member of the person’s household; or (

d) any child. [72] The case law is clear that joint custody should only be considered where both parents are fit custodial parents and havestrong claims to custody, having regard to the factors set out under the Children’s Law Reform Act in custody disputes. This is athreshold issue that must be determined before considering whether or not the parents are capable of effective communication andcooperation or that joint custody is appropriate. The leading case is the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, , 194 O.A.C. 106, 249 D.L.R. (4th) 620, 10 R.F.L. (6th) 373, [2005] O.J.

No. 275, 2005 Cars​well​Ont 266 (Ont. C.A.). Inthat case, the court set out the following factors: 1. There must be evidence of historical communication between the parents and appropriate communication between them; 2. Joint custody cannot be ordered in the hope that it will improve the communication between the parents; 3. Even if both parents are fit custodial parents, this does not necessarily mean that joint custody should be ordered; 4. The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate does not preclude an order for joint custody; 5.

No matter how detailed the custody order there will always be gaps and unexpected situations, and when they arise they must beable to be addressed on an ongoing basis; 6. The younger the child, the more important communication between the parents. [73] In Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that there was no history of co-operative parenting oreffective communication between the parents. Rather the court found there was evidence to the contrary on these points.

Accordingly,the court held that the trial judge erred in ordering joint custody and granted sole custody of the child to the mother who had been thechild's primary caregiver. [74] However, in Ladisa v. Ladisa, , 193 O.A.C. 336, 11 R.F.L. (6th) 50, [2005] O.J. No. 276, 2005 Cars​-well​Ont 268 (Ont. C.A.), released at the same time as Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, supra, the Ontario Court of Appeal did not interfere with thejoint custody order made at trial, applying the same legal principles that the court articulated in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis.

In that case,despite the intense conflict between the parents, in emergencies and when the parents had an opportunity to consider the real interests oftheir children, they behaved appropriately. They co-existed at the doctor, at school functions and activities. Those circumstancessupported a joint custody order. [75] In Habel v. Hagedorn, 2005 ONCJ 242, 141 A.C.W.S. (3d) 777, [2005] O.J. No. 3556, 2005 Cars​well​Ont 3863 (Ont.C.J.), Justice Margaret A. McSorley summarizes the principles developed in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, supra, and Ladisa v.

Ladisa, supra, asfollows: Although the Court of Appeal reached different conclusions on whether the trial judge erred in ordering joint custody and sharedparenting in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis and Ladisa v. Ladisa, the court applied the same legal analysis. Several important guidelines can betaken from Appeals Justices Karen M. Weiler's reasons in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis and Ladisa v. Ladisa. They are as follows: (

a) there is no default position in favour of joint custody in Ontario;

(

b) each case is fact-based and discretion-driven; (

c) past parenting experience, both during cohabitation and after separation, is of critical importance to a court's decision whether toorder shared parenting in any form; (

d) the fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate with the other parent does not in and of itself mean that a joint custodyorder cannot be considered, but hoping that communication between the parties will improve once the litigation is over does not providea sufficient basis for the making of an order for joint custody; (

e) where there is no evidence of historical co-operation and appropriate communication between the parents, joint custody may beinappropriate. [76] More recently, in Giri v. Wentges, 2009 ONCA 606, 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 631, [2009] O.J. No. 5173, 2009 Cars​well​Ont4473 (Ont. C.A.), the court stated the following: “.... as this court has repeatedly held, joint custody requires a mutual commitment between parents to cooperate on matters pertaining tothe raising of their child, and an ability for the parents to put their own interests behind those of the child. The Ontario Court of Appeal inKaplanis v.

Kaplanis (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 275 has made it clear that an interim custody order and how it hasworked is a relevant consideration for the trial judge. Ladesic-Hartmann v. Hartmann, (ON S.C.)” [77] Joint custody may also be ordered to preserve a parent’s relationship with a child in cases where the primary caregiverobjects to a joint custody order without just cause and where there is a risk that the objecting parent will try to marginalize the otherparent’s involvement with the child. In Andrade v. Kennelly, 2007 ONCA 898, 46 R.F.L. (6th) 235, [2007] O.J. No. 5004, 2007 Cars​-well​Ont 8271 (Ont.

C.A.), the Court of Appeal upheld a joint custody order where a mother had laid down a pattern of resisting thefather’s access and was found by the trial court to be unable to appreciate the importance of the father’s relationship with their children. [78] Courts do not expect communication between separated parties to be easy or comfortable, or free of conflict. A standardof perfection is not required, and is obviously not achievable.

The issue is whether a reasonable measure of communication andcooperation is in place, and is achievable in the future, so that the best interests of the child can be ensured on an ongoing basis. SeeGriffiths v. Griffiths, 2005 ONCJ 235, 141 A.C.W.S. (3d) 265, [2005] O.J. No. 3090, 2005 Cars​well​Ont 3209 (Ont. C.J.); Warcop v.Warcop, , 66 R.F.L. (6th) 438, [2009] O.J. No. 638, 2009 Cars​well​Ont 782 (Ont. S.C.) 7: DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE 7.1: Threshold Issue of Custodial Fitness of Each Parent [79] Having regards to the efforts that Mr.

Castro has made to improve his parenting and his commitment to ensuring that he isregular, loving and consistent parent in Remy’s life, I am satisfied that he is a fit custodial parent and that I can consider his claim forjoint custody. [80] There is no question that Ms O’Quinn is a fit custodial parent and in my view, a stronger parent that Mr. Castro. However, Mr. Castro has conceded that Ms. O’Quinn will continue to be Remy’s primary caregiver and therefore his custom claim doesnot need to be equally strong. Ms. O’Quinn has been Remy’s primary caregiver for his entire life, with Mr.

Castro’s consent andacquiescence. During the first three years of Remy’s life, Mr. Castro was working fulltime and going to school. Ms O’Quinn assumedthe vast majority, if not all of the parenting of Remy during that period of time, as she continues to do today. By all accounts, she hasdone an excellent job as Remy is a wonderful little boy. [81] I find that during these very early years of Remy’s life, Mr. Castro’s time with Remy was sporadic and limited by his ownchoice. Mr.

Castro admitted to cancelling visits with Remy as a result of work, school, studying for exams, and homework during thatperiod, and conceded that his time with Remy was limited as a result of his other commitments. [82] Mr. Castro had difficulty conceding that he needed to improve his parenting of Remy. His testimony that he started theseproceedings because Ms O’Quinn denied him access “after a disagreement about child support” is inaccurate. Ms. O’Quinn terminatedMr. Castro’s access because of her concerns about his parenting. Mr.

Castro needed to learn to control his anger and to develop moreappropriate methods of disciplining a five year old child, particularly when he perceived that Remy was acting out or not listening tohim. “Whacking” Remy on his head when he tried to teach him to ride a bicycle in the spring of 1999, and “grabbing his arm” andpulling him off the soccer field during soccer games on more than one occasion in January and February of 2010 demonstrated poorjudgment and inappropriate parenting of a small child.

Further, refusing to get out of his car and come to Remy’s grandparent’s door topick Remy up, and them complaining when Remy is late, also demonstrates an immature attitude in which Mr. Castro is clearly placinghis own needs over Remy’s needs. [83] However, to his credit, it is apparent that Mr. Castro has learned from the parenting courses and counselling that he hastaken, despite his obvious defensiveness about this issue during his testimony and his statement that he took the counselling to “appeaseMrs.

O’Quinn.” He acknowledged during his testimony that his parenting style was affected by the courses that he had taken. He nolonger uses physical discipline as a method of parenting, and he has made strides in improving his parenting style. He has also madeadmirable efforts to address the parties’ communication and his anger. I find that he has learned to be respectful of Ms O’Quinn, torecognise and value her role as Remy’s primary residential parent, and to be a more capable parent himself.

There have been no incidentsof inappropriate discipline or disrespectful behaviour towards Ms O’Quinn since he completed his anger management and parentingcourses last year. I find that Mr. Castro has grown as a parent and he continues to strive to be a better and very capable parent for Remy.

[ 84 ] It is unfortunate that Ms O’Quinn does not recognise the efforts that Mr. Castro has made to improve his parenting and his communication with her. She appears to have a very negative view of her son’s father. This was apparent in the very sarcastic, angry and contemptuous tone she used when speaking about Mr. Castro during her evidence. She appeared to have very little respect for Mr.

Castro and she was very critical of his parenting, notwithstanding the progress he has made and his now demonstrated commitment to being a parent to Remy on a regular and consistent basis. [ 85 ] Ms O’Quinn also seemed very angry that Mr. Castro had commenced these proceedings, and failed to recognise that her unilateral termination or restriction of his access to Remy whenever she disagreed with his parenting obvious created conflict between the parties and caused frustration for Mr. Castro.

The court process has enabled these parties to develop a specified and consistent access regime that is predictable and consistent for Remy. It also removes the control that Ms O’Quinn had in determining when and how Mr. Castro could exercise access to his son which was only on her terms. There is a real concern that a sole custody order in Ms O’Quinn’s favour may be used by her to minimize Mr.

Castro’s role in Remy’s life, given her apparent lack of respect for him. 7.2: Joint v Sole Custody Despite the parties’ differences, including their different parenting styles, and the conflict between them, I find the following:

a) neither party has disentitled himself or herself to custody and there is a history of effective and appropriate communication between the parents with respect to Remy;

b) a joint custody order will preserve Mr. Castro’s relationship with Remy given Ms. O’Quinn’s very negative view of Mr. Castro and the risk that his involvement in Remy’s life may be limited or marginalized by her. [ 86 ] The following are examples where the parties have been able to set aside their own personal differences and parent cooperatively in Remy’s best interests:

a) The parties have been able to make custody and access arrangements directly without major incident and without any court intervention for a period of at least five years prior to these court proceedings, by communicating directly with each other to make these arrangements. Ms O’Quinn testified in these proceedings that it was never necessary for her to obtain a custody order before these proceedings;

b) Since their separation, the parties have been able to celebrate significant holidays together, such as celebrating Christmas Day together with Remy every year since his birth prior to these court proceedings and celebrating Halloween and Thanksgiving together with Remy in 2009, all without incident;

c) The parties have been able to take two post-separation holidays with Remy, both of which proceeded without any incident. Ms O’Quinn testified that during those trips they “got along as best as you can until you get home; you swallow your pride and get along”. Mr. Castro testified that they “managed to survive” and that “it was fun”. This is an example of both parents (particularly Ms O’Quinn) since she clearly did not think it was ‘fun’) putting their own personal needs and differences aside for the sake of their son;

d) The parties have very similar views about Remy’s religion, health, and education. There has been no disagreement about any of these issues, although granted, Mr. Castro has left some of these decisions in Ms. O’Quinn’s very capable hands;

e) The parties have been able to attend together at doctors’ appointments post-separation and have been able to jointly deal with medical appointments by delegating appointments to each other ( the father taking Remy to podiatrist and the mother taking Remy to dentist and family doctor);

f) There is no history of domestic violence or pattern of domestic violence in the relationship. The two incidents of physical altercation described by Ms O’Quinn appeared to be situational and isolated incidents, occurring shortly before the parties’ separation;

g) Mr. Castro’s access has proceeded without any incident since the court proceedings have commenced and since he successfully completed his parenting and anger management courses in 2010. and his access since the parties separated prior to these court proceeding has proceeded without major incident, other than the dispute regarding Mr. Castro’s approach to disciplining Remy and his abusive language, which he has taken steps to address and to rectify through parenting courses and court orders made on consent of both parties. The evidence demonstrates significant changes by Mr. Castro regarding both of these issues;

h) The parties have never involved the police or the Children’s Aid Society either during or after the parties’ separation;

i) The parties have effectively and successfully used a communication book to share information about Remy’s schooling. There is no evidence that they use the book to disparage and belittle each other;

j) The parties have been able to attend Remy’s extra-curricular activities and school events at the same time without major incident; although Mr. Castro’s inappropriate intervention during Remy’s soccer games when he perceived Remy was not focussing did upset Ms O’Quinn. Nevertheless, the parties did not engage in an altercation during these incidents or in front of Remy, despite Ms O’Quinn’s strong disagreement with his Mr. Castro approach to Remy’s soccer games and practices;

k) The parties have been able to use email communication effectively and civilly to share information about Remy and to change or extend access when necessary, and to compromise when necessary, all without incident;

l) The parties have had effective telephone communication during these court proceedings, although limited, without incident, to confirm access arrangements or other events, like Remy’s “Snuggle and Read” event at his school, pr to make arrangement for Mr.

Castro to attend Remy’s first day of school;

m) Mr. Castro’s history of paying child support is good and there are no arrears, nor is there a history of arrears of child support, other than the period just prior to these court proceedings when Mr. Castro threatened to stop paying child support because Ms O’Quinn had denied him access. The arrears of $478.00 were rectified shortly thereafter;

n) Both parties respect Court orders. There has been no incidents of breaches or violations of any of the court orders in these proceedings;

o) Remy, by all accounts, is a thriving, happy little boy, who is doing well academically and otherwise.

He does not appear to affected by any conflict between the parents, to their credit, as they have generally been successful in not exposing Remy to that conflict; [ 87 ] For the above reasons, I conclude that that the parents have demonstrated the ability to co-parent both historically and presently and that a joint custody order is in Remy’s best interests. [ 88 ] Regarding the minor access issues that the parents have been unable to resolve, in my view, the mother’s approach to the issues of the holiday weekends, Christmas vacation, extra-curricular activities, and Remy’s birthday is more child-focused, so for the most

part I have adopted the mother’s schedule. The father’s

schedule is more focused on what is “fair” and “equal” to the parents, and not what is in Remy’s best interests. For example, the father’s proposal to arbitrarily divide the Christmas school holiday “exactly in the middle” regardless of where Christmas Day and Christmas Eve fall each year because it is “equal” between the parents ignores the fact that Christmas Day and Christmas Eve are very special days for children and families who celebrate Christmas. Children should be able to spend some time with both parents on those special days.

Further, both of these parties have respected all court orders since these proceedings commenced, so the father’s request for a police enforcement clause is denied. 8: CONCLUSION [ 89 ] In conclusion, I make the following Order: 1. The applicant father Nelson Jorge Morais Castro (the “father”) and the respondent mother, Nicole O’Quinn (the “mother”) shall have joint custody of the child, namely, Remy O’Quinn-Castro born August 14, 2005 (“Remy”). Remy’s principle residence shall remain with the Respondent mother and he shall have regular access to his father. 2.

In the event that the parties are unable to agree upon a major parenting issue regarding Remy’s health, education, religion, welfare, or extracurricular activities, then either party may apply to the court for a determination of that issue. 3. The mother will consult with the father before enrolling Remy in an extra-curricular activity and the father will not unreasonably withhold his consent to Remy’s participation in extra-curricular activities. Each parent will ensure that Remy attends and actively participates in his extra-curricular activities when he is with that parent; 4.

The father shall have access to Remy as follows: a. every other weekend from Friday at 6:30 pm to the following Sunday at 7:00 pm; to continue in accordance with the current schedule. If the father’s access weekend falls on a long holiday weekend (either Monday or Friday), then his access shall be extended to include the holiday Friday or Monday of that weekend; b. every Wednesday from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm commencing immediately; and c. any other access as mutually agreed upon by the parties, in writing, requests by either party are not to be unreasonably denied. 5. The father’s access

schedule shall be increased when Remy is on his summer break from school as follows: a. every other weekend from Friday at 6:30 pm to the following Sunday 7:30 pm; b. every Wednesday from 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm; and c. any other access as mutually agreed upon by the parties, in writing, requests by either party are not to be unreasonably denied. 6. Both parties shall try to accommodate the other’s requests for additional access to Remy for family members’ birthdays and other special events, which shall not be unreasonably denied by the other party. 7.

The father shall pick up and return Remy to the residence of the mother, and when she is at work, to the residence of her parents, unless otherwise mutually agreed to in writing. 8. If the father misses his access on a certain date, or fails to attend within 30 minutes of the scheduled time for access, that access is cancelled for that occasion if the applicant does not notify the respondent beforehand to advise that he will be running late or cancelling.

If the applicant father is unable to exercise access on Friday, due to an emergency at work, when it is his regularly scheduled access weekend, the mother shall allow him to pick up the child for access the following Saturday morning at 10 a.m. 9. The father shall have telephone access with Remy between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. on Mondays and Fridays, at the residence of the mother, or her parents, when she is at work. In the event that the father is unable to exercise access on Wednesday he shall have telephone access with the child between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. The mother shall provide her work

schedule to the applicant for the purposes of telephone access only and confirm the locations for weekly access exchanges.

10. The mother shall have reasonable telephone access to Remy when he is with his father, generally between 7:00 pm - 7:30 pm on Saturdays, unless there is an emergency. 11. The father and mother shall share holidays with Remy as follows and this

schedule will override the father’s regular access schedule: a. School Spring/March Break: Remy shall reside with the father on odd-numbered years and with the mother on even-numbered years, from 6:30 pm on the Friday the school spring break starts until 7:00 pm on the day before his return to school following the break. b. Easter Weekend: Remy will reside with his mother on odd-numbered years and with his father on even-numbered years, from 6:30 pm on the Thursday before the Easter weekend until 7:00 pm on the Monday before he returns to school. c.

Mother’s Day: if Remy is not otherwise with his mother on this weekend, the child will reside with the respondent mother on Mother’s Day between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. in the event he is not otherwise with her. d. Father’s Day: if Remy is not otherwise with his father on this weekend, the child will reside with him on Father’s Day between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. e. Summer Vacation : Remy will reside with his father for two weeks (or 14 days) during the summer school vacation every year. The father’s two weeks (or 14 days) of summer access to the child may be consecutively taken or broken up throughout the summer.

In odd- numbered years, the father will have first choice of summer holiday access days and advise the respondent mother by June 1 st of his dates, which shall not be denied. In even-numbered years, the mother will have first choice of summer holiday access days and advise the applicant father by June 1 st of her dates, which shall not be denied. In making plans, each parent shall take into account any camp or other scheduled activities that the child may be enrolled in. The father shall not

schedule summer access during the mother’s mandatory holidays scheduled by her employer, without her consent. f. Thanksgiving: on odd-numbered years, Remy will spend the Thanksgiving Monday with his mother from 9:00 a.m. onwards and on even-numbered years, Remy will spend the Thanksgiving Monday with his father from 9:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m. g. Halloween: Remy will spend Halloween in odd-numbered years with his father and in even-numbered years with his mother from 4:30 pm until 8:30 pm if Halloween falls on Sunday through Thursday, or from 4:30 pm until 9:00pm if it falls on Friday or Saturday. h.

Christmas: in even-numbered years: Remy will spend Christmas with his father commencing at 6:30 pm on the last day of the school break to Christmas Eve at 12 noon; and then at 12 noon on Christmas Day to 7:00 pm on Boxing Day. Remy will be with his mother from Christmas Eve at 12 noon to Christmas Day at 12 noon; and then on Boxing Day from 7:00 pm to the day before school commences at 7:00 PM. In odd-numbered years, this

schedule with be reversed between the parents. 12. Neither party nor their respective families shall use physical discipline when disciplining Remy. [ 90 ] If the parties are unable to resolve the issue of costs, they may make written submissions to the court. The applicant’s submissions are to be served and filed by July 31, 2011 and the respondent’s submissions are to be served and file by August 31, 2001. Released : 28 June 2011 Signed: “Sheilagh M. O’Connell”