Bryan v. Pean, 2015 ONCJ 420

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE Brampton 1074/09 DATE: 2015 07 28 Citation: Bryan v. Pean , 2015 ONCJ 420 BETWEEN: SHARLA BRYAN Respondent — AND — GREGORY PEAN Respondent Before Justice Philip J. Clay Heard on July 22, 2015 Reasons for Judgment released on July 28, 2015 The Respondent acted on his own behalf Mr. M. Skursky …………………………………………………. counsel for the Applicant CLAY J.: MOTION TO CHANGE [ 1 ] The Respondent mother (“the mother”) brought a Motion to Change the order of the Honourable Mr. Justice M. B. Pawagi, dated August 23, 2011.

She sought an order that the access of the Respondent father (“the father”) to the child Major Bryan-Pean, born July 30, 2008, be supervised and an order that the child support amount be increased.

The Respondent father (“the father”) filed a Response to the Motion to Change seeking to increase his access. [ 2 ] A temporary order was made on May 14, 2014 that provided for access at the Early Years Centre followed by access through the Peel Supervised Access Program (PSAP) once the latter program could offer service. [ 3 ] Another temporary order was made on November 27, 2014 providing that access would move from fully supervised access to access exchanges at PSAP for what became 5 hours of day access. [ 4 ] On March 26, 2015 I made an order adjourning the matter to July 22, 2015 for a final determination of the Motion to Change on affidavit evidence.

I provided filing deadlines for the delivery of supplementary affidavits. The father filed an affidavit dated June 10, the mother an affidavit dated June 30, and the father a reply affidavit of July 17, 2015.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES Mother’s position [ 5 ] The mother sought an order by which access would graduate over time on the following basis;

a) A period of weekend day access to be exercised in a public place; then

b) A period of one night overnight access to occur at the home of the paternal grandmother (PGM); then

c) Access alternate weekends from Friday to Sunday. [ 6 ] The mother emphasized that the access should be one to one contact and she was open to a Wednesday visit from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the community. She wanted all exchanges for access to be at the Tim Horton location just outside the Square One mall in Mississauga. [ 7 ] With respect to child support, the mother sought an order imputing the father’s income to $50,000 per year. She sought an order that the father pay 77% of the child’s expenses pursuant to s.7 of the Child Support Guidelines (CSG).

Father’s position [ 8 ] The father sought an order for alternate weekend access from Friday to Sunday to be exercised at his own home. He was agreeable to the mother’s proposed exchange place. He was agreeable to a one on one visit with Major on the Wednesday on which he worked evening shifts (7:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m.). The father was prepared to agree to an order that he pay child support on an income of $40,000 per year. ISSUES 1. Has there been a material change in circumstances since the final order of August 22, 2011? 2. If so, what access order is in the best interests of the child at this time? 3.

What is the father’s income for child support purposes? 4. What order should be made for table child support? 5. What, if any, order should be made pursuant to s.7 of the CSG ? THE LAW [ 9 ] Motions to change are governed by s. 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 ( CLRA ), which provides as follows:

Order varying an order 29. A court shall not make an order under this Part that varies an order in respect of custody or access made by a court in Ontario unless there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the child. [ 10 ] The onus was on the mother, as the moving party, to prove that a material change in circumstances had occurred. [ 11 ] Once a material change has been established, then the court is required to make a decision that is in the best interests of the child. That test and the factors to be considered are set out in s. 24 of the CLRA . Merits of application for custody or access 24.

(1) The merits of an application under this

Part in respect of custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child, in accordance with subsections (2), (3) and (4). 2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1) . [ 12 ] The relevant subsections of s. 24 (2) are set out below: 24

(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, (

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

g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and [ 13 ] With respect to the child support issue the relevant legislative

section is s. 37 of the Family Law Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.F.3 (FLA) and the relevant subsections read as follows: Application for variation 37.

(1) An application to the court for variation of an order made or confirmed under this Part may be made by, (

a) a dependant or respondent named in the order; Powers of court: child support

(2.1) In the case of an order for support of a child, if the court is satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances within the meaning of the child support guidelines or that evidence not available on the previous hearing has become available, the court may, (

a) discharge, vary or suspend a term of the order, prospectively or retroactively;

Application of child support guidelines

(2.2) A court making an order under subsection (2.1) shall do so in accordance with the child support guidelines. 1997, c. 20, s. 6. [ 14 ] The mother sought to impute income to the father pursuant to s. 19 of the CSG the relevant subsections of which are set out below; Imputing income 19.

(1) The court may impute such amount of income to a parent or spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include, … (

d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these guidelines; … (

f) the parent or spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so; (

g) the parent or spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income; EVIDENCE ACCESS ISSUE Mother’s evidence [ 15 ] The mother noted that the final order had provided that she was to have custody of the child Major and the father was to have reasonable access as agreed upon which included every other weekend from Friday night to Sunday night. The mother stated that a material change occurred when the father assaulted her and the child on February 7, 2013. He was charged with two counts of assault and one count of assault with a weapon.

The terms of the father’s release were that he could not contact the mother without a Family court order made after February 7 and that he could not have access to the child except through a mutually agreeable third party or new court order. [ 16 ] On October 22, 2013 the father made an admission of guilt with respect to the assault against the mother and the other charges were withdrawn.

He received a conditional discharge which included a probation order for 12 months which prevented him from coming within 100 metres of the mother except with her written consent or through Family court order. [ 17 ] The father brought a contempt motion in November 2013 and the mother brought this Motion to Change on December 6, 2013. The father did not see the child between February 7, 2013 and the time of the May 14, 2014 order referred to above. [ 18 ] The mother noted that there was also a period between the spring of 2010 and late 2011 when the father had no contact with his son.

She said that these two long gaps in contact had resulted in Major having an anxiety disorder for which he was receiving counseling. The mother attached to her affidavit of June 30, 2015 letters from Ms. Shirley Chin MSW, dated June 14, 2014 and March 13, 2015 concerning Major and a letter dated March 25, 2015 concerning the mother. I allowed these unsworn letters to be filed only to provide a narrative of the contact that Major and his mother had had with Ms. Chin and the purpose of that contact. I did not give any weight to the information recited by Ms.

Chin that was provided to her by the mother. [ 19 ] The mother also attached as Exhibit “B” to her affidavit two handwritten notes that she found in Major’s knapsack after school. One was dated “March” and the other “May 28, 2015”. They were signed but the author’s name was not set out. The mother said that

Major’s teacher wrote the notes. This hearsay evidence should not have been attached to an affidavit. I removed the exhibit from the continuing record but left it in the file and noted that it was struck out pursuant to my order. I did not consider any of the content of the said notes. [ 20 ] The mother’s affidavit stated that the child had had access at PSAP. She said that Major was anxious prior to the visits. She noted that her son liked the one on one with his father and this should be prioritized by the father. She objected to visits at the father’s home because of all the people who would be present.

She noted that the father resides in a 3 bedroom apartment with his partner, their newborn child and his partner’s two other children who are 16 and 12 years of age. She said that Major would be overwhelmed with visits at his father’s home. [ 21 ] The mother also alleged that since the supervised access had started Major had begun to be aggressive at school and acted out at home. She said that he was anxious about telling his father that all he wanted was some one on one time. She implied that he was afraid of his father’s reaction.

The mother said that the father did not have any understanding of the loss felt by Major when the father “abandoned” him both in 2010-11 and again in 2013-14. She was convinced that all of Major’s anxiety could be related to this and all of his behavioural issues could be attributed to the resumption of access. [ 22 ] The mother admitted that she suffered from anxiety and filed Ms. Chin’s letter to confirm her treatment for same. She related her anxiety to the effect of the father’s assault upon her and to her worry that once access resumed that the father would once again abandon their son.

She denied that her anxiety around access could have been projected onto her son. [ 23 ] The mother’s affidavit stated that access should remain supervised and did not even address the fact that access had already moved to supervised exchanges but unsupervised day access. When asked as to his client’s position, Mr. Skursky proposed that the father continue to have daytime one on one access with Major for a period of time before moving to any overnight visits. He said that his client felt that her son was not yet comfortable enough with the father to have overnight visits.

He effectively conceded that overnights would start at some point and he submitted that they should be at the home of the PGM where the father used to have overnight visits prior to the end of weekend access in February 2013. The mother had said that Major enjoyed spending time with his PGM. Father’s evidence [ 24 ] After the incident on February 7, 2013 the father did not have visits unit sometime after May 2014 when visits began at the Early Years Centre as the parties waited for a time slot at PSAP. Fully supervised access began at PSAP in October 2014.

The father filed the notes for October 18, and November 1, 2014 visits. The notes showed that the child was quite comfortable with the father. They played and laughed together and exchanged hugs at the end of the visits. At the first visit on October 18 the note stated that “staff gave child a safety toy to use if he is feeling anxious and wanted to leave. Major took the toy out of his pocket and told staff that he doesn’t need it.” [ 25 ] Beginning January 10, 2015 those visits moved to supervised exchanges at PSAP for access in the community for 5 hours every Saturday.

The father filed PSAP notes from the supervised exchanges on January 10, January 31, and February 28, 2015. The parties agreed that Major did not attend 5 visits between January and the motion date because the mother said that the child was too ill to attend. No medical notes were ever provided. PSAP apparently proposed make-up visits but the mother had not agreed to them. [ 26 ] The exchange notes set out that the father and child exchanged hugs, spoke freely and played games together.

Other than the fact that the father was late in returning Major on January 31 there was nothing in the notes provided that was of any concern. Mr. Skursky said though that an adverse inference should be drawn against the father as he had not provided every note that was available. [ 27 ] The father’s evidence was that the Major has met both the father’s partner and his newborn brother and other family members. He said that Major was very comfortable with his family. The father sought an order that he now have overnight weekend access at his apartment.

He also sought holiday access including two weeks in the summer. Telephone access had started and the father said he called whenever there was an opportunity to speak with Major. [ 28 ] The father alleged that the mother called CAS on more than one occasion to make false claims. He said that the medical records she chose to file demonstrated that she suffered from anxiety and it was his position that if Major also had anxiety it was as a result of the mother’s parenting.

He said that as he only saw Major 5 hours a week (and many weeks were cancelled by the mother) that he did not have sufficient time with his son to have a significant impact upon his emotional state. He said that there was no way that their few

interactions to date could have led to his son becoming more aggressive at school. [ 29 ] The father’s most recent affidavit did not address his work

schedule although he had provided a letter from his employer in 2014. In response to my questions he stated that he worked 12 hour shifts (four one week and three the next) with two weeks of days followed by two weeks of nights. He has midweek days off but the days changed week to week. He had not sought mid-week access but he agreed that a one on one visit with Major on a Wednesday when he worked night shifts (7:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m.) would be good. The father said he did not work every other Saturday and that he was not working on Saturday August 1.

The father said that he was working day shifts on the weeks of August 3 and August 10. [ 30 ] The father said that Major did have a very good relationship with his mother Germanie Matherin. He was open to beginning overnights at her home but he wanted the visits to be at his apartment as soon as possible. His mother lived in Mississauga. CHILD SUPPORT ISSUE Mother’s position [ 31 ] The mother’s Motion to Change sought child support based upon an income of $50,000 per year from December 1, 2013. The Motion to Change had been issued December 6, 2013.

The mother did not attend at the first Case Conference on March 27, 2014. The father attended and consented to an order increasing his child support to $360 a month which is the amount for a payor earning $40,000 per year. [ 32 ] Mr. Skursky said that the father’s 2014 Notice of Assessment showed an income of $40,231. He noted that in his most recent Financial Statement the father stated that his expenses were $49,484.16. In his Financial Statement of August 8, 2014 the father said that he would earn $46,483 on an ongoing basis.

The father did have a recording studio known as The Situation Room in which he stated that he engineered and produced music compositions. Mr. Skursky said that the father should be imputed to have an income of $50,000 per year. [ 33 ] The mother sought a contribution to the child’s s. 7 expenses. The mother had not provided notice of this in her Motion to Change. The existing final order required the father to pay 78% of reasonable expenses after the mother provided documents confirming the nature and costs of the expenses. Mr. Skursky said that the father had failed or refused to pay these expenses.

He thought that they were outlined in the Continuing Record but I see no reference to the expenses in the material filed. Mr. Skursky stated that the mother’s income should be $11,480 for s. 7 sharing so that if the father’s income was $40,000 the percentage to be paid by the father would be 77%. Mr. Skursky wanted a percentage sharing of 81% based upon a $50,000 income. Father’s position [ 34 ] The father had sought a reduction in child support in his materials based upon his job loss. He filed his Record of Employment and his E.I. information. The father had been laid off from his job on February 26, 2015.

He thought that he would soon be recalled and in fact he was recalled before the April 28, 2015 court attendance so his unemployment was for less than two months. The father’s 2014 income was approximately $40,000 and he felt that his 2015 income would be about the same but probably less because of the unemployment. [ 35 ] The father said he had a newborn child now and was no longer attempting to make an income through a recording studio. He was prepared to pay support on an income of $40,000 per year. ANALYSIS Material change in circumstances

[ 36 ] I find that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the final order of August 23, 2011. The suspension in access on February 7, 2013 was a material change giving rise to a review of the access arrangements. [ 37 ] There had also been a material change with respect to child support. When the order was made the father was only earning $23,600 per year. When the Motion to Change was brought he was earning $40,000 per year. Best interests of the child [ 38 ] I have reviewed the best interests criteria in s. 24 (2) of the CLRA . I will briefly address the relevant subsections.

Love affection and emotional ties [ 39 ] The evidence had persuaded me that Major does exhibit love and affection for his father and that there is an emotional tie between them. Despite the fact that there was a 16 month gap in access Major was quite comfortable with his father at the first supervised visit. The access expanded to day access and no problems were noted by anyone other than the mother. She attributed Major’s anxiety to his re-connection with his father. The evidence as a whole does not support such a connection.

Child’s views and preferences [ 40 ] I did not have the benefit of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s input in this matter. Major is only 6 years old so his views would be given limited weight in any event. The mother wanted me to consider the letters filed by the counselor Ms. Chin. The letters confirm that Major remains anxious and that “minimal progress” had been made in relieving his anxiety. As for the cause of the anxiety Ms. Chin states that Major is concerned that his mother will abandon him. As for the father, Major was said to be reluctant to talk about him. He told Ms.

Chin that sometimes he does not want to talk to his father on the phone. He gets upset if a visit with his father is missed. At no point does Ms. Chin state that Major’s anxiety is related to his visits with his father. In the letter of March 25, 2015 concerning the mother Ms. Chin relates what the mother told her about herself and her son. The mother’s evidence that I can consider is in her affidavit. Her point of view is not enhanced because it is related by her counselor. I cannot rely upon the unsworn hearsay evidence in Ms.

Chin’s letter. [ 41 ] The supervised visit notes indicate that Major likes to see his father. The father’s affidavit states that Major enjoys his visits and wants to see him more often. Ability to act as an access parent [ 42 ] The fact that the father did not have access for 16 months is very concerning. It happened after an incident with the mother that led to criminal charges. For whatever reason neither of the parents was able to arrange access by Major to his father even though Major had access to a counselor and the PGM was a trusted third party who could have assisted with access supervision or exchanges.

Both parties were somewhat stubborn and the end result was that Major missed out on time with his father. [ 43 ] Since access has resumed the father has acted appropriately with the exception of one late return to PSAP which is regrettable. His access plan is reasonable and takes into consideration his availability for access. He was receptive to some one- to- one mid-week access as soon as it was proposed. Resumption of access

[ 44 ] With such a long gap in access it was clear that access needed to be reintroduced cautiously and gradually. A temporary order needed to be made and the best option would have been access at the PSAP. Unfortunately the PSAP was not available until October 2014 and as a result some access started at the Early Years Centre where we did not have the benefit of access notes. [ 45 ] Once notes were available it became apparent that Major enjoyed his access with his father and was quite comfortable with him. Access then moved to supervised exchanges.

Once again the notes showed that there were no problems with access. Unfortunately the experience with PSAP was that the mother cancelled access on five occasions for alleged illness of the child. PSAP also had dates when they were closed. The end result of all of this has been that access reintroduction has moved much more slowly than it should have. Mother’s concerns [ 46 ] I do not accept the mother’s argument that Major requires counseling for anxiety due to his relationship with his father. It could not have been easy for Major to lose contact with his father on two lengthy occasions in his young life.

I do accept that Major may have some fears of abandonment by his father or mother or both. These fears, if they exist, do not provide a reason to restrict access. On the contrary they provide justification for normalizing Major’s access with his father as soon as possible. [ 47 ] I also do not accept the mother’s position that Major would find it to be too overwhelming to have overnight access at his father’s apartment due to the presence of the father’s partner, his newborn and his two teenage step-children.

The father stated that Major would sleep in a den that has been converted to a bedroom and that this room had a door and a window. It might well be that Major wants one on one time with his Dad and if so this speaks to his comfort level in his father’s care. All children need some individual attention and this is particularly so when there is a newborn child who if present during all access will require a lot of parental focus. The mother made a positive suggestion of mid–week access and that will be implemented where it can be accommodated with the father’s work schedule.

Overnight access [ 48 ] While the resumption of overnight access has taken some time it is still advisable to proceed in a gradual manner to ensure its success. The first overnight visit will occur at the home of the PGM as Major is comfortable there and enjoys spending time with her. I also find that the mother’s anxiety about access will be lessened if she knows the first visit is at the home of the PGM. As this visit will occur within days of the mother obtaining this decision I do not want to make any order that will cause such anxiety to the mother that it will inevitably have an impact upon the child.

I fully expect that first overnight visit to go well and from then on overnights can occur at the father’s apartment although he is of course free to change them to the PGM’s if he wishes. The father must simply give the mother notice no later than a day before the time of the exchange if the child will be staying overnight at the PGM’s instead of his home. The first three visits will be for one night only. As overnight access is only once every two weeks there will be a full six weeks before two night overnights begin. Holiday access [ 49 ] The existing final order did not provide for holiday access.

The father stated that he does not work between December 23 and January 2 in 2015. As far as I know the child has always spent Christmas Day with his mother so that will continue in 2015. The father should have Major for at least three consecutive days and they will be from Boxing Day to December 28 in 2015. The father should also have New Year’s Day. The father’s time off may be different in other years so the parties shall establish a

schedule by December 7 each year. The father shall have at least five days during the Christmas school vacation. Unless otherwise agreed those days shall always include Boxing Day and New Year’s Day as they are statutory holidays and the father will likely not have to work. [ 50 ] The father shall also have 2 additional days during the March Break which can be added to his alternate weekend time or can be his days off during that week.

Any long weekend for a statutory or school holiday that falls on the father’s weekend shall be extended to cover the Monday or the Friday as the case may be provided that the father is not working a day shift on the holiday. [ 51 ] The father should have extended time with his son during the summer school vacation. He has requested half of the summer but I would order his alternate position of two weeks of access. The two weeks shall not be consecutive until Major is turning 10 years of age.

CHILD SUPPORT Regular employment [ 52 ] The father’s 2014 employment income was $40,231. This appears to be for a full year’s work. In 2015 the father was laid off from February 26 to sometime before April 28 (the exact date was not provided but I believe that he returned to work approximately one week after the March 26 court attendance as he was back by the April 28 one). [ 53 ] The father’s pay statement for May 28, 2015 showed a year to date income of $12,831.05. It seems that the father will likely earn less than $40,000 in the 2015 calendar year due to the lay-off.

He has paid child support based upon $40,000 to date notwithstanding the reduced income in the first half of the year. [ 54 ] It is likely that the father will earn more than $40,000 in the next twelve months if he is not laid off as his income had increased annually until the lay-off. I find that the best approach is to use $40,000 as his employment income even though his 2015 Notice of Assessment will likely show less income. The first adjustment to child support can then be on the 2016 Notice of Assessment which should be for a full working year.

Imputed income [ 55 ] The father has spent money on recording equipment and he certainly had plans to produce music. The only full tax return filed was for 2012 and the father showed a significant loss in his business venture as he only had $1,300 in income as against $11,468 in expenses. The father said that he is no longer operating his studio business. The onus is on the mother to prove that other sources of income are being received and not declared. [ 56 ] Mr. Skursky argued that the father had set out $49,484 as his expenses and therefore, he must have the income available to meet them.

This would certainly be true if the father had no debt and if he had no partner who could contribute to his costs. The father has both. I find that the mother has not met the onus upon her to prove on a balance of probabilities standard that the father has undeclared income.

Section 7 costs [ 57 ] Mr. Skursky argued that the court should make an order for the father’s contribution to ongoing s. 7 costs. There was no request in the mother’s Motion to Change to change the special expense clause of paragraph 6 of the final order. There was a process set out in the order for determining the costs and the appropriate proportionate contribution. I will not make an order for s. 7 costs. I trust that the mother will now comply with the order and send the father particulars of the extra-curricular activities that she thinks Major should be involved in.

I also trust that she will listen to the father’s comments and that he will not unreasonably refuse to contribute to an activity cost. As the final order will not be changed the parties will have recourse to the court by way of a Motion to Change if they cannot agree but it should not come to that. Major is getting to an age where some activities outside of school are appropriate and the parties should co-operate and the father should pay his proportionate share which at 77% currently is essentially the same as it was when the final order was made.

COSTS [ 58 ] The final order that is being made is closer to the position argued by the father than it is to the position argued by the mother. However, I have delayed the start of two night overnight access and provided for less holiday time than sought by the father. Even if the father could be described as the successful party as that term is referred to in Rule 28 of the Family Law Rules I find that in all of the circumstances of this matter there should be no order as to costs. ORDER

[ 59 ] The final order of the Honourable M. Justice M.B. Pawagi dated August 23, 2011 shall be changed where it is inconsistent with this order. The balance of the provisions of the said final order shall remain in place. 1. The Respondent shall have access to the child Major Bryan-Pean, born July 30, 2008 as follows:

a) Saturday at noon to Sunday at 4:00 p.m. on August 1, 15 and 29 2015. Provided that on August 1 the child shall sleep at the home of the paternal grandmother Germanie Matherin in Mississauga. On all subsequent overnight access visits the child shall sleep at the home of the Respondent unless he provides notice to the Applicant one day before the access begins that the child will sleep at the paternal grandmother’s home or some other location.

b) Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. every alternate weekend beginning September 11, 2015. Provided that if the Respondent is working a day shift on the Friday then he shall notify the Applicant at least three days before and the child shall be exchanged at 8:00 p.m. Provided further that if the Friday or the Monday of the access weekend is a school or statutory holiday the access will begin on the Friday or end on the Monday as the case may be unless the Respondent is working a day shift on the holiday.

c) Every Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on the days when weeks when the Respondent is on night shift (7:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m.) beginning Wednesday August 19, 2015. No one else shall be present during this access.

d) i) From December 26 (Boxing Day) at 10:00 a.m. to December 28 at 8:00 p.m. and on New Year’s Eve at 5:00 p.m. to New Year’s Day at 8:00 p.m. in 2015. The regular access

schedule shall be replaced by this

schedule between December 26 and January 2, 2015 but shall otherwise prevail for the balance of the school vacation period. ii)In 2016 and every year thereafter the Respondent shall advise the Applicant in writing by November 30 of the five day additional days that he wishes to have access in the school Christmas vacation. The Applicant shall respond in writing before December 7 each year. In the event of conflict the Respondent’s chosen days shall prevail in 2016 and every even numbered year and the Applicant’s in 2017 and every odd numbered year. Provided that unless otherwise agreed the Respondent’s access days shall include Boxing Day and New Year’s Day.

e) The Respondent shall have two additional days of access during the March Break. The Applicant shall advise the Respondent no less than 14 days prior to the Break as to whether the child has any activities planned for the Break. The Respondent shall advise the Applicant no less than 7 days before the Break as to the days chosen. His chosen days shall be days that he is not working day shift and he shall take into consideration the child’s activities when scheduling his time. The additional days may be added to the Respondent’s alternate weekend access or taken separately.

f) The Respondent shall have two weeks with the child during the summer school vacation. The weeks shall be for 7 days beginning or ending with an access weekend. The weeks shall be non- consecutive until 2019 unless the parties otherwise agree. The Respondent shall advise the Applicant of the weeks preferred by April 1 each year. The Respondent shall respond by April 15 each year. In the event of conflict the Respondent’s chosen days shall prevail in 2016 and every even numbered year and the Applicant’s in 2017 and every odd numbered year.

g) the child shall always be with the Applicant on Mother’s Day from noon to 8:00 p.m. and with the Respondent on Father’s Day from noon to 8:00 p.m.

h) Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing the child shall be exchanged for access at the Tim Horton’s location just outside the Square One mall in Mississauga.

i) The Respondent shall have telephone access to the child on all non-access days at reasonable times. The Applicant shall have telephone contact with the child on all days when the child is staying overnight with the Respondent.

j) If the Applicant states that the child cannot attend access due to illness she shall provide a doctor’s note justifying the missed access within 7 days.

k) The Peel Regional Police Service, the Halton Regional police and any other police force with jurisdiction in Ontario shall enforce the access provisions of this order pursuant to s. 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act . 2.

a) The Applicant shall advise the Respondent in writing of all relevant information concerning the child including but not limited to, educational information, medical information, counseling information and information concerning extra-curricular activities. The Respondent shall be entitled to attend all school and extra-curricular activities.

b) The Applicant shall sign consents permitting the release to the Respondent of all information concerning the child in the possession of the child’s school, doctors or other health care providers, and counselors or therapists. 3.

a) The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant for the support of the child the sum of $360.00 per month beginning August 1, 2015.

b) the said support is based upon the Respondent`s income of $40,000 per year.

c) The said table amount of child support will not be changed based upon the Respondent’s 2015 Notice of Assessment but shall be changed on July 1, 2017 in accordance with the income disclosed on the Respondent’s 2016 Notice of Assessment.

d) Support deduction order to issue. 4. There shall be no order as to costs. Released: July 28, 2015 Justice Philip J. Clay