Hsiung v. Tsioutsioulas, 2011 ONCJ 517

Toronto (North York) Registry No. D40110/07 DATE: 2011·IX·26 CITATION: Hsiung v. Tsioutsioulas , 2011 ONCJ 517 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: LAHAINA NG HSIUNG, Applicant, — AND — LOUIS TSIOUTSIOULAS, Respondent. Before Justice Harvey P.

Brownstone Heard on 22 September 2011 Reasons for Judgment released on 26 September 2011 CUSTODY OF CHILD — General — Incidents of custody — Change in child’s name — Grounds — Best interests of child — At father’s motion to vary custody order, mother made counter-motion seeking to change name of child (now 8 years old) — Motion judge observed that boy knew his name and was used to it and that time for name changes had long passed — Because of parents’ high- conflict relationship, child had had quite enough disruption in his life — Mother’s reasons for her motion related only to her needs and convenience and not to those of child — Motion judge prohibited any change to child’s name until he became adult.

CUSTODY OF CHILD — Variation — Form of order — Joint custody — Grounds — Court’s distrust of either party as sole custodian — On father’s motion to vary custody order, motion judge concluded that mother’s deficits as custodial parent did NOT relate to her ability to provide instrumental care or follow medical instructions and make good decisions relating to severely ill boy’s health care — But she had relentlessly done all within her power to exclude father from medical appointments concerning severely ill son, to isolate him from access to medical staff and to deprive him of access to medical information, even though court order had required mother to consult with father on important decisions about child’s welfare and to share information about child with father, even going so far as to reschedule boy’s medical appointments so that they would fall on “her days” and not father’s — Judge was not persuaded, however, that appropriately child-focussed solution to unfortunate responses of parents in this case would be to shift power from one parent to other, especially since father had not yet come to terms with his as yet unresolved resentful attitude towards mother — Judge was fully aware of classic line of cases that insist that joint custody should not be ordered unless parents have been able or willing to communicate and to co-operate with each other and make decisions together in civilized, child-focussed way — But cases have also accepted joint custody, even in high-conflict cases, where parents have successfully insulated child from conflict and have installed sufficient protective factors to ensure functioning of joint parental authority — And more recently, courts have granted joint custody as necessary tool to preserve balance of power between parents, especially where one parent has been primarily responsible for conflictual relationship — This case fell into latter category — Joint custody would serve boy’s best interests in this case but judge sternly warned mother that, if she continued to undermine father’s parental authority, court would proceed to grant sole custody to father and to deprive mother of any decision-making authority.

CUSTODY OF CHILD — Variation — Threshold test (Material change in circumstances) — Nature of change — Failure to comply with terms of order or agreement — Existing order theoretically envisaged shared parenting arrangement in which mother was required to consult with father on important decisions about child’s welfare and to share information about child with father but, in practice, parents were in high-conflict relationship in which mother abused her custodial powers to marginalize father’s role in child’s life, particularly since sever illness overtook child 2 years ago — On father’s motion to vary custody order, motion judge concluded that mother’s relentless conduct in doing all within her power to exclude father from medical appointments, to isolate him from access to medical staff, and to deprive him of access to medical information (particularly in face of court-ordered pre-decision-making consultation obligations and information-sharing entitlements) constituted material change in circumstances affecting child’s best interests that allowed court to entertain father’s motion on its merits.

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS CITED

Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-12 [as amended], subsection 24(2),

section 29. Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 [as amended], subrule 24(1), subrule 24(8) and subrule 24(11). CASES CITED 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.). Bilopavlovic v. Bilopavlovic, 2008 ONCA 380, 167 A.C.W.S. (3d) 931, [2008] O.J. No. 1854, 2008 Cars​well​Ont 2649 (Ont. C.A.). Bromley v. Bromley, 2009 ONCA 355, 176 A.C.W.S. (3d) 747, [2009] O.J. No. 1733, 2009 Cars​well​Ont 2210 (Ont. C.A.). Cook v. Sacco, , 217 O.A.C. 90, 32 R.F.L. (6th) 1, [2006] O.J. No. 4379, 2006 Cars​well​Ont 6736 (Ont. C.A.). Garrow v.

Woycheshen, 2008 ONCJ 686, 64 R.F.L. (6th) 459, [2008] O.J. No. 5422, 2008 Cars​well​Ont 8193 (Ont. C.J.). Graham v. Bruto, 2008 ONCA 260, 165 A.C.W.S. (3d) 103, [2008] O.J. No. 1306, 2008 Cars​well​Ont 1906 (Ont. C.A.). Hunter v. Hunter, 2008 BCSC 403, 52 R.F.L. (6th) 109, [2008] B.C.J. No. 587, 2008 Cars​well​BC 656 (B.C.S.C.). K.(R.K.) v. M.(B.M.) and S.(R.), 2009 YKSC 33, 66 R.F.L. (6th) 281, [2009] Y.J. No. 54, 2009 Cars​well​Yukon 38 (Yuk. S.C.). 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.). Lawson v.

Lawson, , 81 O.R. (3d) 321, 214 O.A.C. 94, 29 R.F.L. (6th) 8, [2006] O.J. No. 3179, 2006 Cars​well​Ont4789 (Ont. C.A.). Ursic v. Ursic, , 32 R.F.L. (6th) 23, [2006] O.J. No. 2178, 2006 Cars​well​Ont 3335 (Ont. C.A.). Lahaina Ng Hsiung .............................................................................................. on her own behalf Esther L. Lenkinski ............................................................................... counsel for the respondent [1] JUSTICE H.P.

BROWNSTONE:— These are my reasons for decision in a custody change motion brought by therespondent father relating to the parties’ son, Anthony Chin-Liang Tsioutsioulas, born on 27 August 2003. He seeks sole custody of thechild, or in the alternative, a joint custody order containing a detailed parenting plan. He also seeks an order prohibiting the mother fromchanging the child’s name. 1: BACKGROUND FACTS [2] On 4 June 2008, the court made an order granting sole custody to the mother, with access to the father from Wednesdayat 9:00 a.m. to Saturday at 6:00 p.m.

The order contained a provision requiring the mother to consult with the father in writing prior tomaking any major decisions regarding the child. The father was also granted to right to receive the same information regarding the childas the mother received, from the child’s school, doctors, and any other service providers. [3] On 24 September 2008, a final order was made which primarily addressed holiday access.

The two provisions from theorder of 4 June 2008 referred to above (consultation and right to information), which were clearly intended to form part of the final order,were inadvertently omitted from the formal issued order dated 24 September 2008.[1] This inadvertent but crucial error by the parties’counsel at the time (neither of which was involved in this motion) fuelled the mother’s belief that she could exercise her custodial rightswithout any regard for the father’s role in the child’s life, in terms of pre-decision-making consultation and access to information. [4] In April 2009, the mother brought a change motion, seeking to reduce the child’s time in the father’s care, arguing thatthe shared parenting regime was detrimental to the child’s well-being.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer conducted an investigationand provided a report dated 16 November 2009, which recommended no change to the parenting schedule. A number of very goodrecommendations were made, intended to assist the parents to overcome their rage toward each other, which was blocking any possibilityfor effective communication and co-operation as co-parents. Unfortunately, those recommendations were not properly implemented byeither parent. The result of the mother’s change motion was that no change was made to the parenting

schedule and the shared parentingarrangement has continued to this day. [5] On 24 November 2010, the child became extremely ill and was admitted to the Hospital for Sick Children (“HSC”)with life-threatening inflammatory brain disease. He received intensive medical treatment and, on 24 January 2011, he was transferredto Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital (Bloorview). He was discharged as a daily out-patient on 20 May 2011 and wasfinally discharged from that facility on 24 June 2011.

By all accounts, this child, who was at one point in a coma and near death, has hada remarkable recovery and is now doing well. However, he still has occasional follow-up medical appointments to monitor his recoveryand progress. [6] For many high-conflict couples faced with such an overwhelming medical crisis for their child, they are able torecognize the importance and necessity of putting aside their differences and working co-operatively to focus on their child’s healthissues.

Unfortunately, for the mother and father in this case (hereinafter referred to as Lahaina and Louis), their high-conflictrelationship reached an all-time high, and culminated in this litigation.

2: THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE [ 7 ] The evidence filed by the parties in this motion was voluminous, filling three large volumes of the continuing record. Each party provided lengthy affidavits offering a litany of accusations against the other and offering numerous self-serving denials, excuses and justifications for his or her conduct. Fortunately, the court had the benefit of sworn testimony from five independent professional witnesses: four hospital employees and the parties’ family service worker at the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (“CCAS”).

The observations of the professional witnesses relating to the conduct of the parents were remarkably consistent and provided the court with a compelling picture of each parent’s personality, parenting style and level of co-operation vis-à-vis the other parent. Wherever either parent’s evidence contradicted that of a professional witness, I preferred the evidence of the professional witness, as I found these witnesses to be neutral, fair and child-focussed.

In her submissions, the mother urged me to give great weight to the numerous letters that she filed from professionals attesting to her good character and excellent parenting skills.

It is certainly questionable whether those professionals would today have the same opinion of her if they had the opportunity to read the transcripts of the testimony of the five professionals who gave evidence in this case. 3: MOTHER’S ABUSE OF HER CUSTODIAL ROLE [ 8 ] Throughout Anthony’s hospitalization, Lahaina exercised her custodial powers with a fiercely arrogant sense of exclusivity and entitlement and with a total lack of sensitivity and appreciation for Louis’ role in the child’s life and for his right to be kept informed of all medical decisions and appointments so that he could be present for his son, who was critically ill for a prolonged period of time.

This is completely unacceptable and reflective of a parent who failed to understand that one of the most important roles of a custodial parent is to appreciate and support the role of the non-custodial parent in the child’s life. Furthermore, when taken in the context of Lahaina’s failure to comply with the explicit consultation and information-sharing provisions in the custody order (referred to in paragraph [2] above), her relentlessly selfish and immature behaviour escalated to the level of a contempt of court worthy of serious sanction.

Here are some examples that emerged from the testimony of hospital personnel: (

a) Lorna Campbell, clinical leader at Bloorview, testified that Lahaina shouted at Louis when he interrupted a meeting she was having with a manager in order to say goodbye to his son. She further testified that Lahaina gave her explicit instructions not to give Louis any information about the child because she had sole custody. She described Lahaina as “aggressive” and “challenging” and “rude” when dealing with hospital personnel. (

b) Paul Gregoroff, a highly experienced social worker in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at the HSC, testified that Lahaina was “selfish”, “entitled” and “immature”. He formed these conclusions because Lahaina had told him in front of the child that she deserved more time with her son than Louis did, because she had given birth to the child and had breastfed him. When Mr. Gregoroff reminded Lahaina that their court order provided for a 50-50 shared parenting arrangement, she responded that the court order actually gave her one day more per month than the father got, so she should have more time with Anthony while he was hospitalized. With the help of hospital personnel, a 5-hour rotation

schedule was implemented for each parent to spend time with Anthony. [2] On one occasion, Lahaina decided to give Anthony a bath right before her allotted time with him was about to end. She continued to bathe the child without any concern for the fact that she was intruding on the father’s time with the child. Mr. Gregoroff described Lahaina as a person who did not care what anyone said; she was going to do what she wanted. In his interactions with her, he described her as “stern”, “demanding”, “rigid” and “controlling”. (

c) Jennifer Schram, a registered practical nurse at Bloorview, testified about a conversation that she had with Lahaina in front of the child. When she told Lahaina that she was a single mother with an absent father, Lahaina said that her own life would be easier if the child’s father were not involved. Clearly, this is reflective of how Lahaina really feels: she would prefer that Anthony have no father, than to have to deal with someone she dislikes. This is not an appropriately child- focussed attitude that the court expects of custodial parents. (

d) Patricia Morrow, a registered nurse at the HSC, related two disturbing incidents. One day, Louis was holding the child during a consultation and Lahaina was making notes. When the consultation was over, Louis wanted to make his own notes and took Lahaina’s notebook so that he could copy from her notes. Lahaina angrily told Louis in front of the child not to touch her things. She should have had no problem with allowing Louis to borrow her notebook for a few minutes while he made his notes, even if he failed to ask permission before doing so.

These people are not strangers to each other and there was no risk that Louis was going to permanently keep the notebook; they both love the child and they both wanted to make notes of what the medical professional had said, and there was absolutely no reason in those circumstances for Lahaina to admonish Louis in front of the child, or at all. In a second, even more disturbing incident, Louis showed up for one of Anthony’s medical treatments and Lahaina became visibly upset and repeatedly insisted that he be ejected by hospital staff, saying “I don’t want him here.

This is my day.” I cannot see how Louis’ presence during a medical procedure, even though it was not “his day” to be with the child, should have bothered Lahaina at all. In her submissions, she attempted to justify her behaviour by stating that she was trying to avoid parental conflict being witnessed by Anthony. However, there is not one shred of evidence to support her allegation that Louis did anything at any time during Anthony’s lengthy hospitalization, to create conflict or to upset Anthony.

In fact, Louis demonstrated remarkable maturity during this latter incident: he spent a little time with Anthony and then departed, to accommodate Lahaina’s selfish feelings. This is a very telling example of how, when faced with a potentially conflictual situation, it is Louis and not Lahaina who is prepared to back down in order to protect the child. [ 9 ] When asked to explain her conduct during her submissions, Lahaina stated that she was mostly motivated by fear and discomfort. She believed that, if Louis were given copies of Anthony’s medical records, he might take the child to a different doctor.

There was no reasonable basis for this fear. [ 10 ] Lahaina also stated that Louis made her feel abused and uncomfortable, because he blamed her for the child’s illness. She is justified in feeling this way. Louis is of the view that Lahaina did not realize how sick Anthony was becoming and that she should

have taken him to the hospital sooner. It was Louis who took the child to the hospital when the child was delivered to him in a very sickcondition. There is no question that, with 20-20 hindsight, Anthony should have been taken to the hospital sooner than he was. Lahainareadily acknowledged this in her submissions and stated that she told this to Louis on at least one prior occasion. Louis has had greatdifficulty letting go of his resentment and blaming of Lahaina and this has contributed to his inability to communicate with her in a civilway.

He made a complaint against the mother to the CCAS, alleging that she had been neglectful. The CCAS conducted aninvestigation and found no wrongdoing by Lahaina and I accept this finding. The fact is that neither parent could have realized how sickthe child was becoming and that there is no way to know whether Anthony’s illness would in any way have been different if he had beentaken to the hospital sooner than he was.

The point that Louis must truly accept once and for all is that it is absolutely futile to speculatein this way and, moreover, the essential fact on which to focus is that Anthony has made a remarkable recovery. Louis must learn to letgo of this issue once and for all and he must tell Lahaina in no uncertain terms that he has done so.

Everyone makes mistakes, but thereis much to celebrate when one considers how sick Anthony was and how healthy he is now. [11] It must be stated at this juncture that the court recognizes that the mother cannot be faulted for any medical decisions thatshe made — and there were many — throughout the child’s illness.[3] Her deficits as a custodial parent do NOT relate to her ability toprovide instrumental care or follow medical instructions and make good decisions relating to Anthony’s health care.

However, she hasfailed in the vitally important court-ordered obligation to consult with the non-custodial parent and to share information with him. Shewilfully and defiantly did all within her power to exclude him — even going so far as to reschedule Anthony’s medical appointments sothat they would fall on “her days” and not the father’s. 4: THE LAW [12]

Section 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-12, as amended (“the Act”), provides that a custodyorder cannot be varied “unless there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of thechild”.

Subsection 24(2) sets out the factors to be considered by the court in considering the “best interests of the child”. [13] I have concluded that the mother’s relentless conduct in doing all within her power to exclude the father from medicalappointments, to isolate him from access to medical staff, and to deprive him of access to medical information — particularly in the faceof court-ordered pre-decision-making consultation obligations and information-sharing entitlements — constitutes a material change incircumstances that affected the child’s best interests. This conclusion is in

part in reliance on the very helpful testimony of the parents’CCAS family service worker, Alana Miller, who testified in this case. I agree with her findings and recommendations and urge theparents to work very closely with this experienced and insightful social worker and to utilize the resources and referrals offered by theCCAS to work towards a healthy, business-like, civilized co-parenting relationship for Anthony’s sake. 5: WHAT ORDER IS IN ANTHONY’S BEST INTERESTS? [14] Louis has asked the court to grant him sole custody, because he believes that he is the better parent.

His counselsubmitted that he is the better parent because he would never treat Lahaina tn the way that she treated him where Anthony’s well-beingis concerned. I note that there is some support for granting custody to Louis. His bedside parenting skills while Anthony washospitalized were noticeably better than Lahaina’s.[4] And his display of maturity in departing the scene during one of Anthony’smedical treatments, because Lahaina was insisting that it was “her day” (see paragraph [8](

d) above) is most admirable. However, atthis time, I am not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that the appropriately child-focussed solution to the pathology beingdemonstrated by the parents in this case would be to shift the power from one parent to the other, especially given the concerns set out inparagraph [10] above regarding Louis’ as yet unresolved resentful attitude towards Lahaina.

Also, an order transferring custody from themother to the father would fail to sufficiently acknowledge the excellent parenting that BOTH parents provided to Anthony, albeitseparately, during his prolonged and very serious illness. [15] In my view, the time has come for the court to convey to both parents in the strongest possible terms that they areEQUALLY IMPORTANT in Anthony’s life, regardless of the hostility and acrimony they feel towards one another.

The father hasasked the court, in the alternative, to make an order of joint custody and I agree that this is the appropriate disposition that would meetAnthony’s best interests. [16] This being said, Lahaina should consider herself sternly warned that, if she continues to undermine Louis’ parentalauthority, the next step will be to grant sole custody to Louis and deprive Lahaina of any decision-making authority.

I sincerely hopethat this will not be necessary. [17] I am acutely aware that an order for joint custody should not be made in cases where the parents have been unable orunwilling to demonstrate the capacity and willingness to communicate and to co-operate with each other and make decisions together in acivilized, child-focussed way: see 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.); Lawson v. Lawson, , 81 O.R. (3d) 321, 214 O.A.C. 94, 29R.F.L. (6th) 8, [2006] O.J. No. 3179, 2006 Cars​well​Ont 4789 (Ont. C.A.); Graham v.

Bruto, 2008 ONCA 260, 165 A.C.W.S. (3d) 103,[2008] O.J. No. 1306, 2008 Cars​well​Ont 1906 (Ont. C.A.). However, courts are increasingly prepared to order joint custody, even inhigh conflict cases, where satisfied that the parents have insulated the children from the conflict and sufficient protective factors are inplace to ensure that the joint parental authority will be workable: see Ursic v. Ursic, , 32 R.F.L. (6th) 23, [2006] O.J.No. 2178, 2006 Cars​well​Ont 3335 (Ont. C.A.); Cook v. Sacco, , 217 O.A.C. 90, 32 R.F.L. (6th) 1, [2006] O.J. No.4379, 2006 Cars​well​Ont 6736 (Ont. C.A.); Andrade v.

Kennelly, 2007 ONCA 898, 46 R.F.L. (6th) 235, [2007] O.J. No. 5004, 2007Cars​well​Ont 8271 (Ont. C.A.); Bilopavlovic v. Bilopavlovic, 2008 ONCA 380, 167 A.C.W.S. (3d) 931, [2008] O.J. No. 1854, 2008 Cars​-well​Ont 2649 (Ont. C.A.). Moreover, in recent years, there has been more willingness to grant joint custody where such an order isnecessary to preserve the balance of power between the parents, especially where one parent has been primarily responsible for theconflictual relationship: see Garrow v. Woycheshen, 2008 ONCJ 686, 64 R.F.L. (6th) 459, [2008] O.J. No. 5422, 2008 Cars​well​Ont8193 (Ont.

C.J.); Bromley v. Bromley, 2009 ONCA 355, 176 A.C.W.S. (3d) 747, [2009] O.J. No. 1733, 2009 Cars​well​Ont 2210 (Ont.

C.A.); R.K.K. v. B.M.M. and R.S. , 2009 YKSC 33 , 66 R.F.L. (6th) 281, [2009] Y.J. No. 54, 2009 Cars​well​Yukon 38 (Yuk. S.C.). I consider this to be such a case. [ 18 ] Accordingly, I have concluded that joint custody is appropriate in this case for the following reasons: (

a) The parents have for the past 3 years been sharing Anthony’s time on a 50-50 basis, with little difficulty prior to January 2011 when the child became ill. (

b) Despite repeated opportunities for explosive confrontations during the nightmarish 8 months that this family endured throughout Anthony’s illness, there is absolutely no evidence that any such confrontations occurred. It is true that Lahaina behaved poorly in terms of dismissing Louis’ important parental role and I have made reference to several occasions when she behaved inappropriately in front of Anthony, but for the most part Anthony was insulated from the parental conflict. (

c) According to CCAS worker Alana Miller, the parents have recently been able to communicate better with the use of a communications book and they were even able to enjoy a get-together with Anthony at Louis’ home. Both parents are to be applauded for taking that very important first step towards healing their emotional wounds and moving on for Anthony’s sake. (

d) Anthony’s health has greatly improved and there is no reason to think that these parents will in the future have to endure the stress and anxiety of such a painfully protracted life-threatening crisis. (

e) I intend to provide a detailed, structured court order that should alleviate stress by stipulating a procedure to be followed in the event that the parents are unable to agree on any issue. [ 19 ] I have carefully considered and rejected the father’s rather appealing request for an order requiring the parties to engage the services of a parenting co-ordinator to resolve any future disputes. I am generally very supportive of this method of dispute resolution.

However, in this case, given the involvement of the CCAS and the real and substantial risk of emotional harm to Anthony if the parental conflict does not subside, I have chosen to empower the CCAS to assist the parents to resolve non-medical disputes. Medical disputes should ideally be resolved by the child’s family doctor or, in the event that the medical issue in question is being attended to by a specialist, then the specialist should resolve it.

It should be noted that I am not empowering any third party to actually make decisions, because courts are not permitted to delegate decision-making powers in this way: see Hunter v. Hunter , 2008 BCSC 403 , 52 R.F.L. (6th) 109, [2008] B.C.J. No. 587, 2008 Cars​well​BC 656 (B.C.S.C.). However, it is hoped that the third parties mentioned above will assist the parties to resolve their disputes and, if this does not succeed, then either party may bring a motion to the court and the judge will decide.

In addition, neither parent shall be authorized to change the child’s family doctor or specialist without the other parent’s written notarized consent or the consent of the CCAS. [ 20 ] The father has proposed an order requiring both parents to communicate using Our Family Wizard. The court agrees with this suggestion if both parties agree, with the stipulation that, if at any time, this software is no longer available or if the parents find another more suitable communications tool, they shall be free to use a different method of communication, provided they agree in writing to do so.

If both parents do not want to communicate through Our Family Wizard, the current method of communication through a communication book is acceptable. 6: MOTHER’S REQUESTS [ 21 ] Lahaina’s request to change Anthony’s name is denied. Anthony is now 8 years old and has had quite enough disruption in his life. He knows his name and is used to it. The time has long passed for this child to have his name changed. In 10 years, he will be an adult and can decide for himself whether he wants to change his name. Lahaina has presented no good reason why Anthony’s name should be changed at this point in his life.

Her reasons for making this request relate only to her needs and convenience, not the child’s. There shall be an order prohibiting any change to the child’s name. [ 22 ] Lahaina made some additional requests in her response to Louis’ change motion, including a request to change the exchange time on Wednesdays. She did not address any of these issues in her submissions and, in any event, her materials do not disclose any child-focussed reasons to grant any of her requests. 7: ORDER [ 23 ] An order shall issue in the following terms: (

a) The parents shall have joint custody of the child. (

b) Anthony shall be in his father’s care from Wednesday at 9 a.m. to Saturday at 6 p.m. He shall be in his mother’s care from Saturday at 6 p.m. to Wednesday at 9 a.m. This

schedule shall continue during school holiday times except as provided in paragraph (

j) of this order, unless the parents agree to alter the

schedule by way of a written, notarized agreement. All exchanges of the child shall occur at the child’s school (or camp if the child attends summer camp) but. if the child is not attending school or camp on an exchange day, each parent shall be responsible for delivering Anthony to the other parent’s residence at the end of his or her parenting time. (

c) Each parent will attend all parent education programs, therapy and counselling as directed by the CCAS in writing, and shall file proof of successful completion of each program with the CCAS and the court within 30 days of completion.

(

d) If the parents are unable to agree on any medical issue regarding Anthony, they shall first attend together at least one meeting with the doctor attending to the medical issue in question in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If a disagreement between the parents cannot be resolved, either parent may bring a motion to have the issue determined by the court, but the notice of motion must be accompanied by a letter from the applicable doctor setting out his or her recommendations for resolution of the issue. The parents shall share equally the cost of any such letter, subject to reapportionment by the court when the motion is adjudicated. (

e) If the parents are unable to agree on any non-medical issue regarding Anthony, they shall first attend together at least one meeting with their CCAS family service worker in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If a disagreement between the parents cannot be resolved, either parent may bring a motion to have the issue determined by the court, but the notice of motion must be accompanied by a letter from the family service worker setting out his or her recommendations for resolution of the issue. The parents shall share equally the cost of any such letter, subject to reapportionment by the court when the motion is adjudicated. (

f) Anthony’s OHIP card shall travel with him between the parties’ residences. Each parent is entitled to obtain an original birth certificate for Anthony in accordance with the procedures established by the Registrar of Vital Statistics. If the parents cannot agree who shall keep Anthony’s social insurance card and passport, they will be kept in a safety deposit box at a bank and the parents will share equally the cost of any fees charged by the bank. (

g) Both parents shall be required to attend every medical and dental appointment for Anthony and every school event where parents are welcome to attend, including parent-teacher interviews. The parent having physical custody of Anthony on an appointment day will be responsible for transporting Anthony to and from the appointment.

Any parent making a medical or dental appointment for Anthony or an appointment to meet with any teacher, school official, counsellor, therapist, tutor or other service provider for Anthony must notify the other parent in writing at least seven days before such appointment, except in an emergency, in which case notification shall be provided immediately. The parent making any appointment shall maintain documentary proof of the written notification given to the other parent.

A copy of this order shall be provided to the CCAS family service worker and to Anthony’s school principal, as well as to all of Anthony’s doctors, counsellors, therapists, tutors and other service providers. (

h) Neither parent shall have the authority to change the child’s family doctor, specialist, dentist, therapist, counsellor, school, tutor or other service provider without the other parent’s written notarized consent or the written consent of the CCAS or court order. (

i) Each parent shall be entitled to make decisions concerning Anthony’s extracurricular activities that occur during his or her time with Anthony, and each parent shall bear the full costs of all activities in which he or she has enrolled the child. (

j) Paragraph 3 of the order dated 24 September 2008 (as reissued on 22 June 2011), which deals with holiday access, shall be incorporated into this final order. (

k) Regardless of the regular parenting schedule, Anthony shall spend Father’s Day with his father from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. [5] (

l) There shall be no alteration of the parenting

schedule for Hallowe’en or for Anthony’s birthday or for P.A. days unless the parents agree to such alteration by way of a written, notarized agreement. (

m) Neither parent may cause Anthony to be removed from Canada without the other parent’s written notarized consent or court order. (

n) Neither parent may obtain a passport for Anthony without the other parent’s signature on the passport application or a court order dispensing with that parent’s consent to the obtaining of a passport. (

o) Neither parent shall have authority to change the child’s name. His name shall continue to be Anthony Chin-Liang Tsioutsioulas until he reaches the age of majority. (

p) The parents shall communicate primarily through a communications book. If they agree in writing to use a co- parenting communication software such as Our Family Wizard, this is acceptable. (

q) Each parent shall keep the other apprised in writing at all times of his or her residential address and all telephone numbers at which he or she may be reached at work, at home, and by mobile telephone. [ 24 ] If the respondent wishes to claim costs, he shall serve and file his submissions by 4:30 p.m. on 28 October 2011. The applicant shall serve and file her responding submissions by 4:30 p.m. on 18 November 2011. The applicant would be well advised to consult legal counsel to assist her in this regard, given the principles set out in subrules 24(1) , (8) and (11) of the Family Law Rules , O.

Reg. 114/99, as amended, as they relate to the findings of fact made in relation to her conduct as a custodial parent during Anthony’s illness.