Cass v. Tomlinson, 2011 ONCJ 691

Brantford Registry No. F209/07E DATE: 2010·VIII·26 CITATION: Cass v. Tomlinson , 2011 ONCJ 691 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: SUZANNE FRANCIS CASS Applicant -and- PHILIP TOMLINSON Respondent Before Justice L.P. Thibideau Trial Heard on January 20, 2011, March 8, 2011 and May 26, 2011 REASONS DATED AUGUST 26, 2011 Brantford, Ontario APPEARANCES: Sandra Harris, Counsel for the Applicant mother

Philip Tomlinson, In Person THIBIDEAU, J.: [ 1 ] The Applicant Suzanne Cass and the Respondent Philip Tomlinson are the biological parents of the child Colleen Cass Tomlinson date of birth September 10, 1999. The parents were married on July 5, 1996, separated on July 17, 2002 and entered into a final separation agreement on November 27, 2006. That agreement set out that the parents were to have joint custody of Colleen, primary residence with mother.

The agreement further set out that father would have “access” (should be residence) with the child on alternate weekends with provisions for holidays and other times during the year including a 3 week period during the month of July each year. There was a neutral point for pick up and drop off of the child. There was also a provision that there would be no access if father was under the influence of alcohol.

Finally, the agreement provided that while there was joint custody in fact mother had the final decision making power after consultation with father on all issues effecting the child. [ 2 ] By Motion to Vary returnable May 27, 2008 father instituted the court process that has been ongoing since that time in one shape, form or another. The outcome of that initial Motion to Vary was August 19, 2008 Order that dismissed his Motion without costs because the parties had amended the terms of the separation agreement on a consent basis.

The original agreement of November 27, 2006 is filed as Exhibit 1; the amended agreement is not filed. [ 3 ] On October 13, 2009 an ex-parte emergency motion was heard at the request of the Respondent father and was refused. [ 4 ] By a Motion returnable November 3, 2009 father brought a served motion before the court requesting that the child be given into his custody with supervised access to the applicant mother.

That Motion commences the current proceeding added to by motions for temporary relief during the course of the action leading up to trial. [ 5 ] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer did become involved and a clinical investigator was appointed and made a report some of which is disputed by the respondent father. This will be dealt with in due course.

GENERAL HISTORY [ 6 ] The documentation and the evidence at trial supports the view that for the period of time from the separation to the execution of the formal separation agreement, in excess of four years, there was an arrangement between the parents that was not perfect but was workable for the care of Colleen and for involvement of Colleen in the lives of both parents and collateral relatives. To properly understand the complexities of this case it is appropriate to note that father commenced a relationship with a new partner, his current wife Sherry Tomlinson, in or about the year 2007.

Shortly thereafter Mr. Tomlinson became estranged from his biological family. He is described by the paternal grandfather, Cecil Tomlinson, as having “disowned” his own biological family, although the respondent Mr. Tomlinson has a different view of why the family estrangement exists. It was also shortly after that relationship began between Mr. Tomlinson and his current wife that the current matter came before the court for the first time on May 27, 2008.

RESPONDENT FATHER’S CASE [ 7 ] Father provided evidence through witnesses that for the time period of 2009 and 2010 particularly mother was frequently seen in bars intoxicated and dancing provocatively. Some four witnesses provided detailed accounts of particular instances proving the general proposition that mother was a frequenter of bars, commonly including weekday nights when Colleen would be in her care at home, drinking to excess, sometimes being loud and offensive, and sometimes addressing some of these witnesses directly because of their admitted history of accumulating evidence for father against mother.

On more than one occasion mother confronted the witnesses Bruce Hajas and Ryan Smith as being collectors of evidence for father. [ 8 ] Witnesses gave evidence about mother’s conduct while the child was present and directly affected. In the summer of 2009 one of father’s witnesses was employed by mother who went to a trade fair in Philadelphia with mother, the witness’s boyfriend and the child.

Pared to its core the evidence of the employee witness was that while in Philadelphia for the July 31 – August 3 rd weekend mother was seen to be intoxicated, invited a man late at night to the suite where all of the four individuals were staying and had sex with the man in the suite while the other 3 individuals were in an adjacent room for the night.

Mother was also observed to be smoking marijuana on this trip as well as at home by this witness in the summer of 2009. [ 9 ] During the Christmas season of 2009 another of father’s witnesses observed mother and her daughter at a Starbucks at which time mother was described as inebriated.

[ 10 ] Another witness, a soccer mom, described how Colleen and some other children from the soccer team were at a sleep over at the residence of mother when a babysitter was used so that mother could leave the house and go elsewhere. Mother was also observed to be disparaging of father and his new wife Sherry. [ 11 ] The various accounts of bar attendance and conduct in bars by mother had a general theme. Each of the witnesses was allied to father in one way or another, by common work history for one, as a previous drinking buddy for another, or person who knew both mother and father historically.

The general tenor of their combined evidence was that mother frequented bars, in particular the Liquid Lounge in downtown Brantford. While present she drank alcohol, often to excess, sometimes to the point of intoxication, was boisterous and inappropriate. Her dancing was often suggestive. One of the witnesses candidly admitted that he was a frequenter of the same bar as mother and he often drank as many as ten drinks in an evening which might affect his judgment.

One described father as a previous drinking buddy, but that father no longer involved himself in drinking, particularly since he had acquired his new family. [ 12 ] Two witnesses took multiple photographs of mother while in a bar, Exhibits 7 – 12 inclusive for one witness and Exhibits 16 – 20 inclusive for another witness. None of the photographs indicate anything other than mother attending at the bar and apparently consuming alcohol in some of the photographs.

One witness admitted openly that his surveillance of mother was instigated by father. [ 13 ] Father hired a private detective who gave evidence of his involvement investigating mother from December 17, 2010 to January 9, 2011, some 3 weeks or so over the Christmas period. During that time his surveillance revealed mother went to bars on two occasions. On the first occasion he followed her to a bar where she had one drink. On the second occasion, her birthday, he followed her to a bar where she had purchased for herself two beers and a mixed drink and had purchased for her by one other person two Breezers.

Mother took a cab to and from the bar. The private investigator could not relate any untoward behaviour by mother on either of these occasions except for suggestive dancing on the second. [ 14 ] Father provided evidence to the court. Summarized it is as follows. Both parents had alcohol issues before the birth of Colleen. Father lost his licence for impaired driving. While mother was in labour father admitted to drinking in a bar with a friend although he was present at the birth. In 1999 he was in in-house treatment for his alcohol issues.

Father sees mother as enabling his drinking during the course of the relationship until the separation in 2002. [ 15 ] After the birth of Colleen, each was engaged in her care, taking separate child care leave, each looking after the child when the other was not present on a daily basis. Separation took place when she was six years old. [ 16 ] Routine was developed and formalized whereby the child resided primarily with mother and had alternate weekends with father. Mother’s offer of mid-week access was refused, all of this because of father’s work

schedule at the time. Mother also worked full time during this period. [ 17 ] Father and mother were both smokers and drinkers while residing together. When father met his current wife Sherry and her two children and after he married her in June of 2007, he changed. He stopped smoking and drinking was minimal. He commenced a heavy involvement with his wife’s extended family and he terminated involvement with his own extended family. [ 18 ] As early as April 2007 matters became more contentious between mother and father, ostensibly because of father’s request for more time with Colleen.

Father also had complaints about parenting by mother starting in 2007 but increasing in volume and frequency in the years 2009 and 2010. [ 19 ] He observed mother to be hostile in the presence of the child on some access turnovers. In 2009 Colleen gained a lot of weight over a short period of time which father attributed to the fast food diet supplied by mother. In the summer of 2010 the child was allowed to go swimming despite a fever and a history of ear infections. In fact, she was diagnosed with pneumonia subsequently. Father saw himself as pushing mother to have the child’s health care looked after.

Father saw mother as generally inflexible for extra father time with the child, particularly not using him as the first alternate caregiver. He believed mother sometimes usurped father’s time to take trips with Colleen, whether for primary business purposes or not. [ 20 ] Father adopted the observations and comments of his friends with respect to the lifestyle of mother, frequenting bars while leaving Colleen in the care of an alternate caregiver unknown to father. Mother consuming alcohol and illegal drugs to excess, mother being promiscuous.

[ 21 ] Father’s new spouse Sherry Tomlinson gave evidence primarily about the circumstances of the blended family of herself and father with her two girls, of a similar age to Colleen, and how Colleen fitted into that family unit. She recounted how the interaction between the five of them was positive, focused on common activities, such as camping in summer. More particularly she described Colleen as wanting alone time with her father, but fully engaged in the family routine when present.

She saw the stress between the two households as caused by mother’s poor attitude to father’s new family often expressed verbally, sometimes in the presence of Colleen. She described mother as obsessed with continuing contact with Colleen when the child was in father’s care. Mrs. Tomlinson described her blended family home as stable, structured, loving, caring, emotionally comfortable and supporting. MOTHER’S CASE [ 22 ] The primary non-party evidence about the circumstances of the child in mother’s home was supplied by her former live-in boyfriend Mr. Andy Plas.

Mother and he commenced living together in May of 2005 and stopped doing so about the time of trial. While separated from mother and Colleen he clearly had a continuing positive and appropriate relationship with Colleen. He also had an appropriate, comfortable, non-confrontational post separation relationship with mother. [ 23 ] He confirmed that in or about 2009 mother, previously a professional with the local school board, a popular conference speaker, particularly with respect to at-risk children, became emotionally difficult and overwhelmed.

Looking back he understood her stressors to be a new business venture, family illnesses, the court case, harassment by father and his new wife, all overlaid by bouts of intense energy and hyperactivity. He facilitated a family doctor contact which led to the bipolar disorder with manic phase prominence diagnosis. The diagnosis was followed by a professionally managed drug regime requiring initial adjustments coupled with mother using marijuana, not in his presence, for intense back pain.

The result was long term disability leave from the School Board, significant engagement with health professionals, a gregarious and socially active personality for mother, all present until the medical program was finally adjusted in 2010 resulting in a more socially well adjusted and normalized mother. During the difficult time while mother’s bipolar disorder went undiagnosed he was the main substitute caregiver for Colleen when mother was away on business or socially hyper-active.

He did not observe Colleen to be effected by her mother’s behaviour during the time her illness went undiagnosed or when the drug regime for her symptoms was being adjusted. He explained that once things were resolved and stabilized he moved out of the home due to the ongoing stresses which were also affecting mother – the court case, harassment from father and his family, and the two of them becoming different from each other. [ 24 ] What was clear from his testimony was that mother did not interfere with his established relationship with Colleen.

In fact, she encouraged ongoing involvement which continues, suiting both him and Colleen. He and mother were also supportive of Colleen’s continued relationship with father’s extended family. He observed the same could not be said of father. [ 25 ] He described himself as a non-drinker, not particularly socially active, not into the bar scene at all, while acknowledging a prior history of alcohol abuse.

He clearly showed great affection and understanding of Colleen and her circumstances describing her as bright, artistic, articulate, energetic, full of love, a tom-boy, full of life, loving of all extended family members. [ 26 ] He impressed as an easy going individual who generally saw father as threatening to himself over a protracted period of time. [ 27 ] Based upon his live-in relationship with mother and Colleen for over five years he gave convincing detailed evidence contradicting the allegations of other witnesses with respect to no food in the refrigerator, a fast food diet, alcohol in the refrigerator, lack of supervision, all of which evidence was inaccuracies from people with axes to grind (not his words), with isolated attendances at mother’s home.

He attributed the inability of mother and father to cooperate and get along to long standing attitudes and a history extending beyond the period of symptoms of bipolar illness for mother. In short mother’s observed difficulties for the period 2009 to early 2010 were short term and definitely related to her diagnosed bipolar disorder illness. [ 28 ] Mother’s issues and circumstances were further clarified by the oral evidence and a written report of October 1, 2010, Exhibit #2, of her psychiatrist Dr. Theresa Clarke. [ 29 ] She confirmed the bipolar disorder diagnosis of mother.

She described mother as having good insight into the nature of her disorder, being fully cooperative with treatment. Manic symptoms terminated in late 2009 and some depressive symptoms remained at a low to moderate level into 2010, under treatment. A self-report by mother demonstrated substance abuse at commencement of treatment. Drug screening confirmed prescription drug compliance and abstinence from street drugs and alcohol. Once stabilized, mother’s only remaining issue was an inordinate fear of highway driving and driving on bridges, both of which mother avoids. Mother continues as a monitored patient.

[ 30 ] In court Dr. Clarke gave a detailed inventory of mother’s 2009 symptoms at the outset of professional engagement. There was commonality between some of those symptoms and behaviours of mother complained of by father – elevated alcohol use, risk taking, promiscuity, and impaired judgment with respect to relationships with people in general, along with agitation and anxiety. Remission occurred over a relatively short period for the manic symptoms, over a longer period for the depressive symptoms. While complete alcohol abstinence was recommended and preferred, Dr.

Clarke reported mother was open with her in the continued use of alcohol at a social level which continues. [ 31 ] The professional conclusion was that as of mid-2010 mother was stabilized with absence of both manic and depressive symptoms. Dr. Clarke believed her assessment and conclusions were compatible with those of the family physician and the mood disorder psychopharmacology unit of the University of Toronto, with whom mother was involved.

Her opinion was that overuse of alcohol, as alleged by father, was not demonstrated by magnified side effect of prescription mood stabilizer drugs which would necessarily be present if there was excessive alcohol consumption. REPORT OF CHILDREN’S LAWYER [ 32 ] This report of March 2, 2010 was detailed and thorough. It was also objected to in part by father, specific facts on specific pages being called into question. All of the complaints regarding the accuracy of the report were with respect to non-determinative of the issue comments save one.

Father complained that mother’s drinking and smoking during pregnancy was not reported. [ 33 ] Each of the respective positions of mother and father were explored in detail in the background portion of the report. From father’s point of view the focus was on mother drinking excessively and abandoning Colleen to the caregiver of multiple inappropriate babysitters in order to facilitate socializing at bars and mother’s consumption of marijuana to the extent it impaired her childcare ability.

Father was concerned that mother leads an unstable life resulting in poor child care related to proper diet, leading to excessive weight gain, lack of computer use supervision and lack of adequate clothing. Father alleged medical and health care needs are neglected. Other concerns were financial information gathering for mother by daughter, mother’s promiscuity, the unstable relationship with mother and Mr. Plas and a mother promoted rumour that she was dying. Finally, the concern that Mr. Plas was a confirmed alcoholic.

Father fears alienation from his daughter caused by mother. [ 34 ] It is indicative of father’s attitude, supported by his new wife, that these concerns exist in the way they do. The recital of these concerns to the investigator preparing the report as proven fact, rather than potential issues, is in keeping with father’s tunnel vision approach to mother and her child caring ability.

The genuinely troubling complaints are tainted by others not supported by any fact and easily discounted. [ 35 ] Lack of clothing was simply satisfied by the investigator attending at Colleen’s bedroom and observing her significant and adequate wardrobe. The leaving of Colleen with multiple babysitters was never demonstrated. Mother’s evidence that she socialized and drank during her illness of 2009 – 2010 when Colleen was not in her care, or was cared for more or less consistently by Mr.

Plas was never contradicted by anything other than opinion of father and his wife. [ 36 ] The Exhibit 27 Family Doctor report of Dr. Sandi Plant dated October 26, 2010 described Colleen as health care engaged over six years, mostly through mother, well cared for by both parents, with height and weight within normal range. [ 37 ] There was never any evidence produced that an ingredient in a hair dye used by mother on Colleen was harmful to the child in any way. The rumour that mother was dying had no ascertainable origin. [ 38 ] The alcohol abuse of Mr. Plas was admitted by him as historical in nature.

There was no evidence of any alcohol use by him during the five to six year period of his relationship with mother and residence with mother and Colleen. In fact the close healthy relationship between Colleen and Mr. Plas was not contradicted. [ 39 ] More problematic was mother’s behaviour symptoms related to her bipolar disorder while out of control in 2009.

However, there was little or no evidence to contradict mother that she insulated Colleen from much, but not all, of the symptomatic behaviour. [ 40 ] The exception was mother’s behaviour during the much focused upon in evidence trip to a Philadelphia conference or convention in the summer of 2009. Mother did expose Colleen to unacceptable risk by having sex in an adjacent room in a hotel suite with a total

stranger while Colleen was cared for by mother’s employee and her boyfriend, mother’s evidence to the contrary not being accepted. [ 41 ] However given the post separation family dynamic that intensified with father’s relationship with his current wife, it is not possible for father to see these substantiated issues as temporary and fixable, founded in diagnosed mental illness now in remission. Nor is he able to admit the lack of proof for many of his accusations against mother. [ 42 ] Likewise the report of The Children’s Lawyer summarized mother’s concerns with father’s conduct and attitude.

Mother sees father’s ongoing quest to change the primary residence of Colleen as stressful for the child – stress enhanced by ongoing questioning of Colleen by father and his wife to obtain information for Court. Mother believes Mrs. Sherry Tomlinson intrudes into the biological parental relationship to extend her control and impose her beliefs regarding Colleen. [ 43 ] Mother fears father will be influenced by his wife to isolate Colleen from mother, her family, and father’s biological family as she has isolated father from his own extended family.

Mother believes father has a negative view of mother that he attempts to have Colleen adopt. [ 44 ] On the totality of the evidence, including the interviews of Colleen by the clinical investigator and the Judge at trial there is no doubt that the custody issue is stressful for Colleen and she perceives father, to a lesser extent his wife, as excessively questioning her, not only about her knowledge of what goes on while in mother’s care, but her own attitude of wanting to continue to reside with mother.

To put it bluntly Colleen sees “good” as remaining with her mother while visiting her father one on one and she sees “bad” as living with father in his new family setting. [ 45 ] The perception of the clinical investigator that Colleen did not want to be forthcoming about her true feelings concerning her relationship with her father and his new family for fear of hurting his feelings was consistent with her comments and attitude when interviewed in closed court.

She was also consistent in being clear and unambiguous with respect to her wish to remain living with her mother. [ 46 ] Mother’s complaints regarding the deteriorating relationship with father is intertwined with the complaint that father is now estranged from his own family. This complaint focuses not on father, but on his wife Sherry Tomlinson. The concerns of Colleen do as well. [ 47 ] Again, the totality of the evidence makes it clear that the biological father – mother relationship, never good, became worse after father began his new relationship.

Father’s estranged family had an apparently good relationship with father until some of them began advocating for Colleen, viewing Sherry Tomlinson as the lynch pin of trouble. The fact that father is estranged from all his extended family, especially paternal grandparents and aunts of Colleen, and socializes now primarily with his new spouse’s extended family demonstrates the point. [ 48 ] More importantly for Colleen her interaction with her father’s estranged family is almost entirely facilitated by mother. Father’s facilitation is half hearted and infrequent.

What message does the father’s facilitation give – once a month on average drop off in a driveway of the grandparent’s home for a few hours visit with no comments or contact on drop off at all between father and paternal grandparents? [ 49 ] Despite father’s partial explanation for the estrangement, that he was abused by his father as a child, the estrangement and reluctance to engage Colleen with his family only began after his marriage to Sherry Tomlinson.

The risk that father will eliminate the relationship between his own family and Colleen is great and real. [ 50 ] Father’s denial in the interviews with the clinical investigator that he has a negative view of mother is not supported by his conduct of this case or his evidence in court. That that negative view affects his relationship with Colleen is clear both from father’s conduct and the child’s perception of what her father believes.

COLLEEN [ 51 ] Despite the intensifying argumentative and obstructionist attitude and actions of adults in Colleen’s life she is remarkably mature, understanding, intelligent and well adjusted. The conclusions come from witness evidence describing her qualities, professional reports

and her own comments to the clinical investigator and to the Court in camera. She is doing well at school and is well adjusted in the community. She plays organized soccer. She has an older than her chronological age understanding of the attitudes of the adults involved in her life. She demonstrates loyalty even when disagreeing with particular adult wishes and attitudes, particularly with respect to her father.

All of the evidence confirms that, despite adult protestations to the contrary, Colleen is physically well cared for in mother’s home and, as described by the clinical investigator, “she has obvious connection to the home, school and neighbourhood, that she doesn’t want to disrupt”. [ 52 ] Sherry Tomlinson gave evidence that Colleen would decline activity help from father, preferring it come from mother – e.g. soccer registration.

She also described how father and she told Colleen they were trying to have Colleen live with them and not mother because of mother’s bipolar disorder, apparently not known to the child previously. [ 53 ] Perhaps the best independent evidence of Colleen’s stresses arising from adult conflict and this court case is the recent emotional breakdown she had while at school. In a discussion with her teacher at the time Colleen expressed her fear of going to (live at) father’s and her desire not to be questioned at father’s. This scenario was confirmed by the short CAS of Brant investigation.

Father and Sherry Tomlinson are still in denial that all of this is so. [ 54 ] Perhaps the damning evidence in relation to father’s inability to see what harm his quest for primary residence and custody does to Colleen is the Facebook video. Near the close of trial father sought to put into evidence a Facebook video of Colleen and several “peer girls acting out”. Colleen and others were in bikinis or in “crazy looking” garb faking drinking beer, faking slitting their wrists with a knife.

Father attempted to have this evidence before the court for the purpose of demonstrating how mother’s care, or lack of care, of Colleen allowed this to occur. [ 55 ] The actual video was not allowed in evidence. Father was allowed to describe it verbally on the record. Clearly the activity in the video was a poor attempt by several nine or ten year old children to be daring, funny, inappropriate and mock adult.

Something perhaps better left not done at all. [ 56 ] More disturbing was father’s willingness to embarrass his child by having everyone in court see the video and then have father comment upon it, for the sole purpose of fortifying his court case. [ 57 ] This conduct is supportive of the view of the clinical investigator that the effort invested by father and Sherry Tomlinson in getting evidence (or mere allegations without evidence) is not primarily out of concern for Colleen’s welfare, but rather an intrusive obsessive campaign to win the custody battle. [ 58 ] While physically both homes are more than adequate and similar, in attitude, values and atmosphere they are not.

Father’s home has an element of rigidity which is in stark contrast to the more free flowing style of mother. Father’s home has an element of siege mentality which is totally lacking in mothers. Mother is more willing in thought and deed to have Colleen engage with collateral family members on both sides, contrary to the attitude in father’s new nuclear family that you are either with us or against us. Thus the alienation of father from his extended family.

Thus, likely Colleen’s alienation from both extended families if she is to live primarily with father. [ 59 ] Mother has demonstrated a child care regime that engages the child successfully with school, community, health care professionals and family members. It is mother’s primary care that has resulted in a child who is everything the various witnesses have said she is, all positive comments except for the affects of stress that can be lessened and eliminated by the conclusion of this case. [ 60 ] The wishes and preferences of a child now almost 11 years of age are not binding on the Court.

But when those wishes and preferences belong to a mature, well adjusted young girl, supported by collateral evidence and founded in appropriate considerations for her own well-being, those wishes and preferences should not be ignored and should be an important component of the decision making process. [ 61 ] To change the status quo based on what is found to be at best a transitory mother personality issues now resolved, at worst an ill- conceived campaign by father and mother to gain control of Colleen is not in the best interests of this child.

In mother’s current care regime of many years Colleen is happy and well adjusted. She is community integrated, connected to two biological families. A change of primary care would endanger all of this with risk of isolation from the two biological families and exposure to a campaign of denigrating mother in order to alienate daughter from mother. Contrary to father’s position, this is not a case of mother alienating child from father, but rather father alienating himself from his child.

[ 62 ] Colleen is better suited to the less rigid lifestyle in mother’s home than the more formalized and constraining social atmosphere of father’s. [ 63 ] Based upon these considerations an Order will issue changing the separation agreement of November 27, 2006 as follows: 1) The Respondent mother shall have sole custody of the child Colleen Cass Tomlinson date of birth September 10, 1999. 2) The Applicant father shall have access for the month of September 2011 for 4 hours each week without presence of his new family members and such other access as mother and father may agree.

This is to allow a short time for all of the adults involved and Colleen to get over issues arising from this decision. 3) Commencing on the first Friday in November, father shall have access in his home or otherwise as he chooses on alternate weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. and such other access as mother and father agree. 4) Mother shall notify father of all significant social, educational and medical events for Colleen in sufficient time that father may attend if he chooses, and father shall have direct access to educational and medical records of the child. 5) Father shall have access on Father’s Day 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. yearly. 6) Father will have access during summer school break for 3 weeks during the summer on 90 days notice to mother. 7) Mother shall have child for a total of 3 weeks during the summer school break which is not father’s access time for 3 consecutive weeks upon 90 days notice. 8) Spring break and Christmas access by father shall be as agreed between father and mother, failing which as determined by mother provided what time mother chooses for the child to be with father for the year 2012 and alternating even numbered years shall be reversed for the following year 2013 and ensuing odd numbered years on a rotating basis.

For Christmas 2011 father shall have access 12:00 p.m. Christmas Day to 8:00 p.m.

December 31, 2011 unless agreed otherwise by mother and father. 9) Telephone contact by either parent while the child is in the home of the other parent shall be as Colleen chooses. 10) Mother and father will have direct contact with each other without intermediary regarding child’s residence, welfare and well being preferably through electronic communication for which printouts are available. 11) Mother is permitted to take child out of province and out of country and to apply for and hold the passport for the child without consent of father provided any out of province stay does not exceed 15 days in duration and mother provides father with an itinerary and contact numbers for purposes of telephone access at least 10 days before trip commences. 12) Neither parent nor their associates will comment on or speak in a negative manner to Colleen about the other parent or their associates. 13)

Section 36 CLRA order for police enforcement in usual wording. [ 64 ] Costs may be addressed by written submissions within 30 days. Dated at Brantford, Ontario This 26th day of August , 2011. The Honourable Mr. Justice L. P. Thibideau LPT:lg