McCluskey v. Tobin, 2017 NSSC 234

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: McCluskey v. Tobin , 2017 NSSC 234 Date: 20170906 Docket: SFHMCA-101736 Registry: Halifax Between: Andrew Lee McCluskey Applicant v. Anne Claire Tobin Respondent ________________________________________________________________________ LIBRARY HEADING Judge: Justice Beryl Mac Donald Heard: June 28 and June 29, 2017 Keywords: Family, Shared Parenting, Conflict, Parenting Plan, Child Support Legislation: Parenting and Support Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c.160 s. 2(da) Parenting and Support Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c.160 s. 17A Parenting and Support Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c.160 s. 18

Summary: The Mother requested primary care. The Father wanted shared parenting. There had been considerable conflict in their relationship but both contributed to that conflict. The Mother failed to prove there was family abuse in their relationship. Both were poor problem solvers and both frequently misread or misunderstood communication received from the other. The Mother was to have primary care and the Father was provided significant parenting time under a very detailed Parenting Plan and Schedule. Table guideline child support was ordered. Neither party proved the requested

section 7 expenses. This Information Sheet Does Not Form Part Of The Court’s Decision. Quotes Must Be From The Decision, Not This Library Sheet. Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: McCluskey v. Tobin , 2017 NSSC 234 Date: 20170906

Docket: SFHMCA-101736 Registry: Halifax Between: Andrew Lee McCluskey Applicant v. Anne Claire Tobin Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Beryl A. MacDonald Heard: June 28 and June 29, 2017 Corrected Decision:The text of the original decision has been corrected on October 27, 2017 and this replaces the previously released decision. Counsel: Andrew Lee McCluskey with counsel, Kenzie McKinnon Anne Claire Tobin with counsel, Leigh Davis By the Court: [1] This proceeding involves a dispute about the parenting arrangements for a five, soon to be six-year-old child.

On July 22, 2016,the Father filed a Notice of Application and an Interim Motion seeking custody, access and travel restrictions to prevent the Mother fromtravelling to British Columbia with the parties’ child. The Father’s primary objective was a shared parenting arrangement. A very detailedInterim Order was granted on September 26, 2016. [2] The Mother was present at the interim hearing and she did have counsel. The Mother’s counsel requested an adjournmentbecause she had another court appearance to attend to on that same day.

The Father would not consent to the adjournment and both counselwere given time to determine whether they could reach an interim arrangement. Counsel took some time to consult and returned to outline anarrangement that would be satisfactory. An Interim Order containing those arrangements was issued. No determination in respect to“custody” was made at that time. The Mother was to have primary care. The Father’s parenting time was specifically described. [3] The Mother has testified her counsel misinterpreted her instructions. I do not accept her evidence.

She was present in thecourtroom and had ample time to have a discussion with her counsel about an arrangement she was prepared to implement. It is myconclusion that she changed her mind about this arrangement, much later, once she realized there would be significant communicationrequired between her and others involved and she would have significant responsibility to ensure the arrangement was implemented. Thiswas because the Father was under a no-contact order as a result of an alleged assault on the Mother. [4] The Father continues to request a shared parenting arrangement.

The Mother wants primary care with the Father to have parenting time every 2nd weekend and for one evening until 7:30 p.m. during the week when he does not have weekend parenting time. Both partiessuggest the child should be in their joint custody.

Legal Analysis [5] In all cases involving a dispute between parents about their parenting arrangements the court is directed to make its determinationbased upon the “best interest of the child”. [6] Several cases have attempted to provide guidance to the court in applying the best interest principle: See for instance Foley v.Foley (1993) (NS SC), 124 N.S.R. (2d) 198 (N.S.S.C); Abdo v. Abdo (1993) (NS CA), 126 N.S.R. (2d)1 (N.S.C.A). [7] The factors applied in these cases have been repeated in section 18(6) of the Parenting and Support Act. However, the process of

determining a child’s best interest involves more than just reviewing a list of factors. In Dixon v. Hinsley (2001) (ONCJ), 22 R.F.L. (5th) 55 (ONT. C.J), at para. 46 the following appears: The “best interests” of the child is regarded as an all-embracing concept. It encompasses the physical, emotional, intellectual, and moral well-being of the child.

The court must look not only at the child’s day to day needs but also to his or her longer-term growth and development... [8] When a parent requests shared parenting the following factors have been suggested for consideration: 1. impact of two residences upon the child’s presently established relationships with a school, a day care facility or non-parentalcaregiver, friends, extended family and recreational activities. Will they be maintained or diminished?

How will the parent help the childadjust to the changes required? 2. whether there are significant differences in the residences and the lifestyle of the child when living with either parent; 3. impact of transitions between residences upon the child and the parents. Will these have negative consequences for the child? Howwill the parents help the child adjust? Will these cause conflict between the parents? How can that be avoided?

Can these transitions beaccommodated within each parent’s work schedule? 4. availability of each parent, step parent (if there is step parent), or extended family members to personally care for the child andavailability and willingness to provide care when the parent, in whose care a child is to be according to the schedule, is unavailable; 5. whether there are significant differences in discipline technique, daily routines, value transmission, support for required medical,dental and educational interventions, and support for recreational activities; 6. whether there has been conflict, including domestic violence, in the parents’ relationship and its impact and potential impact uponthe child; 7. whether both parents’ “parenting style” provides a “good fit” for development of the child’s personality and interests; (Baker-Warren v.

Denault, 2009 NSSC 59 (N.S.S.C.), Murphy v. Hancock, 2011 NSSC 197 (N.S.S.C.) Conflict [9] Conflict between parents does not necessarily mean they cannot be awarded joint custody or shared parenting. If there issufficient indication of their ability to place the needs of the child before personal needs and to cooperate on issues of vital importance to thechild these parenting arrangements may be appropriate. (Gillis v. Gillis (1995), (NS SC), 145 N.S.R. (2d) 241 (N.S.S.C.);Rivers v.

Rivers (1994), (NS SC), 130 N.S.R. (2d) 219 (N.S.S.C.) [10] It has been suggested that parents who have joint custody and shared parenting may be less likely to consider their parenting role tohave been diminished and therefore these parents are less likely to withdraw from meaningful contact with their children. Continuing torespect the role and responsibility both parents have in fulfilling parental obligations may encourage parents to overcome existing conflictbetween them. These are suggestions found in reported decisions.

However, joint custody and shared parenting must not be granted as aform of wishful thinking. The nature and extent of the conflict between the parties must be analysed to determine if joint custody and therequested parenting plan is in a child’s best interest. Credibility [11] In this proceeding much of the information provided by the Father differs from the information provided by the Mother. I willnever know the “truth” about what happened. All I can do is apply the legal principles developed by our courts to assess “credibility”.

Theaction imbedded in this word requires that I sort out reliable from unreliable information and assess what information is most persuasive on a

balance of probabilities. [12] In assessing credibility, I have considered Justice Warner’s decision in Novak Estate, Re, 2008 NSSC 283 and in particular hiscomment that it requires “The ability to assess whether the witness' testimony is plausible or, as stated by the British Columbia Court ofAppeal in Faryna v. Chorny, (BC CA), 1951 CarswellBC 133, is ‘in harmony with the preponderance of probabilitieswhich a practical [and] informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions’”.

I also recognize that Iam “not to rely on false or frail assumptions about human behavior”. [13] Also, “In assessing credibility there is no principle of law that requires a trier of fact to believe or disbelieve a witness's testimonyin its entirety. On the contrary, a trier may believe none, part of, or all a witness's evidence, and may attach different weight to different partsof a witness's evidence”. (ibid para. 37) [14] Each of the parties and their witnesses have provided information that is credible and information that is not.

In this decision I willnot analyze every statement made in respect to my credibility findings. I will however describe a few examples as I relate my factual analysis. Factual Analysis [15] The Mother and the Father began living together in the spring of 2011 when he moved into her home located at Crestview Dr.,Halifax Nova Scotia. The Father owned a home in Bedford, Halifax, Nova Scotia. He rented out rooms in his home. The Father’s occupationis as a millwright. Originally, he worked for 5 to 6 months in Alberta, usually in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year he lived in Halifax. [16] The parties’ child was born in the fall of 2011. The Mother has two children living with her from a former relationship. They are 13and 14 years old. Their father is actively involved in parenting them. [17] The Mother has a Masters of Education degree in Information Technology. She works on a contractual basis. Prior to the birth ofthe child she had been working part-time as an instructor at Dalhousie University. When she was ready to return to work that position was nolonger available. She decided to study for her Master’s degree.

Since that time she has worked periodically for a non-profit organization. Sheis presently unemployed. The Mother suggests she is looking for employment but I am not satisfied she is making serious attempts to becomere-employed. She has indicated she can live on what she receives from the child tax credit and child support. [18] Since the child’s birth the Father has been actively engaged in her care when he was present in Nova Scotia. The Mother suggestsotherwise and has attempted to minimize his role in caring for the child.

I accept his evidence that he had a significant parenting role because: • He spent several months in Nova Scotia when he was not working and so was available to provide childcare. • He wanted to nurture this important relationship and he did so by caring for the child. • When the Father was informed the Mother was pregnant, he began providing money to her monthly. The amounts were irregular butthey were not insignificant.

He paid $530.00 each month when the child was in daycare because the Mother was finishing her Master’sdegree. • After the parties separated in December 2013 he lived in an “in-law suite” in the Mother’s home so he could be close to and providecare for the child.

Previously the suite had been rented to tenants. • After the parties’ separation, the Father began paying the Mother $650.00 per month and he continued to pay the full cost of daycare. • The Mother admitted, that after the parties “ended their romantic relationship in December 2013”, they “remained friendly, andcontinued to be intimate on occasion until June 2016”. [19] The Mother’s parents and other extended family live in Vancouver, British Columbia. In the summer of 2015 she decided to moveto Vancouver and she rented a house near her parents’ home.

She enrolled her two older children in school and she enrolled the youngestchild in daycare. She arranged to rent her home in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Father decided to move with her and planned to take hismotorhome to Vancouver and find suitable housing after he found work. The Father assumed the father of the Mother’s older childrenapproved this move. He had not and the Mother and children were required to return to Halifax. The Mother has an entirely different versionof this event. It appears in Exhibit 11 paragraphs 150 to 159.

I have not accepted her explanation because: • There is no evidence she informed anyone, including the father of her two older children about the death of her grandfather whichrequired her to stay in British Columbia longer than she originally planned. • She testified she intended to return to Nova Scotia shortly after September 12, 2015. If this was her intent why would there be any needfor her to enroll the older children in school and the child in daycare.

I do not accept this was merely a means to give them “something to dountil we returned home”. • The Father had shown his willingness to live near the child’s residence so he could have parenting time with her. His work skills areemployable across the country. He was mobile and was prepared to live wherever the child resided including British Columbia.

There was noparticular reason why he would insist the Mother and child remain in Nova Scotia. [20] The Father testified, when the Mother returned from British Columbia, because her home was rented, she needed to find anotherresidence and she did so by renting a home in Bedford Nova Scotia. There was no in-law suite that would permit the Father to reside there aswell. The Mother’s home continued to be rented until she sold it in March 2017. [21] The Mother testified she did not return to live in her home at Crestview Drive because it needed costly repairs and was not in agood school district.

However, she had been living in that area for some time with her older children. The inadequacies of the “school

district” had not caused her to move prior to her return from British Columbia. When the Mother evicted the tenant living in the Crestview Drive property the Father and the Mother’s father did renovations to the property but the mother did not return to live in that home. She continued to rent it to others and, because she had no mortgage, she was able to profit from these rentals. [ 22 ] The Father’s explanation about why the Mother did not return to live in her home is plausible; hers is not. [ 23 ] Because of the fire at Fort McMurray the Father became unemployed in March 2016.

He lived in his motorhome parked near to the Mother’s residence in Bedford and he rented out additional rooms in his home to meet his financial obligations. When he did have the child in his care she slept with him in the motorhome on the top bunk. [ 24 ] In the summer of 2016 the Father moved back into his Byers Road home. He stated in his affidavit, Exhibit # 2, that he and the child each have their own bedroom. In fact, the Father was sleeping on the couch and the child had her own bedroom. The Mother made much of this statement suggesting it proves the Father is untruthful but I place no such

interpretation on this language. The important fact is that the child had her own room although I recognize the maternal grandmother may have slept in that room as well when she was present. [ 25 ] In June 2016, the Father and the Mother enrolled the child in a French language school conveniently located between their two homes. They also were to continue to use the same caregiver for the child. The child could take the bus to her caregivers and would be picked up at 5:00 pm each afternoon. This is evidence of the relationship that previously existed between the parties.

They were able to talk with one another about what was in the interest of their child and make joint decisions without drama and controversy. Something happened to change the nature of their relationship. The Father believes the change occurred because the Mother, shortly before June 20 th discovered he had a girlfriend. The Mother denies this but has no plausible explanation about why the change occurred. [ 26 ] Before the child attended the French language school the Mother decided to enroll the child in a local school in her neighborhood.

While I understand her reasons for doing so, she did not discuss this change with the Father. This is but one example of her present conviction that she is the “parent” for this child entitled to make all decisions without consulting the Father. This is not to suggest that the Father is free from rigidity in his approach to parenting. He also has chosen to enroll the child in a day care facility in the summer without the Mother’s approval. I view this as a “tit-for-tat childish reaction.

It has prompted the Mother to remove the child from this facility in the mornings because she is available to care for her. [ 27 ] Both parents have lost sight of the child’s best interest in their pursuit for control. Both parties have unrealistic expectations; both are inclined to ignore practical difficulties in parenting time suggestions they have exchanged by email and both often misinterpret what they have read or heard. Both have failed to respond to or read emails in a timely fashion. The combination of these mutual deficiencies resulted in the event that occurred between July 13, 2016 and July 17, 2016.

A miscommunication about the Mother’s intent to take the child to a “friends cabin in New Brunswick” on what was to be “his parenting time” resulted in the Father’s belief that she was withholding the child from him. The Father knew the Mother generally returned her older children to their father on Sunday afternoon at a designated area in Bayers Lake. He went to that location. When the Mother arrived, the child opened the door and ran to greet her Father who picked her up. The Mother insisted the Father put the child down and his refusal resulted in phone calls to 911 and police intervention.

An assault charge was laid against the Father and a no-contact order was put in place. That order remained as an impediment to contact until the end of February 2017 when the Crown elected not to proceed with the assault charge. [ 28 ] The Father’s evidence indicates he did touch the Mother but whether it was an aggressive touch that could be considered an assault, or whether he was merely trying to hold her back from confronting him, is inconclusive.

The event does indicate these parents are poor problem solvers and are more interested in achieving dominance over the other than in working together in the best interest of the child. I realize each believes what he or she wants is best for the child. However, the Mother suffers from the illusion that she is the only person who can protect the child and therefore must have micromanaging control over every aspect of the child’s care. The Father is unable to communicate with the Mother without calling her names and labeling her by calling her “a psychopath”.

These behaviours do nothing to promote a good relationship. [ 29 ] The Mother had many complaints about how the Interim Order was interpreted by the Father as he does of her

interpretation. My analysis is both parties misinterpreted the meaning and intent of the provisions in that order. They were inflexible and this escalated their conflict. [ 30 ] The Mother also complained the child spent a great deal of time in care of persons other than the Father. This is a daily event for most children who have two working parents and is not considered a detriment if the child is cared for by appropriate persons or in appropriate facilities.

In addition, while the no-contact order was in effect, if the child was to be parented by the Father, the child had to be shuffled about between the paternal grandmother, the Father’s aunt and the Mother. [ 31 ] The Mother has alleged the child has exhibited many worrisome behaviors since the Interim Order has been put in place. Given the conflict between these parents I attribute these behaviors as a reaction to their conflict.

I am satisfied the Father can and does provide appropriate nurturing and loving care to the child. [ 32 ] The Mother does not want the child to be in daycare when she is available to care for her. However, she too relied on others to care for the child when she was working or studying. This is not a reason to restrict the Father’s parenting time. [ 33 ] Throughout this proceeding the Mother has attempted to use the fact that the Father rents out rooms in his home to convince the court this represents a safety issue for the child.

This would require me to presume the Father would make no efforts to ensure that the persons living with him and the child were respectable and responsible people. The Mother has demanded the Father produce criminal record and child abuse registry reports for each of his tenants. He has attempted to do so. He has not done so within the strict timeline contained in one of the court orders issued in this proceeding.

However, given the difficulty in obtaining these reports, and the intrusive nature of those reports in respect to the Father’s tenants I draw no negative conclusions about this failure. [ 34 ] There is nothing to indicate the Father’s tenants presented a risk of harm to the child. While it is important for the Father to choose his tenants carefully, I am satisfied he does so and I will not require him to obtain a criminal record and child abuse registry report for the tenants he will have living in his home.

He is a responsible parent and he may choose how he will satisfy himself about whether a tenant may present a risk to his child while she is in his care.

[ 35 ] I accept the Father’s testimony that the child has her own room in his home and I accept that his home is an appropriate residence for the child when in his care. There will be no order requiring the Father to permit the Mother to “inspect” his home. Parenting Plan [ 36 ] Both parents have the ability to provide for the child’s basic needs. She has an appropriate attachment to each of her parents and that attachment is very important to her.

However, she has been and will continue to be caught in the middle of her parents’ disputes, if they cannot overcome their present inability to be empathetic toward one another and to focus on the child’s needs as she grows and matures. Most important is her opportunity to spend meaningful time with each of her parents based upon the realities of each parent’s time availability and caregivers available for the child when a parent must work. If the Mother continues to be unemployed the Father must be able to pick up the child from the Mother’s residence in order to implement his parenting time.

The child does not need to be in a child care facility merely to “provide parenting time to the father”. [ 37 ] The Father’s plan would require the child to be in a child care facility or with a child care provider when he is working. Given his present work hours I am not satisfied there is a facility or caregiver that will take the child as early as would be required. Even if this child care was available this would create a very long day for this child which would appear unnecessary because, at least at present, the child’s Mother is not employed.

While that may change in the future the Mother will not likely require child care as early as does the Father. Cooperative parents would have worked within this reality to ensure the child had meaningful time in her Father’s care without being repeatedly subjected, unnecessarily, to a very early morning routine. However, the Mother’s suggestion that the Father only parent the child every 2 nd weekend and for a few hours during the week when the child is not in his weekend care is not meaningful parenting time.

If there were particular deficiencies in his parenting or other concerns this might have been appropriate but there are no such deficiencies or concerns. The child can endure occasional early mornings. [ 38 ] The parenting plan and

schedule attached as

Schedule “A” to this decision is in the child’s best interest Child Support [ 39 ] The Mother is seeking table guideline child support commencing November 2016. The Interim Order granted March 6, 2017 is silent on the topic of child support. The parenting

schedule suggests the Father’s parenting time may have exceeded 40%. I am not prepared to conduct a protracted analysis of this issue. The Mother’s income was not consistent during this period of time; the Father may have a claim for contribution toward child care. I have decided to award the Mother a lump sum amount of $1,000.00. [ 40 ] The Father’s total annual income is $69,341.00. Commencing September 1, 2017, the Father must pay the Mother table guideline child support in the amount of $586.00 per month. Neither parent has perfected a

Section 7 expense claim. [ 41 ] The Father’s counsel is to prepare the Order. [ 42 ] Either party may seek costs. Because this is the Father’s application he is to file and copy to the Mother his written submissions on costs no later than 10 clear days from receipt of this decision. The Mother’s submissions are to be filed and copied to the Father no later than 5 clear days from receipt of the Father’s submissions. _________________________ Beryl A. MacDonald, J.

Attached “Schedule A”

SCHEDULE “A” PARENTING PLAN Decision Making Joint Custody 1. The Father and the Mother must have joint custody of the child meaning both parents must agree about decisions that have significant or long lasting implications for the child or that impose responsibilities on a parent - for example, decisions about physical or mental health, dental care; counseling; education, including choice of school; child care and enrollment in recreational activities. 2.

The Mother must inform the Father about any significant changes, problems or recommendations relating to the child’s physical and mental health, dental care, education, physical and social development; she must provide the Father with copies of all written reports received from service providers about these changes, problems or recommendations. 3.

Should the parents be unable to agree about a decision that is to be made jointly they are first to consider following the recommendations made by professionals (doctors, teachers, counsellors, dentists, etc.) but if they cannot or if no professional is involved, they must engage in mediation before commencing litigation. Day to Day Decisions 4. With respect to daily decisions, including non-emergency medical care, the parent who has care of the child according to the parenting plan is to be the decision-maker with the other parent being advised about non-emergency medical care decisions made.

Emergency Decisions 5. With respect to emergency decisions, the parent who has care of the child according to the parenting plan is to be the decision-maker with the other parent being advised as soon as possible about the emergency and the decision made. Right to contact Third Parties 6. Both parents are entitled to directly contact the child’s doctors, dentists, therapists, teachers, and other third party service providers to request and receive information and consult about the child. Contact Information About Service Providers

7. The Mother must provide the Father with the name, address and telephone number, or other contact information for the persons or institutions providing services to the child for example, the child’s physician, dentist, therapist, teacher, and recreational provider and she must update him if there are any changes. Listed as Contact 8. The Father must be listed as a contact parent on all documents pertaining to the child. Travel 9. Either parent is permitted to travel, in Canada, with the child for a vacation or recreation. 10.

If a parent is to travel with the child outside the Province of Nova Scotia, but in Canada, the traveling parent is to provide no less than 15 days’ notice of the travel plans with an itinerary of the travel plan to the non-traveling parent. Passport and International Travel 11. Either parent, upon notice to the other, may apply for and obtain a passport for the child and the other parent must cooperate and sign all documents required for this purpose. 12.

The parent who has possession of the child’s passport must make it available to the other parent when it is necessary to permit that parent to travel with the child. 13. If, when traveling with the child, any additional document is required from the non-traveling parent, such as a “consent to travel letter” the non-traveling parent must sign the document required. 14. For international travel the traveling parent must give no less than 90 days’ notice of the travel plans with an itinerary of the travel plan to the non-traveling parent. Parents’ Addresses/ Contact Information/Relocation 15.

A parent planning a residential move that will or may require a change to the parenting plan must, no later than 60 days prior to a residential move within the Halifax Regional Municipality and 90 days prior to a residential move outside the Halifax Regional Municipality, give notice of the move to the non-moving parent and include in the notice:

a) the date of or planned date for the move

b) the location of the new place of residence with the address if known

c) the proposed changes to the parenting plan resulting from the move

d) the reason for the move 16. The parents must provide each other, and continue to provide each other, current addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and all other contact information. Communication

17. To implement the parenting plan this order requires the parents to provide information and reach agreements. Information provided and agreements reached are to be in writing and an exchange of an e-mail or text communication containing the information or request must be considered an “agreement in writing” for enforcement of this order. 18. Communication must be respectful and a reply confirming the information has been received or a request granted or denied must be provided within 24 hours of receipt of the message with an explanation if a later reply is made. Regular Parenting

Schedule 19. The Mother must have primary care of the child. 20. This parenting plan

schedule is based upon the following requirements: Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, or indicated in this order, to implement the Father’s parenting time he must provide the transportation for the child. • If the child is in school, the Father is to pick up the child from the school at the end of the school day if his work

schedule permits him to do so and if it does not the child is to be picked up by the Father from the Mother’s residence at the end of his work day. • If the child, when not in school, is attending a recreational program or is in the care of a child care provider the Father is to pick up the child from the location of the program or child care provider at the end of his work day if his work

schedule permits him to do so, and if it does not the child is to be picked up by the Father from the Mother’s residence. • If a pick up is from the Mother’s residence the child must be ready to exit that residence and walk to the Father’s car without the Mother’s involvement. • If the Mother’s employment requires the child to be enrolled in a before or after school care program or in a child care facility she must co-operate with the Father to enroll the child in a program or facility that can accommodate the Father’s work

schedule as well as her own so that he may pick up and return the child to that program or facility when he is working. • If the child is not in school, in a recreational program or child care facility, or if the Father’s work

schedule does not permit him to pick up or return the child to a school, recreational program or child care facility, the Father must pick up and return the child to the Mother’s residence at times governed by his work

schedule and the Mother must make the child available for pick up and must be prepared to receive the child upon her return. • The Mother must immediately inform the Father about where the child will be to commence this

schedule and for the continuation of the

schedule and he must be informed about any changes no later than 48 hours before a change is to occur unless there is an emergency that may justify a shorter notice period. • The Father must immediately inform the Mother about the time when he will pick up the child and return the child to commence this

schedule and for the continuation of the

schedule and he must inform the Mother about any changes no later than 48 hours before a change is to occur unless there is an emergency that may justify a shorter notice period. • The Father’s parenting time in the summer may be one week to a maximum of three weeks depending on his employment vacation schedule. 21. The Father must have parenting time with the child as follows: Regular Parenting Time

Schedule 21.1 If the Father’s work

schedule requires him to be at work by 8:00 a.m. or earlier this

schedule must apply: (Schedule “B” shows a calendar depiction of this schedule) Commencing 2017 the Father must have parenting time on a weekly rotation as follows: Week 1 – starts the parenting time - Wednesday from the end of the Father’s work day until 6:30 p.m. and from Friday at the end of the Father’s work day overnight and all day Saturday including overnight.

Week 2 – Sunday until 6:30 p.m.; Wednesday from the end of the Father’s work day until 6:30 p.m.; Friday at the end of the Father’s work day overnight and all day Saturday including overnight. Week 3 – Sunday until 6:30 p.m.; Wednesday from the end of the Father’s work day until 6:30 p.m. Week 4 - Wednesday from the end of the Father’s work day until 6:30 p.m.; Friday at the end of the Father’s work day overnight and all day Saturday including overnight. Week 5 – repeat of week 2 Week 6 – repeat of week 3 Week 7 – repeat of week 4 Successive weeks – repeat weeks 2, 3 and 4. 21.2 If the Father’s work

schedule requires him to be at work later than 8:00 a.m. this

schedule must apply: (Schedule “C” shows a calendar depiction of this schedule) Commencing 2017 the Father must have parenting time on a weekly rotation as follows: Week 1 – starts the parenting time – Wednesday from the end of the Father’s work day until 6:30 p.m. and from Friday at the end of the Father’s work day overnight and all day Saturday including overnight. Week 2 – All day Sunday until the child returns to school etc. Monday morning; Wednesday from the end of the Father’s work day until 6:30 p.m.; Friday at the end of the Father’s work day overnight and all day Saturday including overnight.

Week 3 – All day Sunday until the child returns to school etc. Monday morning; Wednesday from the end of the Father’s work day until 6:30 p.m.; Week 4 - Wednesday from the end of the Father’s work day until 6:30 p.m.; Friday at the end of the Father’s work day overnight and all day Saturday including overnight. Week 5 – repeat of week 2 Week 6 – repeat of week 3 Week 7 – repeat of week 4 Successive weeks – repeat weeks 2, 3 and 4. Holidays

22. For holidays that require it, the regular

schedule is to be suspended. The regular

schedule is to resume after the holiday has ended. Long Weekends with a Monday Holiday 23. The regular

schedule must apply. Easter 24. The regular

schedule must apply. School Spring Break 25. The regular

schedule must apply. Christmas 26. In 2017 and in every subsequent odd year the Mother must have the child in her care from after school at the beginning of the Christmas School Break until December 25 at 12:00 p.m. The Father shall have the child in his care from 12:00 p.m. on December 25 until the end of the Christmas School Break in January when the child is to return to her school. 27. In 2018 and in every subsequent even year the Father shall have the child in his care from after school at the beginning of the Christmas School Break until December 25 at 12:00 p.m.

The Mother shall have the child in her care from 12:00pm on December 25 until the end of the Christmas School Break in January Summer School Break 28. The child must be in the Mother’s care every summer from the third Saturday in July until the third Saturday in August. 29. The child must be in the Father’s care every summer, during a time when he is on vacation, for a maximum of three weeks separated or consecutive. He is to inform the Mother about the dates he will exercise this parenting time no later than May 15 each year. Additions and Alterations 30.

The parents may make additions or alterations to the parenting

schedule upon agreement in writing and an exchange of e-mail communication containing the request and consent is deemed “an agreement in writing” for this purpose. 31. The recipient of a request for additions or alterations must reply to the sender within 24 hours of receiving the request with an explanation if a later reply is made. Dispute Resolution 32. If the parties have a disagreement about the

interpretation or implementation of this order or if they are unable to agree about a

decision requiring their agreement, they must have participated in mediation to resolve the dispute before a court proceeding is commenced.

SCHEDULE “B” Week # Sun. Mon. Tue. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. 1 After work to 6:30 p.m. After work All day 2 Until 6:30 p.m. After work to 6:30 p.m. After work All day 3 Until 6:30 p.m. After work to 6:30 p.m. 4 After work to 6:30 p.m. After work All day 5 Repeat of week 2 Until 6:30 p.m. After work to 6:30 p.m. After work All day 6 Repeat of week 3 Until 6:30 p.m. After work to 6:30 p.m. 7 Repeat of week 4 After work to 6:30 p.m. After work All day

SCHEDULE “C” Week # Sun. Mon. Tue. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. 1 After work to 6:30 p.m. After Work All day 2 All day Return to school etc. After work to 6:30 p.m. After Work All day 3 All day Return to school etc. After work to 6:30 p.m. 4 After work to 6:30 p.m. After Work All day 5 Repeat of week 2 All day Return to school etc. After work to 6:30 p.m. After Work All day 6 Repeat of week 3 All day Return to school etc. After work to 6:30 p.m. 7 Repeat of week 4 After work to 6:30 p.m. After Work All day