Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, (2002) 167 O.A.C. 85 (CA)

• Judge: Laskin, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: Wednesday December 11, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2002), 167 O.A.C. 85 (CA)

Lefebvre v. Lefebvre (2002), 167 O.A.C. 85 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.055

Anne Lefebvre (applicant/respondent in appeal) v. Stéphane Lefebvre (respondent/appellant in appeal)

(C39084; M29205)

Indexed As: Lefebvre v. Lefebvre

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, J.A.

December 19, 2002.

Summary:

Spouses separated after a three year marriage. A judge granted them joint custody of their young daughter. Pending appeal, the father moved to stay the joint custody order and parenting schedule.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Laskin, J.A., dismissed the motion.

Family Law - Topic 1918

Custody and access - Appeals - Stay pending appeal - Spouses separated after a three year marriage - A judge granted them joint custody of their young daughter - Pending appeal, the father moved to stay the joint custody order and parenting schedule - He submitted that the joint custody order "flew in the face" of the report of the social worker appointed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, which recommended sole custody to the father - He also argued that joint custody should only be awarded where parents have shown the ability to cooperate, which was not the case here - The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Laskin, J.A., dismissed the motion - The trial judge had sound reasons for ordering joint custody, and the order would not cause the daughter irreparable harm - Further, the parenting schedule ordered by the trial judge was only minimally different from the prior arrangement, and the brief time period remaining before the appeal did not merit an entirely new schedule.

Family Law - Topic 2072

Custody and access - Joint custody - When available - [See Family Law - Topic 1918 ].

Cases Noticed:

Dagg v. Pereira, [2000] O.J. No. 4450 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Mol v. Mol (1997), 40 O.T.C. 1 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 7].

Cox v. Down, [2002] O.T.C. 499 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Baker v. Baker (1979), 23 O.R.(2d) 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Tauber v. Tauber (1999), 43 O.R. (3d) 42 (Gen. Div.), affd. [2000] O.A.C. Uned. 187; 48 O.R.(3d) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

M.J. v. P.C. (2002), 159 O.A.C. 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

Nathalie Boutet, for the responding party/respondent in appeal;

Philip M. Epstein, for the moving party/appellant in appeal.

This motion was heard on December 11, 2002, by Laskin, J.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on December 19, 2002.