View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2006, 08:30 AM
logicalvelocity logicalvelocity is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

THE PRINCIPLE OF MAXIMUM CONTACT


In Easton v. McAvoy,
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/oncj/2005/2005oncj319.html

The court held that the an interim order should seek to permit the children to have meaningful and maximum contact with each parent. The principal of maximizing contact as expressed in the Divorce Act R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3 [as amended] was not expressed in the Children’s Law Reform Act, However, the principal could easily be inferred from section 24. The honorable Y.A. Renaud J. states in paragraphs 24-26:

“24 In matters of interim custody, upon the court's weighing all the evidence, although conflicting, and taking into account the legislated factors mentioned above, the interim order should, unless there is strong and cogent reason for doing otherwise, seek to permit the children to have meaningful and maximum contact with each parent.

25 Subsection 16(10) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3 [as amended], gives statutory recognition to this principle:

16(10) Maximum contact. - In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.

26 Although this principle does not finds its expression in the Children's Law Reform Act, it stands to reason that this factor must be considered in the court's analysis of the best interests of the children and moreover, this principle may quite easily be inferred from the factors listed in section 24.”

lv