“The appellant’s principal submission that joint custody was inappropriate focused on a portion of the trial judge’s reasons where he said that there was “a realistic hope that these parties will be able to work together for the benefit of their children and without the difficulties of rules and demands”. The appellant relies upon decisions from this court such as Kaplanis v. Kaplanis(2005), 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA),10 R.F.L. (6th) 373, at para. 11, holding that joint custody is inappropriate where there is merely a “hope” that communication between the parties will improve. These cases indicate that there must be an evidentiary basis for belief that joint custody will be feasible.”