“Second, the appellant submits that the trial judge did not have the authority to order a review with respect to custody and support. The challenged portion of the trial judge’s Order is:
7. There shall be a review of the issue of custody, access and child support after December 31st, 2012; either party may bring a Motion after that date, returnable before me by arrangement with the trial coordinator at Milton; each party shall file an Affidavit on which he or she may be cross-examined at the hearing. In her Affidavit the Applicant shall disclose the school attendance records for the children to the date of the review, and any report cards for them. Any absences from school for more than two days must be supported by a medical certificate. The Respondent in his Affidavit shall disclose the efforts he has made to secure employment, and in particular at the highest rate or pay that he can secure.
We do not accept this submission. The trial judge had genuine concerns about the children’s school attendance when they resided with their mother pursuant to the separation agreement and the father’s efforts to find employment in Sudbury. It was reasonable for him to order the parties to return to court several months later so that these issues could be reviewed. We note, with approval, that similar orders have been made by several superior court judges: see, for example, Andrade v. El Kadri, [2009] O.J. No. 2423 at para. 47; Filaber v. Filaber, 2008 CanLII 57449 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 4449 at para. 58; and Johnstone v. Locke, [2012] O.J. No. 406 at para. 128.”