“I find the conflict between the parties stems primarily from Ms. Brissett’s unrelenting interference with access and her frequent refusal to communicate with Mr. Coughlan rather than any inherent communication difficulty between them. There is no evidence of conflict over child related decisions or their respective parenting views. Mr. Coughlan’s emails tend to be thorough and to the point although over time, they indicate increasing frustration and resentment toward the situation. I find his frustration also manifested itself in his decision to attend at the daycare and ultimately resort to self-help by withholding Leah in an effort to recoup lost access time. Those decisions were wrong and should not be repeated. Ms. Brissett’s written communications, on the other hand, are often vague and unresponsive. The conflict is more fundamental. It rests in Ms. Brissett’s resistance to Mr. Coughlan’s desire and determination to be a parent to Leah.
The Divisional Court recently said, “Gatekeeping is born of a fundamental disrespect for the other parent, as a parent. An order for sole custody to the gatekeeping parent can reinforce that disrespect. Where, as here, parental conflict arises because of the gatekeeping, the intractable nature of the problem is obvious: awarding sole custody to the gatekeeper supports and rewards past gatekeeping and reinforces its lessons for the future.” See J.Y. v. L.F.-T, 2019 ONSC 1718, (Div.Ct), para 15. In that case, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge’s decision that a joint custody order was the “best way forward” to ensure the continued involvement of a parent in the child’s life in the face of efforts by the other parent to marginalize him or her.”