When will a court order joint custody of a parent who has been designated primary residence of the child?

It also bears emphasizing that the designation of a primary residence is generally not intended to minimize the role of the other parent. That is apparent from the following comments by G.A.Smith J.A. in Schick v. Woodrow, 2012 SKCA 1, 385 Sask. R. 153: 25 ...In my view, even where one parent has been designated the parent of primary residence, it is presumptively in the best interests of a child to have as much contact with each parent as is reasonably possible having regard to the given circumstances and for each parent to play as active a role in the life of the child as is practical. There is significant risk that a parent who is prevented from playing such a role and becomes a passive bystander in the child's life will eventually drift away from on‑going involvement in the child's life. These considerations favour an order for joint custody in the absence of some reason relevant to the best interest of the child to the contrary. Examples of reasons to the contrary might include an insurmountable inability of the parents to communicate sufficiently well to be able to make important and necessary decisions regarding the child....