Max Katz

This decision addresses complex parenting and child support issues involving a shared parenting arrangement for a nine-year-old child.

The court considered the parents' conflicting positions on primary residence, homeschooling, and child support, with detailed evidence including Voice of the Child reports and testimony from multiple witnesses.

The court emphasized the child's best interests, particularly stability in education and emotional well-being, and found that the current 2-2-3 parenting schedule was not in the child's best interests.

The father was awarded primary residence during school days, with the mother granted alternate weekends and summer parenting time.

The child will continue attending Brampton Christian School, with the mother contributing to private school expenses.

Child support was calculated under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, imputing income to the mother due to underemployment and non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application, and the court *sua sponte* raised the question of whether the application was brought within the five-day statutory limit under s. 88 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Society argued that Rule 3(2) of the Family Law Rules, which excludes weekends for periods less than seven days, applied.

The court held that Rule 3(2) does not apply to statutory timelines, as it would exceed the rule-making authority and conflict with the substantive legislative intent of balancing child protection with parental constitutional rights.

Consequently, the Society failed to bring the application within the five-day period, having done so on the seventh day.