Ontario Court of Justice

Date: October 31, 2023 Court File No.: Toronto FO-21-42097

BETWEEN:

MJL Applicant/father

— AND —

NTP Respondent/mother

Before: Justice Debra Paulseth

Heard on: October 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23, 2023 Reasons for Judgment released on: October 31, 2023

Counsel: Nasar Iqbal (agent) ........................................................................ counsel for the applicant Aziza Hirsi ................................................................................. counsel for the respondent

Paulseth, J.:

Overview:

1The parties are the parents of one child, M, born [...], 2020. The parents were in a common law relationship from the fall of 2018 until October 2021.

2On November 1, 2021, the father filed an Application, seeking sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, parenting time for the mother, child support pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines (CSG), and proportionate sharing of any future special or extraordinary expenses (section 7 expenses).

3On January 11, 2022, the mother served and filed her Answer/Claim, seeking sole decision-making responsibility, parenting time for the father, child and spousal support retroactive to the date of separation, and a restraining order.

4On January 18, 2022, the court made a temporary without prejudice order, with the consent of the parties, for twice weekly parenting time for father:

(1) Saturdays at noon until Sundays at noon, and (2) Wednesdays from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.

5In February 2022, mother suffered a mental breakdown and was hospitalized for two periods of time.

6On April 8, 2022, the court made a temporary without prejudice order, again with the consent of the parties, transferring the child’s primary residence to the father and providing mother with weekly parenting time from Friday until Sunday and Wednesdays from 11 a.m. until 7 p.m.

7Mother went to Vietnam in July 2022 and returned in September 2022. During that time she was hospitalized for her mental health issues.

8On July 11, 2022, the court ordered that while mother was in Vietnam, the child would have video calls three times a week with her.

9When mother returned from Vietnam, the parties resumed the previous parenting time arrangements.

Issues for this Trial:

1. What parenting orders are in the best interests of M.?
2. What are the respective incomes of the parties since separation?
3. What CSG amount is payable to which parent for which period (s) of time?
4. Is mother entitled to spousal support, and if so, how much and for what period of time?

Position of the Parties:

10Father seeks sole decision-making responsibilities and primary residence with parenting time to mother alternate weekends from Thursday until Sunday; and alternate Thursdays until Friday. Father agrees to provide the bulk of the transportation for the drop offs and pick ups. He indicates an exchange location at a plaza in North York. He also proposes a detailed holiday and vacation schedule.

11Father wants child support commencing February 2022 based on an imputed minimum wage income to the mother. The arrears would amount to approximately $5,300. This, he submits, should be paid within 30 days.

12Commencing November 1, 2023, father proposes to pay a set off amount of child support of approximately $22 a month based on a shared parenting arrangement. He seeks special and extraordinary expenses for the child to be paid proportionately to the parties’ incomes.

13Mother wants shared parenting on a 2-2-3 schedule. She agrees with most of the holiday schedule proposal made by father. She proposes joint decision making on choice of school and activities. Religious activities can be the choice of the parent with whom the child is staying at the time. Other decisions can be made after consultation by the parent with whom the child spends the most time.

14In closing submissions, counsel for mother suggested that the trial was held too quickly and the court should “pause” until mother has had sufficient time to recover from her mental health challenges and obtain services.

15Mother submits that she is entitled to spousal support since the date of separation. She agrees she owes child support to father from March 2022 until now. She argues that these amounts are completely off set. Mother seeks ongoing child support.

Part 1 Parenting

Legal Framework

16Subsection 18 (1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, 1990 (CLRA) defines decision-making responsibility as follows:

“decision-making responsibility” means responsibility for making significant decisions about a child’s well-being, including with respect to,

(a) health, (b) education, (c) culture, language, religion and spirituality, and (d) significant extra-curricular activities;

17Section 20 of the Act reads as follows:

Equal entitlement to decision-making responsibility

20 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Part, a child’s parents are equally entitled to decision-making responsibility with respect to the child.

Rights and responsibilities

(2) A person entitled to decision-making responsibility with respect to a child has the rights and responsibilities of a parent in respect of the child, and must exercise those rights and responsibilities in the best interests of the child.

Authority to act

(3) If more than one person is entitled to decision-making responsibility with respect to a child, any one of them may exercise the rights and accept the responsibilities of a parent on behalf of them in respect of the child.

If parents separate

(4) If the parents of a child live separate and apart and the child lives with one of them with the consent, implied consent or acquiescence of the other, the right of the other to exercise the entitlement to decision-making responsibility with respect to the child, but not the entitlement to parenting time, is suspended until a separation agreement or order provides otherwise.

Parenting time

(5) The entitlement to parenting time with respect to a child includes the right to visit with and be visited by the child, and includes the same right as a parent to make inquiries and to be given information about the child’s well-being, including in relation to the child’s health and education.

18Subsection 21 (1) of the CLRA reads as follows:

21 (1) A parent of a child may apply to a court for a parenting order respecting,

(a) decision-making responsibility with respect to the child; and (b) parenting time with respect to the child.

19Any decision with respect to parenting children must be based on the best interests of the particular child before the court in accordance with the considerations set out in section 24 of the CLRA.

20Subsection 24(2) of the CLRA provides that the court must give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being in determining best interests.

21Subsection 24 (3) of the CLRA sets out a list of factors for the court to consider related to the circumstances of the child. It reads as follows:

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability; (b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life; (c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent; (d) the history of care of the child; (e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained; (f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage; (g) any plans for the child’s care; (h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child; (i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child; (j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things, (k) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and (l) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and (m) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

22Caselaw indicates that this list is not exhaustive and should not be used as simply a mathematical exercise. See: White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736. Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.

23In considering a child’s best interests it is important to determine if a parent will follow the terms of a court order. See: Wiafe v. Afoakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 201.

24Subsection 28(8) of the CLRA provides:

Right to ask for and receive information

(8) Unless a court orders otherwise, a person to whom decision-making responsibility or parenting time has been granted with respect to a child under a parenting order is entitled to ask for and, subject to any applicable laws, receive information about the child’s well-being, including in relation to the child’s health and education, from,

(a) any other person to whom decision-making responsibility or parenting time has been granted with respect to the child under a parenting order; and (b) any other person who is likely to have such information.

25Subsection 33.1 (2) of the CLRA addresses the importance of the parties protecting children from conflict. It reads:

(2) A party to a proceeding under this Part shall, to the best of the party’s ability, protect any child from conflict arising from the proceeding.

26Subsection 24 (6) of the CLRA states that in allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

27An equal-parenting time plan requires a high level of communication and coordination between the parties, particularly when the child is very young. The parents will have to coordinate schooling, medical appointments and extra-curricular activities for the child. This should not be ordered where the evidence indicates that implementing such a plan, given the dynamics between the parties, would be an invitation to conflict and chaos, and would be destabilizing for the child. See: L.B. v. P.E., 2021 ONCJ 114; L.I.O. v. I.K.A., 2019 ONCJ 962.

28The best interests of the child have been found to be met by having a loving relationship with both parents and that such a relationship should be interfered with only in demonstrated circumstances of danger to the child’s physical or mental well-being. Moreover, the child has a right to have contact with both parents. See: Klymenko v. Klymenko, 2020 ONSC 5451 and Jafari v. Dadar [1996] N.B.J. No. 38 (NBQB).

29A custodial parent must not just accommodate access, they must facilitate it. See; Scrivo v. Scrivo, 2012 ONSC 2727, 2012 CarswellOnt 5545; Tran v. Chen, 2012 ONSC 3994, 2012 CarswellOnt 8551.

Evidence for the Father:

30The father’s evidence can be summarized as follows:

(1) Father met the mother in a casino where he was working. Mother was working full time in a nail salon. They lived together, with mother’s older son from a previous relationship, V, born [...], 2000, from the fall of 2018 until October 2021. (2) Father paid the rent and all of the bills. Even when mother was working, she did not contribute financially. In early 2020, father paid for the couple and her son to travel to Vietnam for a holiday. (3) The pandemic was a very stressful time for the family as their income was limited and they were living in a small apartment. In September 2020 they moved to a new apartment because their previous one was infested with rodents. (4) In March 2021, father began working for Uber and also for Uber Eats. (5) After the birth of M, father was an active parent and very supportive of the mother. (6) Mother’s English language skills were marginal. (7) Father took the child to all medical appointments; partially because of mother’s limited English language and partly because only one parent could attend during the pandemic. (8) The parents had some disagreements about parenting, primarily related to the mother’s cultural practices, such as: (a) having the baby sleep with the parents; (b) allowing the child to sit in the mother’s lap rather than in a car seat while travelling in a car; (c) giving an infant unsterilized water; and (d) giving M pieces of fruit that were not mashed when he was only 6 or 7 months of age and could choke. (9) Father was very fond of V and supported him to obtain his high school credits and helped him to find employment. Father observed V to be withdrawn as he spent long periods of time alone in his room. V appeared to have money but father did not know where it came from. V was not working too much due to the pandemic. V told father that he lost a lot of money trading cryptocurrency. (10) At one point V was married but also had a girlfriend in Vietnam. (11) Father completely supported the mother’s introduction of Buddhist practices and a vegetarian diet to the child. (12) By the summer 2021, the arguments had increased and mother threatened to take the child to Vietnam. In particular, mother felt very constrained by the pandemic rules and wanted more contact with groups of friends. (13) On several occasions, mother threatened to take the child to Vietnam and leave him with one of her family members. (14) On October 13, 2021, mother moved out of the home with the child. She gave a false address to the father. Father contacted the police. Mother would only let father see the child in the presence of V. (15) In November 2021, mother and child moved to a shelter and for the first time, according to father, mother made allegations of abuse. Mother told father “I made a mistake. I should have lied to the police and told them you abused me, this would be easier for me”. (16) Over New Year’s of December 31, 2021, mother asked father to care for the child while she went to a party in Montreal. He agreed. Thereafter, father often took the mother and child out of the shelter to go shopping for supplies. (17) On February 13, 2022, the shelter contacted father and requested that he pick up the child as mother was ill. He went to the shelter and saw mother being taking into an ambulance. (18) On February 15, 2023, a doctor from St Michael’s Hospital phoned father to advise that mother was involuntarily admitted to the hospital, suffering from a psychotic break. Mother was out of touch with reality. She was not eating. She was released on February 17, 2023 but readmitted from February 18 until February 24 2022. (medical records filed as business records confirm this information). (19) The hospital made a referral to the local Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) The worker called father and arranged a home visit. Both the CAST worker and later a nurse from CAST visited father and child. No concerns were noted. A safety plan was agreed upon amongst mother, the CAST and father, which included mother’s contact with the child being in the presence of V. (CAST records filed as business records confirm this information). (20) Due to severe financial constraints, father was forced to give up his apartment and move in with his sister in Pickering by April 30, 2022. He advised mother on March 22, 2022 and his counsel also advised mother’s counsel. Father then committed to doing all of the driving for the visits. (21) On July 16, 2022, mother went to Vietnam and returned on September 18, 2022. Video calls were arranged for three times a week at 10 am Toronto time. Mother had difficulty keeping this schedule. Of 27 possible video visits, mother only made 7. On many occasions, mother called during the night, forgetting the time difference. In September, mother was hospitalized in Vietnam due to mental health issues. (22) Mother wanted to take M with her to Vietnam but father opposed this plan. Father has heard mother threaten many times to leave M in Vietnam with family until he is older. (23) Upon her return, mother declined numerous visits with the child.

31The paternal aunt gave evidence. A summary includes the following:

(1) She visited the parents and child regularly in their apartment and they also visited outside during the pandemic in the warmer months. Father and M came to live with her in April 2022. They have a bedroom and family room to themselves. (2) She has observed the very strong bond between father and M. She has observed father regularly feeding, washing, and playing with M. Father takes him on regular outings to the park, zoo, forest, and local recreation centre. Father has also initiated routines for the child, such as at bedtime. (3) She was present at a family birthday party, when mother offered to take M to Vietnam and leave the child with her family until he was older. She and the paternal grandparents were horrified by this suggestion. (4) She has taken vacation days to care for the child so the father could work. This occurred when mother did not take her parenting time or was late.

32Paternal grandmother gave evidence, which can be summarized as follows:

(1) She observed father to be very attentive to the child’s needs: feeding, clothing, shopping, and doing laundry. (2) She too heard mother suggest that her aunt in Vietnam would care for M and return him to the family in Canada when he was older. (3) On one occasion at the paternal aunt’s home, she watched as the mother gave the infant child water from the tap. Mother told paternal grandmother not to tell father. M was only 2 or 3 months old at that time. (4) At family gatherings, mother would often talk down to the father and criticize him in front of everyone. (5) When the couple were not getting along very well, father told her that he was afraid that mother would take the child to Vietnam permanently. (6) She has observed father to be a very attentive and active father, taking the child to the zoo, parks, skating, swimming and Centre Island. (7) Father takes the child to his medical and dental appointments and has the child on a good schedule.

Evidence for the mother

33A summary of mother’s evidence follows:

(1) Mother came to Canada 9 years ago from Vietnam. She was married and sponsored by her husband. They lived in Kitchener. Her older son V, from a previous relationship, lived with them. (2) She met father at a casino where he was working when she was still in a relationship with someone else. Her boyfriend was helping her to pay her bills, including rent. (3) When father moved in with her, he started paying some of the bills. She was working at a nail salon full time and attending English Second Language classes (ESL) at the Albion Mall. (4) Due to the pandemic, there was no work available to the parents after they returned from Vietnam in March 2020. Mother learned she was pregnant with M. about this time. (5) Mother bought two car seats for the new baby: one for father’s car and one for V’s car. (6) The parents agreed to share the costs such that father paid the rent and mother provided the groceries and meals. (7) Mother found it controlling when father wanted to limit her contact with friends. (8) After the birth of M, father was working for both Uber and Uber Eats, while mother cared for the child full time. (9) Mother found that father looked down on her cultural practices. She gave these examples: (a) She became more Buddhist after M was born and refrained from alcohol and eating meat; father did not approve. (b) She wanted M to sleep in their bed and father was opposed. (c) She used herbal remedies for both M and V. Father was upset when he found a bruise on M’s neck from such a herbal remedy. (d) She let M eat some of the birthday cake at a family party when he was only 6 or 7 months old. When father took the cake away, mother found that controlling. (e) She only fed the child small amounts of candy. Father again disapproved. (10) These cultural differences caused a strain on their relationship. (11) As this was her second child, mother said she had a lot of confidence in her own parenting skills. (12) Mother claims that father became aggressive and punched walls when they disagreed. She was afraid that he would hurt her. (13) They argued about V as well. Father wanted V to get a job and not spend all of his time in his room playing online games. Father viewed V as an adult and wanted him to contribute to the cost of the apartment. (14) During the first few months after separation, father wanted continuous time with M. The court ordered Saturdays at noon until Sundays at noon and Wednesdays from 10 am until 6 pm (15) Mother admits that both parents wanted to reconcile at times; just not at the same time. (16) Mother struggled with stress and her mental health. V saw her once a week at the shelter. Mother did not arrive for the scheduled visit on February 13, 2022. Staff found her unresponsive in her room and called an ambulance. Medical staff were uncertain whether the diagnosis should be adjustment disorder or a brief psychotic episode. She was discharged February 17, 2022 with medication, referrals for follow up psychiatry, and a recommended follow up with her family doctor. (17) On the same evening as her discharge, mother was found on the steps of a downtown church, without shoes and expressing suicidal thoughts. Doctors diagnosed depression with suicidal ideation or psychosis. (18) When discharged on February 24, 2022, mother was urged by hospital staff to continue to take her medication. She went to Kitchener to stay with a friend. A safety plan was developed with V, father and CAST. (19) Mother did later see a psychiatrist at Osler Hospital. The hospital record indicated that she went to the consultation without an interpreter. She then went on a waiting list for Hong Fook Mental Health Association (Hong Fook) Vietnamese services. (20) All of the medical information is confirmed by hospital records filed as business records. (21) In July 2022, mother went to Vietnam in order to have family support. She had difficulty accessing the internet in order to keep the schedule of virtual contact with M. Eventually she fell ill again and was hospitalized in late August 2022. (22) When mother returned to Toronto in September 2022, the parenting time resumed. She believes that the schedule has prevented her from working in a nail salon, which requires weekend work. She is supporting herself through Ontario Works. (23) In August 2023, Hong Fook was able to provide the mother with a biweekly virtual counsellor. She is in their intensive case management program. As part of that program she will receive ongoing assessment, counselling, supports and help to develop goals and future plans. She also attends a Vietnamese Self-help Group on Thursday afternoons.

34Mother’s older son V gave evidence, which can be summarized as follows:

(1) He believes that father (a step-father to him) was emotionally abusive to his mother. (2) When the parents argued, he would retreat to his room. (3) V admits that father did try to help him to obtain employment at times. Because V was still a student, he had limited time available to work. (4) He describes his mother as a loving parent who suffered a breakdown due to the conflict with father. He later said that the conflict did not cause the hospitalization. He now thinks the hospitalization may have been caused by a vaccination. Mother now has him and her friends for a good support network. (5) His mother was married to his biological father in Vietnam and separated when he was a small child. He has sporadic contact with his father, but never received support from him. (6) His mother then married again and that man sponsored them to live in Canada. They lived with him in Kitchener and V went to 2 years of high school there until the adults separated. (7) When they first lived with father, mother was working at the nail salon and earning about $18,000 to $20,000 annually. Mother gave him financial support. Then the pandemic hit them. Mother lost work and couldn’t support him. He married a Vietnamese woman and sponsored her. He has Canadian citizenship. He separated from his wife before his mother’s breakdown in February of 2022 (8) V describes mother as healthy from 2018 through 2021. (9) Mother told him that she felt like she was in jail when she stayed at the shelter, because she couldn’t see her friends and socialize. She cried a lot. (10) After high school, V obtained work on a night shift and tried to take courses at George Brown College in business. He quit that job and now works for an agency. He bought a car. (11) V paid for both his mother and his own return flights to Vietnam in the summer of 2022. (12) V tries to be home when M comes to visit on Wednesdays and the weekends. He enjoys having a younger brother.

35Both parents admit they do not communicate well and have very different parenting styles.

Intimate Partner Violence

36Father was shocked and very upset to read in one of mother’s early court filings that she was alleging that he was abusive to her. Mother said that father was controlling, emotionally abusive, and aggressive to the point that she was afraid of him.

37Father denies these allegations.

38Father admits he may have seemed controlling when he tried to reinforce the pandemic restrictions and rules. These constraints made mother feel claustrophobic.

39Father was afraid that mother’s parenting practices would and did hurt M. For example, father points to mother’s persistence in giving M sugary substances despite the dental advice and giving the child a piece of fruit that could have caused M to choke.

40There is no allegation of abuse made by the mother in any of the CAST, police, or medical records.

Business records.

41The parties obtained the records from CAST, Toronto Police Service (TPS) and the medical records from St Michael’s Hospital.

42A Notice of Intention pursuant to the Evidence Act was served by counsel for the father. There is no dispute that the records are in fact business records

43A summary of the records’ contents has been included in the narratives of the parties.

The Child

44Father describes M as an intelligent friendly boy who interacts well with peers and family members. Father has taken M for swimming and gymnastic lessons and to the local Early On program. They enjoy the zoo and reading together. He is on a waitlist for speech therapy on the advice of his pediatrician, but his speech is already improving. M has started daycare on a part time basis.

45Father testified that M enjoys spending regular time with his paternal aunt and paternal grandparents.

46Father takes M to regular medical and dental appointments. Father is concerned that mother continues to give M candy when the dentist has advised against this.

47Father testified that M often returns from his mother’s home with serious constipation. Based on information from mother and the doctor, father is concerned that mother is giving M more than twice the daily recommended amount of milk. This causes constipation. After attempts by father and the doctor to connect with mother about this issue, father now just resorts to medication for M.

48M’s older half brother testified that mother is teaching the child Vietnamese and shares her Buddhist practices with the child.

49Mother testified that she enjoys taking M to the park and to the mall.

Credibility of the parents:

50Father’s evidence was consistent and thorough and child-focused.

51Mother’s evidence had some frailties; such as:

(1) Mother originally testified that father abused alcohol and drugs and that she had not reported this to the CAST and police. She later said that she did report this. This allegation is not in the medical notes. In October of 2021, mother is reported in the police records as saying that father was not violent and that he had not assaulted her or threatened her. (2) Father was receiving the child tax benefit (CTB) after the court order of April 2022. In July 2022, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) advised that there had been a claim for shared custody. After providing the court orders, CRA is reinstating his benefit. Mother denies knowing anything about this. (3) Mother testified that father forbid her to work after she became pregnant; she then admitted that the nail salon where she worked before going to Vietnam in early 2020 closed shortly thereafter due to the pandemic. (4) At another point in her evidence Mother admitted that she “resigned” from the nail salon before going to Vietnam in early 2020, and then applied for CERB benefits when the pandemic began. From CERB she received about $1000 a month and used the money for the family. (5) Mother testified that she wanted to return to work but father’s family wouldn’t babysit for her; paternal grandmother said mother asked her to babysit so she could go back to the nail salon but the salon was not even open due to the pandemic. (6) Mother testified that she had bought the flight tickets to Vietnam for their visit in early 2020. Father’s financial statements show that he bought them. She then said she had paid half and then testified that father got $400. back. (7) Mother originally testified that she had completed her high school in Vietnam. She then changed that evidence to say that her parents could not afford to send her to high school once she was in grade nine, so she stopped at that point. (8) In her affidavit for trial, mother says she met father at the casino when she was still with her last boyfriend. In the trial, mother said she met father two months after she had separated from that boyfriend and was feeling sad. (9) At the end of her cross-examination, mother testified that she gave father $800 to help care for the child. There is no other evidence about this payment.

52On the whole, even after taking into account the mother’s language limitations, the court finds the father more credible than the mother.

Analysis of Parenting Evidence:

53The child resided primarily with mother from the time of separation in October of 2021 until February of 2022.

54The child has resided primarily with father since mother’s breakdown in February of 2022.

55Father is more familiar with the needs of the child and the standards used by western society for feeding the child. For example, it is well known that children of only 6 or 7 months of age can only begin to have food other than formula or breastmilk if it is sufficiently mashed or softened.

56Father is more familiar with the dental and medical needs of the child. For example, mother used a herbal remedy which caused the child to have a burn or bruise on his neck. Mother wants to give the child sugary foods and the dentist is now concerned about cavities.

57Mother does not have a grasp of activities available for young children in or near Toronto.

58Father is familiar with and uses many child appropriate local activities; for example the EarlyOn Centre, swimming, gymnastics, the zoo, and local parks.

59Mother is teaching the child the Vietnamese language and sharing her religious and cultural practices with the child. Father knew of and supported mother’s practices. Mother denies that father supported her in this way but the evidence was that she had a Buddhist altar in their apartment and father returned it to her after the separation.

60Father has enrolled the child in part time daycare. Father recognizes the value of this type of program for the child. Father knows the name of his local school where he intends to register the child for kindergarten next year.

61Mother does not know the name of her local school which she says is 5 minutes away.

62There is no dispute that the child enjoys his time with each parent.

63Father’s extended family all enjoy time with the child.

64Mother’s older son says he is happy to have a younger brother. There is no evidence of what V likes to do with M.

Best Interests of M

• the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being in determining best interests.

65Father is more aware of the child’s need for physical, emotional, and psychological safety and security; mother does not acknowledge the impact on the child of her mental health challenges. A primary parent who is sad, depressed, or not in touch with reality may have a negative impact on a young child.

66Father recognizes the safety concerns of an infant sleeping with the parents or riding in a car without being in a car seat.

• the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

67Mother is not familiar with the stages of child development. Father tried to refer her to sources of information but she fell back on her own traditions and upbringing. At one point father made an appointment with the child’s pediatrician for mother to hear advice on a child’s diet and arranged for V to interpret for her. Mother did not attend.

68Father familiarizes himself with the stages of development and has learned to implement routines for the child.

• the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

69It is clear that the child spends significant time with father, the paternal aunt and paternal grandparents. These are strong and important relationships.

70It is unclear what regular time his older half brother spends with M. Mother certainly enjoys her time with M. and this is a very important relationship.

• each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;

71Father clearly supports the mother’s relationship with M.

72The court was left with some doubt about whether mother values M’s relationship with his father.

• the history of care of the child;

73The child resided primarily with mother from October until February 2022. Since that time, the child has lived continuously with the father.

• the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage,

74Mother has very strong ties to her Vietnamese culture and her Buddhist practices. She is already sharing these traditions with the child.

75Father is agnostic and has a European cultural background. He supports mother’s cultural and religious ties. He is very open to having the child make his own choices when he is older.

• any plans for the child’s care;

76Father has proposed a significant increase to the mother’s parenting time such that she would have M for more than 40% of the week. He would do the bulk of the driving and meet mother at a plaza in North York for the exchanges.

77Once the child attends junior kindergarten in September 2024, father proposes that the child attend school near his home and see mother on alternate weekends from Friday to Monday - mother would then share the driving.

78There is no dispute about mother having direct access to the school and teachers, and to any other professional involved with the child.

79Mother is proposing a 2-2-3- current sharing of time and wants the child to go to school near her home. She wants father to continue to do all of the transportation.

80Counsel for mother argued in closing submissions that father made a “surreptitious relocation” to Pickering. The evidence was that father was not able to work enough while caring for the child and paying debts. He and his counsel gave more than 30 days notice to the mother and her counsel. He moved to a home with which the mother was already familiar.

• the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

81Father has a greater ability to recognize and meet the child’s needs. He also has a large and secure support network.

82Mother does not want suggestions for caring for the child; she sees that as controlling behaviour. She does not want to have constrictions in her life. It was very hard for mother to follow the pandemic rules. She found the shelter to be “like jail”.

• the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

83Mother finds it difficult to negotiate and cooperate for the sake of the child. She is fearful that she is being manipulated and controlled.

• any family violence

84The court is unable to find the mother’s abuse allegations to be credible. Father may have been frustrated from time to time but that does not translate into abuse.

85Mother felt restrained by the restrictions which came with the pandemic. Father was trying to be careful with a young child during that time. Mother wanted to see her friends.

86Shortly after the separation, mother had frequent contact with the father, including her request for him to babysit while she went to Montreal for New Year’s Eve celebrations.

Shared Decision-making:

87The Court of Appeal in [Kaplanis v. Kaplanis 2005) provided the following considerations when the court is asked to make a joint or shared decision- making order:

1. There must be evidence of historical communication between the parents and appropriate communication between them.
2. It can’t be ordered in the hope that it will improve their communication
3. Just because both parents are fit does not mean that joint custody should be ordered
4. The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate does not preclude an order for joint custody.
5. No matter how detailed the custody order there will always be gaps and unexpected situations, and when they arise they must be able to be addressed on an ongoing basis.
6. The younger the child, the more important communication is.

88Other cases have provided additional guidance; such as:

(1) Joint or parallel parenting orders may be necessary to keep a parent in the child’s life ([Ursic v Ursic 2006)) or prevent a parent from being marginalized (C(D) v. C(H), 2014 ONSC 6696); (2) If the conflict between the parents is primarily the fault of one parent, a joint custody order would prevent one parent from engineering a favourable result (see Geremia v. Harb); (3) Where one parent has a fundamental disrespect for the other, this can lead to gatekeeping and a deliberate plan to minimize the other parents involvement (See: J.Y. v. L.F.-T., 2019 ONSC 1718); (4) Shared decision-making can be used to right an imbalance of power in a relationship (see: Garrow v. Woycheshen, 2008 ONCJ 686, Hsiung v. Tsioutsioulas, 2011 ONCJ 517); and (5) Shared parenting may be achievable after the stress of litigation is over (see Growen v. MacKenzie 2008 ONCJ 170 (OCJ)).

Conclusion on Parenting

89Mother wants everything on her terms and is not able to be cooperative.

90Mother could not accept the rules of the shelter and found it very constricting.

91Father is very careful to follow court orders. Mother is often late and unable to plan her time around the child.

92Mother’s views on child raising are not simply a cultural divergence but actually pose a risk to the child; for example, the sleeping arrangements, car seat, and feeding practice.

93Father has maintained a generous parenting time schedule and has offered mother more parenting time as part of his position at this trial. This pattern shows enormous respect for the mother and her relationship with the child.

94Father has a proven track record of stable and child focused care of M.

95On the whole, the child’s best interests are better served with the father as the sole decision maker.

96In considering parenting time for mother, the court notes the following:

(1) Mother’s proposal is based on father doing all of the driving. (2) Mother’s proposal does not take into account the Thursday workshop she has started to attend at Hong Fook. (3) Mother has a driver’s license and her older son has a car but she does not want to drive. (4) When the child begins junior kindergarten, the current schedule would be impossible for the parents to manage. If mother’s parenting time needs to be reduced during the school year, she should have an extra week of vacation during the summer. (5) The employment for both parents is dependent on more hours of work on weekends. As father rightly points out – “we both have to work”. (6) Although the father is offering the more liberal 42% time with mother, the court is concerned about mother being able to keep that schedule and be on time. (7) The parents proposed that they would come back to court next fall to determine the school schedule. The court cannot support such a suggestion. (8) After a three year relationship and almost two years of litigation, the parents could not resolve any of their legal issues.

97In conclusion and based on the best interests of the child and the parents’ abilities to meet those interests, the court orders:

(1) Father shall have primary residence and sole decision-making. (2) The father’s proposal for mother’s parenting time is accepted as meeting the child’s best interests until August of 2024. (3) Commencing 2024, the mother shall have up to 2 weeks of summer vacation, not consecutively, and father will have one week. Commencing 2025, mother will have 3 weeks of summer vacation and father will have two weeks. The parents will give notice of their preferred week according to fixed timelines. (4) Mother’s parenting time once the child starts school in September of 2024 will be: (a) Alternate weekends from Friday evening at 7 until Sunday evening at 7; the exchanges for weekends will be at TD Bank 2574 Finch Ave West, North York, M9M 2G3 in Finchdale Plaza; if mother wants to return the child to school on the Monday morning she will have to drive the child to school on time. (b) Wednesdays for 2 hours from 5 pm until 7 pm; mother to pick up and drop off; unless there is an activity that the child is enrolled in by father; in which case the visit will be on Thursdays from 5 until 7 pm.; if mother cannot drive for this visit; then it can take place at the Pickering Town Centre (PTC) and mother can take the GO train and father will be responsible for delivering the child and picking the child up at a specific location at the PTC.

98The remainder of the father’s proposal regarding parenting time will apply.

Corollary Orders

99Mother wants to be able to travel with the child without father’s consent, particularly to Vietnam.

100Father is opposed. He is concerned due to the many threats that mother made to father that she would leave with the child and go to Vietnam. Mother also said she could leave the child in Vietnam with anyone of several relatives there. Only a year ago, mother and V travelled to Vietnam when mother was not well.

101As father will have sole decision making and be responsible for the child’s primary care, it is consistent with the child’s best interests that father could travel without the mother’s consent, subject to providing mother all of the details of the travel. Father should also make a best effort to provide make up parenting time to mother.

102Mother must obtain the father’s written consent to travel outside of the country.

Part 2 Support

Child Support and Incomes:

103The Family Law Act (FLA) and the Child Support Guidelines (CSG) govern the obligations of a parent to pay child support to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so. An order for child support must be in accordance with the CSG, which is essentially guided by the income of the payor.

104Notices of Assessment for each parent indicate the following:

(1) 2020 Father had income from both the casino and uber. His gross income was $55,603. He deducted expenses of $14,035 from the uber portion of the income, netting uber income of $35,624 Mother had insurance and benefits’ income of $20,000. (2) 2021 Father had gross uber income of $45,750 with expenses of $36,016, and other income of $17,190, netting him $26,923. Mother declared income and benefits of $19,668. (3) 2022 Father grossed $81,149 from uber and uber eats and deducted expenses of $48,776, netting him income of $32,372. Mother declared benefits of $13,021.

105Both parents received the Covid Employment Replacement Benefit (CERB) during Covid. Father had to transition to Uber and Uber Eats for income during the pandemic.

106Each parent accumulated huge debts of approximately $60,000 each from gambling, credit cards, and other expenses. Each parent was forced into a consumer proposal for that debt. Father pays approximately $300 a month toward this debt and mother’s financial statement indicates that she pays $250 a month.

107Mother always worked in a nail salon, earning approximately $700-$800 a week, including tips. This amount of weekly income would total between $36,400 and $41,600 annually. Most of this was cash and untaxed. Since her vacation/hospitalization in Vietnam from July to September of 2022, mother only worked for about a month at a salon but “it didn’t work out”. She says that caring for M prevents her from working on the weekends which most salons require of their employees. Mother receives Ontario Works of about $960 a month and over a $1000 a month for a housing rental subsidy which doesn’t show on her financial statement.

108Father testified that mother’s previous boyfriend had given her a $40,000 line of credit at the casino for her own personal use. Mother did not deny this.

109It is clear that both parents led a cash income lifestyle, prior to COVID. Father said that he paid the rent. Mother agreed and said that she paid for the meals and groceries. Mother testified that she had saved about $7,000. which she then invested in an online pyramid sales venture and “lost $2,000 to $3,000.”.

110The child was born during the height of the pandemic. Neither parent was earning money. Father took an uber job which gave him income and maximum flexibility. Mother’s nail salon was not operating.

111In 2022, father was working for Uber and Uber eats. He is entitled for income tax purposes to deduct certain expenses, some of which should be added back for the purpose of determining income for child support.

112A review of the case-law respecting business deduction claims reveals a general theme that in determining whether expenses should be added back into a parent’s income for child support purposes, an important consideration is whether there is a benefit derived from the business expenses that employed people would have to cover from their personal income. See: Izyuk v. Langley, 2015 ONSC 2409.

113A self-employed person has the onus of clearly demonstrating the basis of his or her net income. This includes demonstrating that the deductions from gross income should be taken into account in the calculation of income for support purposes. See Whelan v. O’Connor, [2006] O.J. No. 1660, (Ont. Fam. Ct.). The self-employed have an inherent obligation to put forward not only adequate, but comprehensive records of income and expenses, from which the recipient can draw conclusions and the amount of child support can be established. See: Meade v. Meade (2002), 31 R.F.L. 5th 88 (SCJ).

114The income analysis does not end there. It is appropriate in these circumstances to gross-up the payor’s income, as the payor is declaring and paying tax on substantially less income than the payor is actually earning. This is done to ensure consistency of treatment where a party is found to have arranged his affairs to pay less tax on income. See Sarafinchin v. Sarafinchin, [2000] O.J. No. 2855 (Ont. S.C.).

115In reviewing the father’s deductions from his uber income in 2022, the court finds as follows:

(1) Employees are generally responsible for their own meals. (2) The father only has one phone and uses it for work and personal business. (3) The father only has one car and uses it to provide all the transportation for his own personal life and for the child’s visits with mother.

116Therefore, the court makes these additions to the father’s income:

(1) Of the $1,885.01 claimed for meals, one half is added back to income; (2) Of the $751.41 claimed for cell phone and utilities, one half is added back. (3) Of the almost $17,000 claimed for automobile expenses, one quarter is added back.

117With the additional income and grossed up for tax, father’s income for 2022 would be closer to $41,645.

118Father paid temporary child support commencing November 1, 2021 of $292 a month on income of $34,000 until February, 2022. That income is correct for 2021, taking into account probable add backs but should be adjusted to $375. a month for January and February of 2022. Father therefore owes arrears of $166. to mother

119In analyzing mother’s income since March of 2022, the court notes the following:

(1) Mother was hospitalized twice in February of 2022 in Toronto and again in August of 2022 in Vietnam. (2) Mother saw a psychiatrist at Osler health system, but did not have an interpreter or V with her. (3) Mother was on a waiting list for support services in her first language until August of 2023. She now speaks virtually to a counsellor and has just begun this month to participate in groups. The groups will provide practical support. (4) Mother has been financially supported through Ontario Works for income and housing subsidy. (5) The mother has not made much of an effort to find work in a nail salon. She says she worked for a month only but did not provide the dates or year. She testified that it didn’t work out. She has not provided a job search. (6) Mother’s English language skills are questionable. Father and his family members testified that they only spoke English and she appeared to always understand them. Certainly, on occasion, mother responded to questions in the witness stand without waiting for the interpreter. What is more problematic, however, is her ability to work in the English language. She requires additional language skills and is willing to take more classes to this end. (7) Mother agrees that she should pay child support from March 2022.

120Section 19 (CSG) provides that the court may impute to a spouse “such amount of income … as it considers appropriate” and provides a non-exhaustive list of such circumstances.

121Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. See: Drygala v. Pauli, [2002] O.J. No. 3731, Ont. C.A.).

122Unfortunately mother has not provided a current medical report or a job search.

123It would be hard to conclude at this stage that mother is wholly and intentionally underemployed. She knows that she needs to organize and improve her skills at the same time as maintaining stable mental health. It is uncertain how much wait lists, English second language, and an uncertain economy have played in mother’s situation.

124Based on the above, the court cannot attribute full time income to the mother.

125From March 1, 2022, until October 31, 2023, mother’s income is imputed at $20,000. The CSG amount of monthly support is $161, a month totalling $3,220 in arrears as of October 31, 2023.

126Father’s arrears as of March 1, 2022 are $166. With this set off, mother owes father arrears of child support of $3,054, effective October 31, 2023.

127From November 1, 2023 until August 31, 2024, the parents will have a parenting time arrangement whereby mother has more than 40% of the time with M. This is a period of 10 months.

128Section 9 of the CSG set out the principles to apply in shared parenting situations; specifically:

(1) The applicable table amount for each parent; (2) The increased costs of shared parenting time arrangements; and (3) The conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent and of the child

129The case of Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63 outlines the correct approach to take, including:

1. Look at all 3 factors in s.9
2. The court should be flexible, none should prevail
3. No presumptions apply. Section 9 creates a different method of calculating child support in these cases.
4. Must look at the continuing ability of the Recipient to meet the needs of the child
5. Can modify the setoff if different standards of living
6. The total cost of raising kids may be greater in shared custody situations
7. Must look at budgets and actual expenditures for both. The court is concerned about over-all increased total costs of child-rearing for both parents, especially duplicated costs and any disproportionate spending by one parent.
8. Child expense budgets are a necessity
9. Must consider all circumstances
10. No formula is mandated and multipliers are rejected.
11. Section 9 is broad enough to incorporate section 7 expenses directly in the examination of child-related expenses.

130In Kerr v. Erland, 2014 ONSC 3555, Blishen J. summarized the approach applicable under s. 9 and at para. 116 wrote:

Section 9 recognizes the increase in costs assumed by one parent does not necessarily lead to a decrease in costs assumed by the other. Section 9(c) requires the court to consider principles of fairness and, importantly, the standard of living of the children in each household along with the ability of each parent to absorb the costs required to maintain the appropriate standard of living in the circumstances.

131In this case, the following facts are relevant:

(1) The shared arrangements will only last from November of 2023 until August 31, 2024, when the child will start school. (2) The court is not attributing full time income to mother now so she can maintain her stable mental health and obtain supports. (3) Father is doing most of the driving for the liberal parenting time for mother. While it is true he moved to Pickering, that was a move based on dire financial straits and the availability of family to support him. Many parents in similar circumstances are forced to move to the edges of the Greater Toronto Area in order to afford housing. (4) Father has been and continues to pay for all of the part time day care and activity costs to date.

132As a result, the court does not order any child support to be payable between the parents from November 1, 2023 until August 31, 2024

133Commencing September 1, 2024:

(1) The shared parenting time arrangement will be finished; (2) Section 9 of the CSG will not apply; (3) mother will have had more time to retrain; and (4) The child will be in school full time giving mother time for full time employment,

134Commencing September 1, 2024, mother shall pay child support of $297. per month to father based on annual minimum wage of $34,424.

135Commencing September 1, 2024, the parents should share the costs of section 7 expenses for the child, which would include the net cost of daycare and one activity, to be agreed upon by the parents in advance. The costs should take into account any tax credits or benefits relating to the expense and be borne proportionate to the parents’ incomes. The parents should provide each other with annual disclosure by June 1st of every year of their respective Notices of Assessment from Canada Revenue Agency. Mother will be imputed with income from minimum wage or her real income which ever is greater.

Spousal Support

136Spousal support is intended to address financial inequity following the end of a relationship.

137Section 30 of the Act states that every spouse has an obligation to provide support for himself or herself and for the other spouse, in accordance with need, to the extent that he or she is capable of doing so.

138Subsection 33 (8) of the Act sets out the purposes of spousal support as follows:

(1) recognize the spouse’s contribution to the relationship and the economic consequences of the relationship for the spouse; (2) share the economic burden of child support equitably; (3) make fair provision to assist the spouse to become able to contribute to his or her own support; and (4) relieve financial hardship, if this has not been done by orders under Parts I (Family Property) and II (Matrimonial Home).

139Spousal support is not merely a consideration of needs and means. In determining the appropriate amount of spousal support, compensatory and non-compensatory considerations should be taken into account in an effort to equitably alleviate the economic consequences of the breakdown of the relationship. See: Rioux v. Rioux, 2009 ONCA 569, [2009] 97 O.R. (3d) 102 (OCA). Entitlement can be based on compensatory, non-compensatory or contractual grounds. See: Bracklow v. Bracklow.

140Where compensation is not the basis, a support obligation may arise from the marriage relationship itself when a spouse is unable to become self-sufficient. It can be based on need. Under this model, spousal support will be based on economic hardship resulting from the breakdown of the marriage, but not necessarily the roles assumed during the marriage. See: Bracklow, supra.

141In determining need, courts ought to be guided in part by the principle that the spouse receiving support is entitled to maintain the standard of living to which she was accustomed at the time cohabitation ceased. The analysis must consider the recipient’s ability to support herself, in light of her income and reasonable expenses. See: Gray v. Gray, 2014 ONCA 659.

142On its own, a mere disparity of income that would generate an amount under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide, April 2016: Professor Carol Rogerson and Professor Rollie Thompson (SSAG) does not automatically lead to entitlement, although a disparity of income may lead to a finding that there is an economic hardship arising from the breakdown of the marriage. There must be some evidence that the disadvantage to the recipient spouse must arise from the breakdown of the marriage. See: Lamb v. Watt, 2017 ONSC 5838. However, in practice, entitlement will generally be found in cases where there is a significant income disparity at the time of the initial application. See: Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide, April 2016: Professor Carol Rogerson and Professor Rollie Thompson.

143A basic principle of spousal support law is that the recipient must make reasonable efforts to become economically self-sufficient. See: Dingle v. Dingle, 2010 ONCJ 731.

144The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed entitlement to spousal support based on non-compensatory grounds where the claimant had health issues in paragraphs 27 and 28 of Gray v. Gray, 2014 ONCA 659 as follows:

One of the objectives of the Divorce Act is to relieve economic hardship. Need is not measured solely to ensure a subsistence existence, but rather should be assessed through the lens of viewing marriage as an economic partnership. As stated by this court in Marinangeli v. Marinangeli (2003)

145Mother submits that she is entitled to spousal support pursuant to section 30 of the FLA, retroactive to the date of separation.

146The parents were living together for only one full year before the pandemic hit.

147During that year both worked full time and earned about the same income, taking into account cash tips. Both adults contributed to the expenses, but it appears that father paid more and mother used her income to provide financial support to her older son. Father’s evidence was that he paid for everything.

148The pandemic altered their earning capacity and M was born during that period of time. Father took up the brunt of the financial hardship by transitioning to uber and uber eats.

149Taking into account the criteria and the facts set out above, but in particular:

(1) Mother has been dependent on a series of partners, including the father; (2) This pattern of dependency has created an instability for the mother after separation; (3) This dependency has kept her language gains to a minimum; and (4) The instability played a role in mother’s mental health needs;

the court finds that mother has a modest entitlement to spousal support.

150The duration for spousal support would also be modest, in light of the short relationship.

151Taking into account the arrears of child support that mother owes father and the spousal support payable by father through until the end February of 2024, the amounts are completely offset.

152The court also considers that father will not be able to deduct this spousal support.

153It is important for these two parents to have a fresh start financially by the time the child starts school.

154This offset will completely satisfy the father’s spousal support obligation.

Final Orders:

1. Father shall have primary residence and sole decision-making for the child, M., born [...], 2020. Any decisions regarding the child’s welfare shall first be discussed by both parents with either parent seeking and obtaining written input from the other in advance. In the event the parties cannot agree on a major decision related to the child, the Applicant-father, MJL shall have the final decision-making responsibility.
2. The child’s school shall be in the Applicant-father’s catchment area.
3. Both parties shall be entitled to obtain records and information from the child’s doctors, dentist, teachers/school, and other service providers without the consent of the other. This provision shall constitute an irrevocable direction to any such service providers to release all information and records concerning the child without authorization from the other parent.
4. Parenting time: The parties shall have parenting time with the child until the child starts school in September 2024, as per the following schedule, with pick-up and drop-off time at noon (12 p.m.):

Sunday	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday
Mother	Father Pick up at noon	Father	Father	Mother Drop off at noon	Mother	Father Pick up at noon
Father	Father	Father	Father	Mother Drop off at noon	Mother	Mother
Mother	Father Pick up at noon	Father	Father	Mother Drop off at noon	Mother	Father Pick up at noon
Father	Father	Father	Father	Mother Drop off at noon	Mother	Mother

5. Mother’s parenting time once the child starts school in September of 2024 will be: a. Alternate weekends from Friday evening at 7 until Sunday evening at 7; the exchanges for weekends will be at TD Bank 2574 Finch Ave West, North York, M9M 2G3 in Finchdale Plaza; if mother wants to return the child to school on the Monday morning she will have to drive the child to school on time. b. Wednesdays for 2 hours from 5 pm until 7 pm; mother to pick up and drop off; unless there is an activity that the child is enrolled in by father; in which case the visit will be on Thursdays from 5 until 7 pm.; if mother cannot drive for this visit; then it can take place at the Pickering Town Centre and mother can take the GO train and father will be responsible for delivering the child and picking the child up.

6. The following holiday parenting schedule shall be in place and shall override the regular parenting time: a. Child and parents’ birthday: The regular schedule shall continue with the caveat that if the Child or a parent’s birthday falls on a weekend, the parent who is not ordinarily with the child that weekend shall be entitled to spend a minimum of 3 hours with them on the day, taking into account special plans which may have been made for him/her for that day. If the child or a parent’s birthday falls on a weekday (when the child has school), the non-residential parent shall pick the child up from school and have him until 7:00 p.m. b. Mother’s Day and Father’s Day: Regardless of the regular schedule, the child shall spend Mother’s Day with the Respondent-mother and Father’s Day with the Applicant-father. The time together shall commence at 9 a.m. on Sunday and continue until the return of the child to school on the following Monday morning. If there is no school, then exchanges shall take place on Monday morning at 8:00 a.m. c. March Break: Both parties shall share the March break equally. d. Summer Holidays: In 2024, the child shall spend two weeks in the summer with mother and one week with father. Commencing 2025 and each year thereafter, the child shall spend two weeks in the summer with father and three weeks with mother, each year (not consecutive). Otherwise, the parents shall follow the regular parenting time scheduled above. i. In even-numbered years, by no later than May 15th, the Applicant-father shall first choose his vacation weeks and notify the Respondent-mother of the same, in writing. Then, by no later than June 1st of the year, the Respondent-mother shall choose her vacation weeks and notify the Applicant-father, in writing. ii. In odd-numbered years, by no later than May 15th, the Respondent-mother shall first choose her vacation weeks and notify the Applicant-father of the same, in writing. Then, by no later than June 1st of the year, the Applicant-father shall choose his vacation weeks and notify the Respondent-mother, in writing. e. Christmas: The child shall be in the care of the Applicant-father from 23 December until 30 December at 6 p.m. f. New Year: In even-numbered years, the Applicant-father shall have the child from 06:00 p.m. on 31 December until 12:59 p.m. on 01 January and the Respondent-mother shall have the child from 01:00 p.m. on 01 January until 02 January 6:00 p.m. In odd-numbered years, the Respondent-mother shall have the child from 06:00 p.m. on 31 December until 12:59 p.m. on 01 January and the Applicant-father shall have the child from 01:00 p.m. on 01 January until 02 January 6:00 p.m. g. Lunar New Year: The Respondent-mother shall have the child for one week during the Lunar New Year. h. Other Statutory holidays: All other Statutory holidays shall not affect the regular parenting time. i. Exchanges: The pick-up and drop-off location shall be at TD Bank 2574 Finch Ave West, North York, M9M 2G3 in Finchdale Plaza; subject to the times when mother may drive the child to school on a Monday morning and when there is a mid-week visit at the PTC. j. Father may travel without the mother’s consent, subject to providing mother all of the details of the travel. Father should also make a best effort to provide make up parenting time to mother. Mother will need the father’s consent to travel outside of Canada.

7. Father may obtain all of the child’s government issued documents without notice to nor consent of the mother. A copy of the child’s health card will travel with him for visits with mother.

8. The parties shall continue to communicate via text messages as reasonably needed concerning the child. All text messages shall remain child-focused and include discussions related only to the child, his well-being, parenting schedule, etc.

9. Commencing September 1, 2024, mother to pay child support of $297. per month to father based on annual minimum wage of $34,424. A support deduction order will follow.

10. Commencing July 1, 2024, the parents should share the costs of necessary or special expenses for the child, which would include before or after school daycare and one activity, to be agreed upon by the parents in advance. The costs should be borne proportionate to incomes, with annual disclosure by June 1st of every year of their respective Notices of Assessment from Canada Revenue Agency. Mother will be imputed with income based on minimum wage or her real income which ever is greater.

155Counsel may provide cost submissions if they cannot agree.

(1) Counsel for father may serve and file costs submission of maximum 3 pages excluding Offers and Bills of Costs within 14 days of this decision. (2) Counsel for mother may serve and file a responding submission, also of maximum 3 pages, excluding Offers and Bills of Costs within 14 days of receiving the submissions of counsel for father. (3) Filing of these submissions should be made at the Trial Coordinator’s Office on the second floor of 47 Sheppard East, Toronto

156The court thanks counsel for a very thorough review of the issues, legislation and applicable caselaw.