ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: Rasmussen v. Fasulo, 2025 ONCJ 349
DATE: June 24, 2025
COURT FILE No.: FO-23-164 -Brampton
BETWEEN:
Charles Patrick Rasmussen
Applicant
— AND —
Iolanda Fasulo
Respondent
Before Justice W. Kapurura
Heard on May 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on June 24, 2025
Harpreet Sachdeva-Milne..................................................................... counsel for the applicant
Mervyn White & Max Katz.............................................................. counsel for the respondent
Justice W. Kapurura:
Part One – Introduction
1This trial was about the parenting and child support arrangements for the parties’ nine-year-old child, C (the child).
2The child is currently having a shared parenting arrangement with the parents on a 2-2-3 basis, pursuant to Justice P. Clay’s temporary order dated May 13, 2024. This is the operative temporary parenting order.
3At the commencement of the trial, the parties advised the court that they had executed final minutes of settlement regarding special and extraordinary expenses1under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines) and child support for the period of February 1, 2017, to April 30, 2025. The court will make a final order accordingly.
4The applicant (the father) resides with his parents in Brampton, Province of Ontario. The respondent (the mother) resides in Ballinafad (Halton Hills), Province of Ontario. The distance between the two homes is about 36 kilometres.
5The father seeks the following orders:
a. The parties continue to have a shared parenting arrangement on a 2-2-3 basis, with parenting exchanges occurring at the child’s school.
b. The parties shall share holidays and special occasions equally.
c. The child shall continue her current enrollment at Brampton Christian School. The mother must contribute her proportionate share of the cost. Alternatively, he will pay the full cost of private school.
d. Support for the child shall be paid as follows:
i. For the period May 1, 2025, until September 31, 2025, his annual income for support calculation is $64,542, and the mother’s annual income shall be imputed at $31,000.00. He will pay her a set-off monthly child support amount of $336.00 based on a shared parenting arrangement pursuant to section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines).
ii. For the period October 1, 2025, and ongoing, his annual income shall remain at $64,542.00. The mother’s annual income shall be imputed at $43,680.00. He will pay her a set-off monthly child support amount of $198.00 based on a shared parenting arrangement pursuant to section 9 of the guidelines.
e. A contribution to the child’s ongoing special and extraordinary expenses, under section 7 of the guidelines (section 7 expenses). The parties shall contribute to any section 7 expenses if they agree with the expense in advance, in writing.
6The respondent (the mother) opposes the father’s requests. She seeks the following orders:
a. Sole decision-making responsibility for the child.
b. The child shall reside primarily with her.
c. Permission to homeschool the child.
d. The father shall have parenting time with the child on Mondays and Wednesdays from after school until 7:00 p.m., and on alternating weekends from Friday after school until 4:00 p.m. on Sunday.
e. Each parent shall have two non-consecutive weeks of parenting time during the summer break. Other holidays and special occasions shall be shared equally.2
f. Commencing May 1, 2025, and ongoing, the father shall pay her full monthly support for the child in the amount of $655.00 based on his 2024 income of $72,072.00.
g. A contribution to the child’s ongoing section 7 expenses. Her income shall be imputed at the current Ontario general minimum wage amount of $35,776.00.
7This matter was set for a three-to-four-day trial by the case management judge, Justice Clay. The parties agreed to present their direct evidence by affidavits. At trial, time limits were set for cross-examination.
8The father called three additional witnesses, namely his mother (paternal grandmother), the child’s teacher and a mental health advocate from the child’s school. The paternal grandmother provided an affidavit for her examination-in-chief. The teacher and the mental health advocate provided oral evidence for their examination-in-chief. The father’s witnesses were cross-examined at trial. The mother did not call additional witnesses. She relied on her trial affidavit for her examination-in-chief. She was cross-examined at trial.
9A clinician from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL), Claudette Bled, provided two Voice of the Child (VOC) reports dated November 22, 2024, and May 12, 2025.3 At trial, the parties agreed to enter the two VOC reports into evidence for the truth of their contents. They decided not to call the clinician for cross-examination.
10During the hearing, the father sought to introduce a printout from a GoFundMe online page into evidence. He testified that the mother created the page to raise funds for treatment when she was ill. The court reserved its decision on admitting the document into evidence. The court will dismiss the request as the proposed document is not relevant to the issues the court must determine. Even if the court had admitted the document into evidence, it would have given it little weight.
11The issues for the court to determine are as follows:
a) What parenting orders are in the child’s best interests? In particular:
(i) What parenting time orders are in the child’s best interests?
(ii) With which party should the child have her primary residence?
(iii) Should the child remain at her current private school, or should the mother be permitted to homeschool her?
(iv) What decision-making responsibility orders are in the child’s best interests?
(v) What incidents of parenting and terms of communication are in the child’s best interests?
b) How much child support should be paid on an ongoing basis? In particular,
(i) Will this be a shared parenting arrangement requiring the court to conduct its support analysis pursuant to section 9 of the guidelines?
(ii) If so, what are the parties’ incomes for purposes of support calculation? What, if any, income should be imputed to either of them?
(iii) If not, who should be paying support, and how much should they pay?
(iv) What amounts, if any, should the parties pay for the child’s ongoing section 7 expenses?
Part Two – Brief background facts and procedural history
12The parties began living together around 2014 and separated in 2017. They never married.
13Around 2017, the father was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He was prescribed medications. He takes two prescribed medications, each once per day. He sees a psychiatrist every three to six months. He started psychotherapy for himself a few months ago.4
14The father issued his application on October 13, 2023.
15The mother filed her Answer/Claim dated November 29, 2023.
16The parties attended their first case conference before Justice Clay on March 13, 2024.
17The father has been employed by the City of Guelph as a utility locator since September 2024. His job involves locating and marking underground utility cables.
18The mother is an independent contractor and works part-time as a home stager and a real estate assistant. She is also enrolled in a Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) program at the University of Toronto. She anticipates completing the TEFL course by September 2025. She also anticipates working full-time as an English-as-a-foreign-language teacher once she completes the TEFL course.
19C is the father’s only child. The mother has an older son from a different relationship who is not the subject of this proceeding and is no longer residing in her home.
20The child lived primarily with the mother from the date of separation until May 2024. Prior to May 2024, the child had parenting time with the father on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from after school until 7:00 p.m. and on alternating weekends from Friday after school until Sunday at 7:00 p.m.
21The parenting schedule was changed on May 13, 2024, when Justice Clay ordered the current 2-2-3 shared parenting arrangement.
22On June 12, 2024, Justice J. Beasley made the following order, on consent of both parties:
a. The parties shall register the child at Brampton Christian School in Caledon, to commence Grade 4 in September 2024.
b. The parties shall share all school fees and other expenses payable to Brampton Christian School equally.
c. The parties shall make all of the child’s health-related decisions in consultation with the child’s doctors and other health specialists and based on the doctor’s/health specialist’s recommendations where necessary.
d. The parties shall take the child to her appointments with the family doctor, Dr. Fahad Mohamed, on an alternate basis.
e. The parties shall take the child to her dental appointments on an alternate basis.
f. The parties shall take the child to other healthcare appointments on an alternate basis.
g. The parties shall register the child jointly for counselling at CW Therapy and shall submit to the intake process at CW Therapy and attend with the child as recommended by CW Therapy.
Part Three – Parenting issues
3.1 – General legal considerations
23Subsection 24 (2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act (the Act) 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.
24Subsection 24 (3) of the Act sets out a list of factors for the court to consider related to the circumstances of the child. It reads as follows:
Factors
(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,
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.
25Subsection 24 (4) of the Act sets out factors relating to family violence. Subsections 18 (1) and (2) of the Act define family violence.
26Subsection 24 (6) of the Act sets out 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.
27Section 28 of the Act sets out the types of parenting orders the court can make.
28Subsection 33.1 (2) of the Act states that any party to a proceeding shall, to the best of their ability, protect any child from conflict arising from the proceeding.
29The list of best interests considerations in the Act is not exhaustive. See: White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41 and Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736. It is also not a checklist to be tabulated with the highest score winning. Rather, it calls for the court to take a holistic look at the child, his or her needs and the persons around the child. See: Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.
30The court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents. See: Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 191 (SCC). Adult preferences or “rights” do not form part of the analysis except insofar as they are relevant to the determination of the best interests of the child. See: Young v. Young 1993 34 (SCC); E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264; Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510.
31A starting point to assess a child’s best interests when making a parenting order is to ensure that the child will be physically and emotionally safe. See: I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615. Also see: Armstrong v. Coupland, 2023 ONSC 5451; N.D. v. R.K., 2020 ONCJ 266.
32In considering a child’s best interests it will often be important to determine if a parent will follow the terms of a court order. See: Wiafe v. Afoakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 201; Seyad v. Pathan, 2022 ONCJ 501; Mulik v. McFarlane, 2023 ONCJ 148.
33A party's failure to protect a child from conflict may be an important consideration in granting primary residence or decision-making responsibility to the other parent. See: Dayboll v. Binag, supra; I.A. v. I.G., 2023 ONCJ 523.
34The Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt v. Grebliunis, 2022 SCC 22 made the following observations about family violence:
The recent amendments to the Divorce Act recognize that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the best interests analysis (par. 146).
The suggestion that domestic abuse or family violence has no impact on the children and has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s parenting ability is untenable. Research indicates that children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives: Department of Justice, Risk Factors for Children in Situations of Family Violence in the Context of Separation and Divorce (February 2014), at p. 12. Harm can result from direct or indirect exposure to domestic conflicts, for example, by observing the incident, experiencing its aftermath, or hearing about it: S. Artz et al., “A Comprehensive Review of the Literature on the Impact of Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence for Children and Youth” (2014), 5 I.J.C.Y.F.S. 493, at p. 497. (par. 145).
Domestic violence allegations are notoriously difficult to prove. Family violence often takes place behind closed doors and may lack corroborating evidence. Thus, proof of even one incident may raise safety concerns for the victim or may overlap with and enhance the significance of other factors, such as the need for limited contact or support (par. 145).
35Violence need not be physical. Emotional and psychological abuse can have a devastating impact on a child. See: Dayboll v. Binag, supra; El Khatib v. Noun, 2023 ONSC 1667.
3.2 – Brief overview of the parties’ positions on parenting issues
3.2.1 – The father’s narrative
36The father described the child as a hardworking and compassionate child with a good sense of humour.
37The father deposed the following:
a. He wants what is best for the child.
b. He was involved in the child’s day-to-day care after she was born.
c. He has supported the child’s relationship with his extended family since birth. The child's paternal grandparents continue to be a positive influence in her life.
d. He tried to support the mother’s other child, T, when he was having challenges at school. He tried to talk to T when he stopped attending school around 2014. The mother asked him to refrain from doing so as she claimed he was being bullied at school.
e. Around 2016, the parties began arguing about their parenting styles.
f. The mother perpetrated family violence against him, leading to separation:
i. Around 2017, she threw an object at him during an argument. The object missed the child who was sitting on the couch with him. The police attended and she was arrested and charged with assault. They never lived together after she was arrested.
ii. She has called him “ass” and “useless”.
g. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder around 2017. He stated that he was experiencing racing thoughts and found it difficult to fall asleep.
h. He maintained his relationship with the child after the separation. Between 2017 and May 2024, he saw the child on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from after school until 7:00 p.m. He also had the child on alternate weekends from Friday after school until Sunday at 7:00 p.m.
i. He is the parent more attuned to the child’s education. In 2017, the mother agreed to his request to register the child at Tall Pines School (Tall Pines), a private school in Brampton. The paternal grandparents decided to contribute to the school fees. The child started at Tall Pines around September 2017. The mother paid half of the required annual fees of $10,000.00. The child enjoyed her time at Tall Pines and made friends.
j. He values the child’s attendance at school. The child never missed school while in his care. The child missed a lot of school at Tall Pines during the days she was in the mother’s care.
k. The mother had a negative relationship with school staff at Tall Pines, thereby impacting the child’s education. The mother was banned from attending Tall Pines school, including school events, except for pick-up and drop-off.
l. The mother has made irrational decisions about the child’s education and school. On February 8 and 10, 2023, the mother sent him an email stating that the child would not be going back to Tall Pines the following year. He struggled to reconcile the fact that Tall Pines was a good school for the child, and the fact that she (the mother) was not allowed to attend the school due to her conflict with the school staff.
m. The mother ‘punished’ the child due to her negative relationship with Tall Pines. On February 16, 2023, the mother had an argument with the school. Following this argument, she did not:
i. Send the child’s bathing suit with her to be able to go swimming.
ii. Send the child’s clothing so she can participate in Fashion Week at Tall Pines.
iii. Bring the child to school on ‘pyjama day’ at Tall Pines.
n. The mother has involved the child in adult issues, trying to influence her.
o. The mother has tried to limit his telephone interactions with the child. In 2023, he purchased a cellular phone for the child so he could have direct contact with the child and not rely on the mother.
p. He supports the child’s extracurricular activities. He has never missed the child’s gymnastics class. The paternal grandparents have also attended with him. He also suggested karate for the child.
q. He values the child’s emotional well-being. In 2023, he agreed with the mother to purchase a puppy for the child. The puppy is in his home.
r. He has always disagreed with homeschooling the child:
i. On August 22, 2023, the mother communicated to him that the child was ‘set on trying homeschooling.’ He disagreed with homeschooling the child.
ii. From September 2023 until May 2024, the mother homeschooled the child without his consent. He does not believe that she has the necessary skills to homeschool the child. He asserts that the child fell behind in her academic performance during the period she was homeschooled.
s. In June 2024, the parents agreed that the child would attend Brampton Christian School, starting in September 2024. The location is halfway between their two homes. This is her current school.
t. He continues to support the child’s prompt and consistent attendance at her new school, Brampton Christian School. The child has never been late getting to Brampton Christian School from his house. She has been late several times coming from the mother’s home.
u. He accused the mother of having “conspiracy theories” and disturbing views around the safety and efficacy of vaccines, as well as around modern science, medicine, health, and social issues:
v. In the spring of 2024, the mother relocated to her current residence in Ballinafad, Halton Hills, without his consent and without complying with the statutory notice requirements. Her new residence is over 35 kilometres away from his residence (and a 35-minute to one-hour drive each way, depending on traffic).
w. Justice Clay granted the current 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule following the mother’s relocation.
x. The mother continues to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the child’s educational needs. He enrolled the child in the Oxford Learning Program (Oxford) in May 2024. The child attended two one-hour sessions per week at Oxford between June and August 2024. In July 2024, the mother refused to take the child to her tutoring sessions while the child was in her care.
y. He accused the mother of focusing on her own needs, and not the child’s needs. Around June 2024, the parents agreed to have the child attend counselling. Between June 2024 and November 2024, the child changed two therapists at the mother’s request:
i. The first therapist, Ms. Perri, indicated that the child would benefit from seeing a therapist who was better equipped to support the child’s specific needs.
ii. On August 20, 2024, the mother unilaterally cancelled the child’s therapy with her second therapist, Ms. Sawhney, without consulting him.
iii. On November 4, 2024, the mother asked him to cancel the child’s sessions with Ms. Haroon, her third therapist, and he declined. On January 11, 2025, the therapist notified the parents that she was terminating the sessions.
iv. The mother strictly monitors what the child eats, to the point of making the child uncomfortable when she consumes certain foods at his home.
z. The child maintains structure in his home.
38The paternal grandmother testified on behalf of the father. She stated that:
a. She has a very positive relationship with the child and remains actively involved in her life.
b. She is primarily responsible for picking up and dropping off the child at school given the father’s work schedule. She remains involved in the child’s educational needs. The paternal grandparents contribute most of the child’s fees for private school.
c. She described the father as a kind person who tries to avoid conflict, and sometimes agrees to decisions he does not like.
d. The father has some mental health struggles. She has supported him throughout his treatment.
e. The mother’s holistic lifestyle is impacting the child. She testified that the mother does not allow the child to eat certain foods or to use certain household products. The grandmother provided examples of text messages she received from the child, in which the child asked the grandmother not to tell her mother the truth if asked about the soap the child had used and the food the child had eaten while at the father’s home.
f. The mother has expressed to her on multiple occasions that she does not believe that vaccinations are safe, and that only holistic medicine should be used on animals. The mother refused to deworm, neuter, and vaccinate the child’s dog.
g. She avoids discussing issues related to mediation, vaccination, or healthcare with the mother.
h. She was worried about the mother’s challenging relationship with the child’s school principal at Tall Pines. She had multiple calls in 2022-2023 with the mother and the father and begged the mother to stop publicly disparaging the school and harassing teachers and school staff. The grandmother did not want the child to be expelled. The mother refused to comply.
i. She took the child to a medical appointment when the child had a toothache. The mother refused to use antibiotics as she preferred holistic medicine like salt water.
39The child’s teacher testified. She stated that the child was performing reasonably well but was struggling in mathematics and social studies. She was worried that the child would not pass mathematics this year due to her low marks.
40A mental health advocate from the school testified. She described herself as a point person for students and staff navigating stressful moments. She has worked with the child. She described the child as socially comfortable at the school and that she is ‘happy and giggles a lot.’ She expressed no concerns about the child’s physical care.
3.2.2 – The mother’s narrative
41The mother deposed the following:
a. She has always been child-focused since the child was born. She decided to stay home after she gave birth to the child. The father berated her for making this decision and exhibited aggressive behaviours towards her.
b. As the child grew older, she made a conscious decision to educate herself on healthier ways of living. This included a change of diet, the use of chemical-free products, and research on living a more “holistic lifestyle”. These changes led to conflict with the father as he belittled her for her choices.
c. The father’s relationship with her older son, T, was not positive.
d. The father has made poor and risky choices about his health. In 2017, he had back surgery, and was prescribed strong pain medication. He drank heavily while on medication. Even after his back healed, he continued to use the pain medication while drinking.
e. She had some concerns about the father’s parenting of the child before separation. When she attempted to express her concerns, he refused to engage in any discussions surrounding his parenting and the child’s safety.
f. She was concerned about the child’s exposure to the father’s substance misuse and conflict in the home before separation. Around February 2017, she repeatedly requested the father to leave the house.
g. She was arrested on February 5, 2017, and charged with assault on the father. She was accused of punching him in the face and on his arm. This incident led to the separation of the parties.
h. She engaged a therapist following the separation to help her cope with the breakdown of her relationship with the father.
i. She was the primary caregiver to the child from the date of separation in 2017 until May 2024.
j. She continued to support the father’s relationship with the child through visits following separation. He had visits every Wednesday after school until 7:00 p.m., and on alternate weekends. He also had some additional visits with the child on Fridays. The Wednesday visit was subsequently changed to Monday from after school until 7:00 p.m. to accommodate his work schedule.
k. She offered the father more parenting time with the child after she started working. In or around 2017, she began to take on some work as a home stager with Jem Realty. She asked the father to spend additional parenting time. Initially, he was confrontational with her, but after she spoke to the paternal grandmother, the father insisted that the child stay with his parents when she was working.
l. She had the following concerns about the father’s parenting following separation:
i. He refused to properly secure the child’s car seat during parenting exchanges, being dismissive.
ii. The mother once found the child in a toy car outside the home without adult supervision.
m. She continued to support a positive relationship between the father and the child, despite his dismissiveness when she raised child safety concerns with him.
n. The parties agreed that the child would start gymnastics in the fall of 2017. The child has displayed talent and a love for gymnastics.
o. Since separation, she has been primarily responsible for the child’s attendance at medical appointments.
p. She kept the father apprised of the child’s medical needs.
q. She values the child’s education. When the child was ready to start pre-school, the parents discussed their options.
r. The child began attending Tall Pines in September 2017. She contributed $10,000.00 to the school fees.
s. Once the child started attending Tall Pines, the parents were able to co-parent more successfully.
t. The father was not forthcoming about the impact of his mental health challenges on the child or their parenting arrangements. Around 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic), the father told her that he was experiencing depression and was on work leave. He refused to discuss any details on how this would affect the child or their parenting arrangements.
u. In 2021, she experienced an adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine, and the complications impacted her ability to stage homes. She consulted a naturopathic doctor who guided her on a natural and holistic approach to her healing, which included:
i. Implementing holistic healing methods to her everyday life.
ii. She learned about foods to avoid. She made changes to her and the child’s diet to eliminate processed foods and stick to healthy, organic options. These changes caused significant disagreement with the father.
iii. She made homemade toothpaste, lip balms and lotions with the child. The child took these items to the father’s home during his parenting time. He mocked the healthy choices the mother was making.
v. Around October 2021, both parents expressed concerns about the child receiving the COVID-19 vaccination.
w. She accused Tall Pines of not respecting her wishes regarding the child. Around February 6, 2023, she went to Tall Pines to request that they cancel to food order that the father had made without her consent. The order included ‘unhealthy food options’ such as pizza. The school principal accused her of having “too many concerns” and asked her to consider transferring the child to another school if she was unhappy with the current one. She then threatened the school with a negative online review.
x. On February 7, 2023, Tall Pines informed her that she was not allowed to return to the school’s property or attend field trips, except to pick up the child from the school without exiting her vehicle. She was also banned from attending school concerts unless the father attended with her.
y. On February 9, 2023, she told the father that the child would no longer be attending Tall Pines. The parents then agreed that the child would finish Grade Two at Tall Pines and change schools in September 2023.
z. She acknowledged attending the child’s Tall Pines school swim trip on February 15, 2023, in breach of the school’s direction not to attend. The school cautioned her that if she continued to disregard their rules, the child would be removed from the school.
aa. Around March 2023, the child developed a sore tooth. The parents agreed to have the tooth checked. An antibiotic was prescribed for the child. The mother administered a holistic solution before administering the antibiotic. The tooth healed in two days without requiring the antibiotic. Her refusal to use the antibiotics led to significant disagreement with the father. The father also dismissed her concerns about the care the child received at the dentist’s office. Around that time, the father attempted to have the child attend a dental appointment without her knowledge or consent. He only stopped after she disagreed.
bb. Around April 2023, the father arranged for the child to attend a dental appointment (with a different dentist) again without her approval. The dentist stated that the child’s tooth would have to be removed. She disagreed. She scheduled a follow-up appointment at a different facility in Georgetown on April 18, 2023. Eventually, Dr. Laura (whom the mother had proposed), recommended that the child’s damaged teeth were baby teeth and would fall off on their own.
cc. She accused the father of not responding to her proposal for the child’s school in the summer of 2023. She proposed Rowntree Montessori School in Brampton. He did not respond. She went on to implement the homeschooling curriculum.
dd. Around November 2023, the father provided a cellular device without first consulting her. She expressed her displeasure as the child was eight years old.
ee. She is in therapy to help her in managing her co-parenting relationship with the father.
ff. She claimed that she relocated to her current home without the father’s objections. In April 2024, she discussed with the father that she wanted to sell her house in Brampton. In May 2024, she moved to her current residence in Ballinafad. He did not express any issues with the move.
gg. The child became dysregulated following the change in residential arrangements in May 2024 (the 2-2-3 arrangement).
hh. The child struggled with the change in routine. The parents agreed that the child should be enrolled in therapy. Sessions with the first therapist did not continue due to the therapist’s concerns about high conflict around the parenting schedule. Issues arose again with the second therapist, as the child did not want to work with them. A third therapist advised that she would no longer continue with the sessions due to “answers the child expressed to the therapist.” The father has refused to agree to discuss any further therapy options with her.
ii. The child began attending Brampton Christian School in September 2024. Since starting school, the child has been a victim of excessive bullying at the school. She has attempted to discuss the challenges with the father, but he rarely responds to her messages.
jj. The father and the paternal grandparents smoke in the home. She smells the scent of tobacco smoke on the child’s belongings, including her clothing, backpack and lunch bag.
kk. Her communication with the father is not positive for the following reasons:
i. She struggles to coordinate any activities with him.
ii. He does not answer her communication when she has safety concerns.
iii. She is unable to manage his demanding opinions.
iv. If she refuses to agree to his choices for the child, the child would not be able to participate in the desired activity or event, including healthcare options.
3.2.3 – First Voice of the Child (VOC) report
42The parties agreed to have the two OCL reports admitted for the truth of their contents, without cross-examination of the OCL clinician.
43The OCL clinician interviewed the child privately on October 27, 2024 and November 2, 2024. The child had started Grade 4 at Brampton Christian School and was now residing with her parents on a 2-2-3 schedule pursuant to Justice Clay’s order from May 2024.
44The clinician described the child as articulate and astute and was consistent in her views and preferences during both interviews.
45The child stated the following to the clinician. The child:
a. Described herself as short-tempered, funny, and kind.
b. Described her love and affection she has for both her mother and father, and her older brother (her half-sibling).
c. Participates in gymnastics and singing. Both parents are involved in taking her to the activities.
d. Does not like the 2-2-3 residential arrangement. Prior to the recent change in parenting arrangements, she had never spent the night at her father’s home. She was finding it hard to keep track of her things, like her homework, which bothered her and had resulted in issues with her teacher.
e. Misses the other parent while visiting the other parent per the 2-2-3 schedule, and would prefer the sleepover occurs on alternate days. If this arrangement is not feasible, she would prefer reverting back to her previous schedule, whereby she would see her father on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, from after school until 7:00 p.m., and on alternate weekends.
f. Stated that at school, her favourite subjects are writing and art, while her least favourite is mathematics.
g. Enjoyed attending a public school for Grades one and two and had friends at the school.
h. Is not enjoying Brampton Christian School due to ongoing conflicts with other girls at the school, which makes her sad. She saw counsellor from school to talk about her challenges. She is also seeing a counsellor not affiliated with the school.
i. Stated that both parents are involved in her school.
j. Prefers being homeschooled as she learned better and had a positive relationship with the other homeschool mothers and students.
k. Expressed a preference that she be given the opportunity to spend holidays with both of her parents.
3.2.4 – The second VOC report
46On March 26, 2025, Justice Clay requested the OCL office to complete an updated report. The same clinician, Ms. Bled, completed the second report.
47The clinician interviewed the child privately on April 30, 2025 and May 7, 2025.
48The clinician described the child as attentive during the interviews and articulate in her responses to questions. She also described the child as articulate and intuitive. She observed the child’s affection towards her parents when they escorted her to the interviews.
49The child shared the following information with the clinician:
a. She is now ten years old and is a Grade 4 student at Brampton Christian School.
b. Her favourite subjects are physical education and music, while her least favourite subject is mathematics. She excels in most of her subjects, except for mathematics.
c. Her music teacher treats her like her child, and she likes how she is treated.
d. Since her last interview with the clinician, she had not been bullied as much at school, and the number of detentions she received had decreased. She still does not like Brampton Christian School, even though the bullying has stopped. Her preference is for homeschooling due to the flexibility it offers in completing assignments.
e. Currently, she is not meeting with the school social worker as frequently as she did before. She will only go if something is worrying her.
f. The only challenge with sleepovers currently is that if she forgets something for school at her other parent’s home, she gets worried and sad, and does not want to get in trouble. She once forgot her mathematics binder when she had a test and was upset.
g. She loves her parents equally and wants to spend equal time with each of them. She has no concerns about sleeping over at her father’s home. The only challenge is that she wants to be homeschooled.
h. She spoke positively about both her parents’ homes.
i. She has a loving relationship with her paternal grandmother and enjoys shopping with her. She does not see her maternal grandmother as frequently but enjoys seeing her when they have family reunions.
3.3 – Assessment of the parties’ evidence and findings on contested facts
3.3.1 – The father
50The father presented at trial as composed. Certain portions of his evidence were credible and reliable. Other portions of his evidence were neither credible nor reliable. On the issues for which he was credible, his evidence was supported by documentary evidence and corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses he called.
51The father acknowledged that his diagnosis of bipolar disorder has impacted his ability to recall dates and events. During cross-examination, he admitted that he has difficulty with his memory. This adversely affected the reliability of his evidence.
52When the father was questioned about consuming alcohol while taking medication for his mental health, he struggled to acknowledge that it was against his doctor’s advice. The court agrees with the mother that he has engaged in risky behaviours regarding his health:
i. His consumption of alcohol against medical advice reflects poor judgment on his part, particularly given that he is also a caregiver to the child.
ii. In 2017, he had back surgery and was prescribed strong pain medication. He consumed alcohol while on medication.
53On more than two occasions, the father failed to answer questions during cross-examination, stating that he would let his lawyer address the issue.
54The father demonstrated the following parenting strengths:
a. He loves the child, and the child loves him.
b. The OCL clinician described the child as being comfortable in his presence.
c. He engages in several child-appropriate activities when the child is in his care.
d. He has the support of the paternal grandparents in caring for the child. They have been involved in transporting the child to school, activities, and dental appointments.
e. The child attends school promptly during his parenting time.
f. He ensures the child does not miss school during his parenting time.
g. He arranged for the child to receive extra academic help through tutoring in May 2024.
h. He had a positive relationship with the school staff at Tall Pines.
i. He has a positive relationship with the school staff at the child’s current school, Brampton Christian School.
j. When the mother’s older son was struggling in school, he offered to help.
k. He is genuinely concerned about homeschooling.
l. When the mother complained about smoking in his home, he immediately implemented measures to address the issue.
m. He asked the paternal grandparents to help him with the private school expenses. They contribute about 80% of the cost. At trial, he offered to contribute the full cost of private school, with no contribution from the mother.
55The court finds that the father has perpetrated family violence against the mother, for the following reasons:
a. He berated her when she decided to stay at home following the child’s birth.
b. He ascribed the name ‘crazy bitch’ in his e-transfers to her. The court does not accept his apology during cross-examination. He had ample opportunity before the trial to apologize directly to her.
c. He called her, “You are the worst”.
d. He acknowledged that both parents had acted immaturely in their communication with each other.
56The father demonstrated the following parenting challenges:
a. He has contributed to his conflict with the mother. At times, he deliberately failed to respond to her inquiries.
b. He was dismissive of the mother when she attempted to address the following safety concerns:
a. Properly securing the child’s seat during their parenting exchanges.
b. Leaving the child in a toy car outside his home, unsupervised.
c. Asking the child to jump off the roof into a pile of snow.
c. He was disingenuous when he blamed the mother for unilaterally deciding not to vaccinate the child against COVID-19. He only acknowledged that he was also hesitant to have the child vaccinated against COVID-19 after he was confronted with a text message he had written her. He stated that he was nervous about the issue.
d. Other than dental appointments, he relies mainly on the mother regarding the child’s health information. He acknowledged during cross-examination that he had not taken steps to access the child’s medical records on his own.
e. He made a significant decision regarding the child’s extracurricular activity without first consulting with the mother. The mother previously agreed to have the father enrol the child in karate. He later cancelled the activity without first consulting with the mother.
f. He is fixated on the negative aspects of the mother’s parenting. During cross-examination, he struggled to identify any parenting strengths of the mother.
g. In 2023, he purchased a cellular phone for the child without consulting the mother first. The child was residing primarily with the mother. This was poor judgment on his part.
h. He does not have positive communication with the mother.
3.3.2 – The father’s other witnesses
57The paternal grandmother’s evidence was both credible and reliable regarding the following:
a. The child’s positive relationship with the father and the paternal grandparents.
b. The grandparents’ involvement in the child’s life when she is in the father’s care.
c. The challenging parenting relationship between the parents.
d. How the mother’s holistic lifestyle is impacting the child.
e. The father’s mental health diagnosis and events that led to his hospitalization.
f. The grandparents’ commitment to the child’s educational success, including their contribution to the child’s private school expenses.
58The grandmother’s evidence was neither credible nor reliable regarding the following:
a. She tried to minimize the father’s non-compliance with the directions of his psychiatrist regarding alcohol consumption.
b. Her evidence was generally biased in favour of the father. She did not see any fault in him. She only focused on the negative aspects of the mother’s parenting. She blamed the mother for the parenting challenges.
59The evidence of the child’s homeroom teacher was both credible and reliable. She articulated the child’s academic progress. She stated that the child lacks foundational knowledge and concepts in mathematics, with a current average of 58%. Her evidence on the child’s progress was supported by the child’s report cards. She provided her responses to questions in a straightforward manner and identified issues she was not qualified to answer.
60The child’s mental health advocate’s evidence was also credible and reliable. She described the child as doing well both physically and socially. Her evidence was consistent with that of the child’s homeroom teacher.
3.3.3 – The mother
61The mother presented at trial as composed and answered most of the questions put to her.
62The mother was not credible regarding some disturbing views she shared with the father. The evidence supports some of the father’s allegations that the mother holds unconventional views about medicine, science and social issues. Around 2022, she communicated the following messages to him:
a. An online article stating, “The food products you buy use Aborted Fetal Cells as flavour. All processed foods you buy has it.” She sent the following message to him with the attachment, “I’m sorry this is disgusting, but it's true…please don’t feed her (the child) any of this stuff”.
b. An online article stating, “Using tissue from aborted fetuses to develop artificial flavours for food products 100% legal”. She sent a text message with the article, asking the father not to buy eggs from the grocery store, stating that “All eggs are jabbed.”
c. An online article with the heading, “What’s really behind the rise of sudden death syndrome?” She sent the father a text message with the article stating, “Please DO NOT ever go near our daughter with any shots..I hope you are not buying into this booster crap”
d. Shared an online article from an individual identified as Dr. Ariyana Love, stating that “People are sooooo attached to Pharma’s poisons…” She then texted the father, stating, “The doctor from Finland that’s helping me.”
63During cross-examination, the mother told the court that she did not believe the information she shared with the father. However, in one of her text messages to him, she clearly stated that the information was accurate. The mother appeared to be trying to distance herself from the online articles she shared.
64The mother was also not credible regarding the following issues:
e. She accused the father of refusing to engage in addressing changes to their parenting schedule following separation. During cross-examination, she acknowledged that he was not refusing but was disagreeing with her position.
f. She accused the father of not being interested in the child’s healthcare before litigation was commenced. She acknowledged during cross-examination that it was not the case.
g. In anticipation of the trial, she was ordered by Justice Clay on March 26, 2024, to provide details of her Test of English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) online course, including the date of completion and particulars of her anticipated income. When she was questioned why she did not provide details of her anticipated income as ordered, she stated that she was not aware that Justice Clay had made the order. However, she was present in court when the order was made.
a. In an affidavit dated April 7, 2025, she swore that she anticipated completing a Test of English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) course on or before September of 2025, and anticipated working full time. During cross-examination, she was asked to confirm this information, and responded that she did not recall. She only acknowledged after she was confronted with her sworn affidavit, which she had signed five weeks before the trial.
65The mother demonstrated the following parenting strengths:
a. She loves the child, and the child loves her.
b. The OCL clinician described the child as being comfortable in the mother’s presence.
c. She was the child’s primary caregiver from separation in 2017 until May 2024, when the current schedule was ordered.
d. She was primarily responsible for the child’s medical needs following separation.
e. She continued to support a positive relationship between the father and the child after separation by facilitating his visits.
f. She agreed to adjust the child’s mid-week parenting visit to accommodate the father’s work schedule when he started his visits after separation.
g. She promptly informed the father when the child had a medical emergency.
h. She ensured that the child’s childhood vaccinations were up to date.
i. When the child was ready to start pre-school, she discussed school options with the father.
j. She is attending therapy to help her manage her co-parenting relationship with the father.
k. She has involved the paternal grandparents in her correspondence and communication with the father. This informs the court that she values their involvement in the child’s life and is willing to keep them informed about matters affecting the child and to consider their feedback.
66The mother demonstrated the following parenting challenges:
a. She failed to provide the father with a relocation notice pursuant to section 39.3 of the Act before moving from her home in Brampton to her current home in Ballinafad. Her previous home was about a ten-minute drive from the father’s home. Her new home is between 35 minutes to more than an hour’s drive from the father’s home, depending on traffic.
b. She acted misleadingly when she failed to disclose her plans to move during a court proceeding. She attended court with counsel on March 12, 2024. A motion date was then scheduled to address the issue of the child’s school, as the father opposed homeschooling the child. She went on to list her home for sale on March 28, 2024 (just two weeks after the March 12, 2024, court appearance). The mother moved in May 2024. She provided her new address to him for the first time on April 25, 2024.
c. She does not have positive communication with the father.
d. She threatened to remove the child from Tall Pines when the child was experiencing some challenges with her music teacher.
e. She has contributed to the conflict with the father. In March 2023, she refused to have the child take an antibiotic that the child’s dentist had prescribed.
f. She unilaterally cancelled the child’s therapy with Ms. Sawhney, without first consulting with the father.
67The mother has demonstrated the following challenges in issues relating to the child’s school:
g. She had a negative relationship with the school staff at Tall Pines. She was banned from attending school premises except for pick-up and drop-off.
h. The child missed several days of school at Tall Pines while residing primarily with her. The child had an overall absence of 54 days. She agreed during cross-examination that the absence was excessive.
i. The child was late 26 times at Tall Pines during her caregiving time. She agreed during cross-examination that the late arrivals were excessive and did not reflect good parenting.
j. She made a poor parenting decision in February 2023 when she attended the child’s Tall Pines swimming event, despite being told by the school not to attend school events. The school threatened to remove the child from Tall Pines if she continued to disregard school directions.
k. She made a poor parenting decision when she contacted Tall Pines directly in April 2023, after being told to contact the school only through the father.
l. She made an irrational decision when she decided to have the child leave Tall Pines. Instead, she should have addressed her issues with the school. The child was enjoying her time at Tall Pines and had made friends.
m. She homeschooled the child from September 2023 until June 2024 without the father’s consent.
n. She is contemplating homeschooling the child again, which is not in the child’s best interests. This court will review this issue in detail below.
o. In August 2024, she refused to take the child to the Oxford Learning Program for tutoring sessions.
p. During cross-examination, she was questioned about the child’s late attendance since September 3, 2024, until April 15, 2025, with a suggestion that the child was in her care during those days. Her response was that she did not know.
68The mother perpetrated family violence against the father, as follows:
a. She was arrested and charged with assault against the father in 2017. In her trial affidavit, she described the event and did not deny that it happened. During cross-examination, she acknowledged that she did not deny that the event had occurred. The court does not accept her explanation during re-examination when she tried to explain herself by stating that she did not assault the father. Her evidence was internally inconsistent.
b. She berated him before separation, calling him fat and disgusting.
c. She used hurtful language when communicating with him. She called him “ass” and “useless.”
69The mother’s pursuit of a holistic lifestyle is now adversely impacting the child, as per the paternal grandmother’s evidence.
3.4 – Primary residence
70The mother seeks an order that the child reside primarily with her. The father’s proposal is to maintain the current 2-2-3 parenting arrangement.
71The mother’s proposal for primary residence is mainly driven by her desire to homeschool the child.
72The parties have exercised the current shared parenting arrangement for more than a year now.
73In Baredregt v. Grebliunis, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote the following about the maximum time principle at paragraphs 134 and 135:
134Although Gordon placed emphasis on the “maximum contact principle”, it was clear that the best interests of the child are the sole consideration in relocation cases, and “if other factors show that it would not be in the child’s best interests, the court can and should restrict contact”: Gordon, at para. 24; see also para. 49. But in the years since Gordon, some courts have interpreted what is known as the “maximum contact principle” as effectively creating a presumption in favour of shared parenting arrangements, equal parenting time, or regular access: Folahan v. Folahan, 2013 ONSC 2966, at para. 14; Slade v. Slade, 2002 YKSC 40, at para. 10; see also F. Kelly, “Enforcing a Parent/Child Relationship At All Cost? Supervised Access Orders in the Canadian Courts” (2011), 49 Osgoode Hall L.J. 277, at pp. 278 and 296-98. Indeed, the term “maximum contact principle” seems to imply that as much contact with both parents as possible will necessarily be in the best interests of the child.
135These interpretations overreach. It is worth repeating that what is known as the maximum contact principle is only significant to the extent that it is in the child’s best interests; it must not be used to detract from this inquiry. It is notable that the amended Divorce Act recasts the “maximum contact principle” as “[p]arenting time consistent with best interests of child”: s. 16(6). This shift in language is more neutral and affirms the child-centric nature of the inquiry. Indeed, going forward, the “maximum contact principle” is better referred to as the “parenting time factor”.
74An 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.
75The court must assess the child’s views and preferences as expressed provided in the VOC reports. The child expressed the following views about her parenting arrangements:
a. She spoke positively about her parents.
b. She loves her parents equally and wants to spend equal time with each of them.
c. She does not like the 2-2-3 parenting arrangement.
76In A.E. v. A.B., 2021 ONSC 7302 (para 64), the court stated the following regarding a VOC report:
A VOC report is a report intended to provide information about a child’s views and preferences for use in resolving parenting disputes. Generally non-evaluative, a VOC report is not comparable to a clinical investigation under section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act or a more comprehensive assessment pursuant to s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. It is typically short and the time from engagement of the interviewer to delivery of a report is very brief. Typically, no contextual information is gathered and no recommendations are made. A VOC report’s practical benefit is giving a child a chance to be heard. Not uncommonly, recourse to a VOC report is challenged because one or both parents are concerned that it can be used by a parent to manipulate a child’s views, that it has potential to alienate a child and further the goals of the alienator parent. Where there is an imbalance in a child’s relationship with its parents or where one or both of the parents decline to acknowledge that the other is capable of identifying and responding to children’s needs, caution must be exercised in giving undue weight to the report.
77In F.S. v. M.B.T., 2023 ONCJ 102, the court stated the following:
115The court is attuned to the limitations of a VOCR. It is not an intensive investigation, such as those conducted under section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act. It is non-evaluative. Collateral sources are not interviewed. There is little document review. There are no observational visits between the child and the parents. There is no assessment of the dynamics between the parties and the child. There is no clinical discussion or recommendations made. They are conducted over a short period of time. They are snapshots of a child’s expressed views and wishes at a specific point of time.
116The weight to be given to any VOCR will vary depending on how it fits into the constellation of evidence the court receives.
78The court will give weight to the child’s views regarding her desire to spend equal time with her parents, for the following reasons:
a. The child is 10 years old. She is described as articulate.
b. The child’s views were consistent. She stated that she loves both parents and would want to spend equal time with them.
c. There is no evidence that she was influenced in her views.
d. The court received two OCL reports. The interviews were spaced. The first two interviews were conducted on October 27, 2024 and November 2, 2024. The second two interviews were conducted on April 30, 2025 and May 7, 2025.
e. Both parents participated in bringing the child to the interviews.
f. The parents decided not to cross-examine the OCL clinician. They agreed to the contents of the two reports.
79The child’s current school is equidistant from both homes. The positioning of the school has made the parenting transitions and school drop-offs easier for both parents.
80The child is doing well in the care of both parents during their parenting time.
81However, the court finds that the current 2-2-3 parenting arrangement is not in the child’s best interests for the following reasons:
a. The child dislikes it.
b. The child told the OCL clinician that the only challenge with sleepovers currently is that if she forgets something for school at her other parent’s home, she gets worried and sad, and does not want to get in trouble. She once forgot her mathematics binder when she had a test and was upset.
c. The child is struggling in mathematics. The current disruptions associated with the 2-2-3 parenting arrangement will likely worsen her performance.
d. It is essential for the child to have a stable home base during the time she is in school. This will ensure consistency and stability during school days.
82For the reasons above, the court will give little weight to the child’s views that if the 2-2-3 arrangement is not feasible, she would prefer reverting back to her previous schedule, whereby she would see her father on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, from after school until 7:00 p.m., and on alternate weekends.
83The court will craft a parenting arrangement that balances the child's need to spend meaningful time with either parent while also ensuring that she succeeds in school with minimal disruption. The court will have the child spend more school days in the father’s care for the following reasons:
a. The father is the parent who has a history of engaging positively with school staff.
b. The child has attended school promptly while coming from the father’s home.
c. The child has attended school consistently while in the father’s care.
d. The child missed too much school at Tall Pines when she was in the mother’s primary care. The mother acknowledged that the number of days missed at Tall Pines was excessive.
e. The child had several late arrivals at Tall Pines when the mother was the primary caregiver.
f. Even after the parents started a 2-2-3 parenting arrangement, the child has been late to school while in the mother’s care.
g. The mother has made poor decisions in her interactions with school staff.
84The court will order the mother’s parenting time to occur on alternate weekends, with pick-up on Thursday from school, and drop-off on Monday at school. The mother will have one mid-week overnight preceding the father’s weekend. The court will grant the mother five weeks of parenting time during the summer break, given that she will have fewer days with the child when school is in session. Therefore, the father will have three weeks with the child during the summer months, and the mother will have five weeks.
85The court will allow the parties to share the remaining holidays equally.
86The court will include terms regarding video and telephone calls when the child is in the other parent’s care. The parties did not disagree on this issue because they each communicate with the child through the child’s cellular phone.
3.5 – Decision-making responsibility
3.5.1– Legal considerations
87The co urt has reviewed the provisions under subsections 24(2) and 24(3) of the Act.
88Courts do not expect communication between separated parties to be easy or comfortable, or free of conflict. A standard of perfection is not required and is obviously not achievable. See: Griffiths v. Griffiths 2005 ONCJ 235, 2005 CarswellOnt 3209 (OCJ). The issue is whether a reasonable measure of communication and cooperation is in place, and is achievable in the future, so that the best interests of the child can be ensured on an ongoing basis. See: Warcop v. Warcop, 2009 6423 (ON S.C.).
89In considering a child’s best interests it will often be important to determine if a parent will follow the terms of a court order. See: Wiafe v. Afoakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 201.
90The Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt v. Grebliunis, 2022 SCC 22 recently made the following observations about family violence:
The recent amendments to the Divorce Act recognize that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the best interests analysis (par. 146).
The suggestion that domestic abuse or family violence has no impact on the children and has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s parenting ability is untenable. Research indicates that children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives: Department of Justice, Risk Factors for Children in Situations of Family Violence in the Context of Separation and Divorce (February 2014), at p. 12. Harm can result from direct or indirect exposure to domestic conflicts, for example, by observing the incident, experiencing its aftermath, or hearing about it: S. Artz et al., “A Comprehensive Review of the Literature on the Impact of Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence for Children and Youth” (2014), 5 I.J.C.Y.F.S. 493, at p. 497. (par. 145).
Domestic violence allegations are notoriously difficult to prove. Family violence often takes place behind closed doors and may lack corroborating evidence. Thus, proof of even one incident may raise safety concerns for the victim or may overlap with and enhance the significance of other factors, such as the need for limited contact or support (par. 145).
91Justice Deborah Chappel wrote about the importance of family violence as a best interests factor in paragraph 86 of McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, as follows:
The broad definition of family violence and the specific inclusion of this factor as a mandatory consideration in determining the best interests of children recognize the profound effects that all forms of family violence can have on children. These consequences can be both direct, if a child is exposed to the family violence, or indirect, if the victimized parent’s physical, emotional and psychological well-being are compromised, since these consequences in turn often negatively impact their ability to meet the child’s physical and emotional needs.
3.5.2 – Analysis regarding decision-making responsibility
92Each parent seeks an order for sole decision-making responsibility.
93It is not in dispute that the parties have a challenging relationship as parents. Both parties acknowledged that their communication is not positive. The fact that each parent seeks an order for sole decision-making responsibility is further proof of that.
94However, despite the challenges, the parties were able to agree to the following:
a. Following separation, they agreed to change the father’s Wednesday visit to Monday from after school until 7:00 p.m. to accommodate his work schedule.
b. The child’s attendance at Tall Pines in 2017.
c. Enrolling the child in gymnastics in 2017.
d. When the mother started working as a home stager in 2017, the parents agreed to have the child stay with the paternal grandparents when the mother was at work.
e. The mother promptly notified the father on two occasions when the child required emergency medical care, and he accompanied her to Brampton Civic Hospital and the Hospital for Sick Children.
f. The mother described their parenting relationship from 2017 until just before the COVID-19 pandemic as successful.
g. The child not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
h. Obtaining a puppy for the child in 2023.
i. Signing the child up for vocal lessons in 2023.
j. Enrolling the child in karate.
k. When the child struggled with the change in schedule following the May 2024 order, they agreed to enrol her in therapy.
95It is clear from the evidence that the parties both understand the issues that require their attention, and they each wish to find an outcome that they perceive as best for the child. However, they disagree on how to accomplish the desired outcome.
96The following are clear examples of issues that have impacted the child due to this challenging relationship:
a. The mother unilaterally homeschooled the child from September 2023 until June 2024, without the father’s consent.
b. They disagree on whether the child should remain at the current school for the 2024 -2025 school year.
c. They disagreed on whether the child should take prescribed antibiotics for her dental infection.
d. The child saw about four dentists between 2023 and 2024. The parties disagreed on which dentist should provide dental treatment, and whether certain treatment should be administered.
e. The mother unilaterally cancelled the child’s therapy with Ms. Sawhney without first consulting with the father.
f. Between June 2024 and January 2025, the child saw three therapists. The first therapist suggested that the parties find another therapist. The mother unilaterally cancelled the second therapist. The third therapist decided not to continue with the sessions. This was after the father had declined the mother’s request to cancel the third therapist.
g. They disagree on the lifestyle the child should follow. The mother wants the child to follow a holistic lifestyle, avoiding certain foods and chemicals. The father wants the child to explore all kinds of foods and decide for herself what to avoid when she grows older.
97The court will establish a mechanism for decision-making. In framing the mechanism, the court's objective is to address the following issues as they relate to the child’s best interests. The court aims to:
a. Ensure the child’s needs are being met on an ongoing basis without disruption.
b. Ensure the involvement of both parents in making decisions for the child.
c. Minimize conflict around decision-making.
d. Ensure consistency in the child’s treatment.
e. Avoid delays in the child receiving treatment.
f. Avoid unilateral cancellation of services for the child by one parent.
g. Ensure autonomy in each parent’s ability to meet the child’s day-to-day needs on such matters as food and household items.
h. Avoid confusing the child in terms of expectations when she is in the care of the other parent.
A. Medical decisions
98The court will order that the child’s present doctor and dentist shall not be changed without the prior consent of both parties. Unless there is an emergency affecting the child, neither parent shall take the child to any other doctor.
99The parents shall take the child to any specialist the family doctor or dentist refers them to.
100The court will order that the child’s current therapist shall not be changed without the prior consent of both parties. The mother is cautioned that if she cancels the child’s therapy without the father’s consent, or if she acts in a manner that unduly interferes with the continuation of the child’s therapy, this clause may be reviewed in the future.
101The court is concerned that disagreements may arise in the future around vaccinations, given some of the views expressed by the mother. Whether and how a child should be vaccinated is an incident of parenting pursuant to clause 28 (1) (b) of the Act. The test is best interests as set out in section 24 of the Act. See: A.M. v. C.H., 2019 ONCA 764.
102The leading case on vaccinations and decision-making responsibility is J.N. v. C.G., 2023 ONCA 77. J.N. puts the onus on the party objecting to vaccination to demonstrate why public health recommendations in favour of pediatric vaccinations should not be followed. The Court of Appeal found that where one party seeks to have a child vaccinated in accordance with Health Canada approvals and recommendations, the onus is on the objecting party to show why the child should not receive the vaccination. This onus applies equally to prevent delaying vaccination in the context of an interim motion. See: S.E.T. v. J.W.T., 2023 ONSC 5416 (Div. Ct.).
103The court will order that the child shall receive all vaccinations recommended by any level of government, Health Canada or the child’s school board, unless the child’s family doctor indicates there is a medical reason for not receiving any specified vaccination.
B. Culture and religion
104The parties shall have decision-making responsibility over religion and culture while the child is in their care.
C. Extra-curricular activities
105The child is currently enrolled in gymnastics and singing. Both parents are involved in taking her to the activities.
106The mother previously agreed to have the father enrol the child in karate. However, he admitted that he took the child out of karate without first discussing it with the mother.
107The court will order that the parties may enroll the child in extra-curricular activities during their parenting time at their own expense. They shall not schedule these activities during the other parent’s parenting time without that parent’s consent.
108If the parties jointly enrol the child in an extra-curricular activity, any cancellation of the activity will require the consent of both parties.
D. Day-to-day decisions
109Day-to-day decisions regarding the child shall be made by the parent the child is with.
E. Communication
110The court will make communication orders to protect the child from conflict and to ensure that the parties are civil and respectful in their communication.
Part Four – Choice of school and educational decisions
4.1 – Legal considerations
111The court considered the legal considerations above regarding decision-making responsibility.
112The general principles guiding the court in deciding where a child shall attend school when the parties disagree were set out by Audet, J. in Thomas v. Osika, 2018 ONSC 2712 (S.C.J.) at para. 37, some of which are as follows:
a. Sub-section 28(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act specifically empowers the court to determine any matter incidental to custody rights. The issue of a child's enrollment in a school program must be considered as being incidental to or ancillary to the rights of custody (Deschenes v. Medwayosh, 2016 ONCJ 567 (Ont. C.J.));
b. It is implicit that a parent's plan for the child's education, and his or her capacity and commitment to carry out the plan are important elements affecting a child's best interests. In developing a child's educational plan, the unique needs, circumstances, aptitudes and attributes of the child, must be taken into account (Bandas v. Demirdache, 2013 ONCJ 679 (Ont. C.J.));
c. When considering school placement, one factor to be considered is the ability of the parent to assist the child with homework and the degree to which the parent can participate in the child's educational program (Deschenes v. Medwayosh, 2016 ONCJ 567 (Ont. C.J.));
d. The emphasis must be placed on the interests of the child, and not on the interests or rights of the parents (Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 191 (SCC), [1996] S.C.J. No. 52 (S.C.C.);
e. The importance of a school placement or educational program will promote and maintain a child's cultural and linguistic heritage (Perron v. Perron, 2012 ONCA 811 (Ont. C.A.);
g. The court will also look to any decisions that were made by the parents prior to the separation or at the time of separation with respect to schooling (Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746 (Ont. S.C.J.);
h. Any problems with the proposed schools will be considered (Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746 (Ont. S.C.J.);
k. If an aspect of a child's life, such as school placement, is to be disrupted by an order of the court, there must be good reason for the court to do so. Thus, before a court will order a child to transfer schools, there must be convincing evidence that a change of schools is in the child's best interests (Perron v. Perron, 2012 ONCA 811 (Ont. C.A.);
m. Those cases are very fact-driven. The courts are not pronouncing on what is best for all children in a general sense but rather deciding what is in the best interests of this child before the court (Deschenes v. Medwayosh, 2016 ONCJ 567 (Ont. C.J.)).
113The onus is on parent trying to change school. In situations of joint custody, courts should be reluctant to interfere unless parents cannot resolve the issue. The change must be in the child’s best interests. The court must consider factors that impact on the stability of the child. The court should also look at how long the child has gone to current school, any prospect of a parent moving in the near future, where the child was born and raised, whether a move will require new child care providers or other unsettling features and decisions parents made prior to separation about schooling and any problems with the current school. See: Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746 .
114Compelling and cogent evidence must show that a change in schools is in a child’s best interests. See: J.E.S. v. S.S., 2020 ONSC 6064.
115Of paramount consideration is the school that will give the child the best competitive advantage, or provide the greatest confidence and motivation, or that will facilitate the child’s relationship with others, including his parents and classmates, or best promote his all-around development. See: Schloegel v. McCroary, [2012] BCSC 1606.
116As a general proposition, the parent requesting something other than in-person schooling (i.e., virtual schooling or home schooling) has the onus of presenting expert evidence that such alternative schooling is in the best interests of the particular child. See: A.C. v. L.L., 2021 ONSC 6530 at para. 17.; D.E.S.A. v. N.B., 2025 ONCJ 279.
4.2 – Analysis regarding the child’s school
117The father’s position is that the child should continue her studies at her current school, Brampton Christian School. He argues that:
a. The mother previously homeschooled the child without his consent.
b. When the mother homeschooled the child, her language skills regressed. When the child attended Tall Pines, she loved reading books and telling stories about the books. Her passion for reading stopped after she started being homeschooled.
c. Homeschooling is not an appropriate remedy for any challenges the child may face at her current school, including conflicts with other children. The child needs to develop real-life conflict resolution skills in a school social setting.
d. The child suffered after the mother decided to remove her from Tall Pines due to the mother’s conflict with staff at Tall Pines. The child left many friends behind.
e. If homeschooled, the child would miss on other opportunities that may be available to her through the school.
118The mother seeks to homeschool the child. She asserts that:
a. The child wants to be homeschooled.
b. The child is being bullied at her current school.
c. She is a member of the Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents, a provincial resource for home educators.
d. The child was previously homeschooled and the experience was very successful and fulfilling for her.
e. She developed an education plan in accordance with Montessori principles to ensure the child is properly educated and develops appropriately.
f. Her plan for the child aligns with Ontario curriculum and will allow the child to develop independence.
g. She has a plan regarding the child’s learning in language, mathematics, art, science, social studies, practical skills and physical education.
h. The child will be exposed to other homeschooled students and their homeschooling caregivers.
i. She will access several other online resources if she requires assistance.
119The court finds that it is in the child’s best interests to attend her current private school, for the following reasons:
a. Changing the child’s school will lead to further instability in the child’s education. She attended Tall Pines until Grade Two (2023), was homeschooled until 2024, then became enrolled at her current school. Stability in the child’s learning is critical.
b. The child is struggling in mathematics. Her teacher is worried that the child may not pass this year. The parties must continue to collaborate with the current school in exploring resources that may be available to support the child. The child is also struggling in social studies. If the child continues to struggle, a psycho-educational assessment may need to be considered. It was not clear from the evidence whether a psycho-educational assessment is available to homeschooled students.
c. The court is concerned about the mother’s commitment to the child’s success in mathematics. When she homeschooled the child, she wrote the following to the father referring to the child:
She loves languages. That’s what we are focusing on right now. Other kids are sitting there like little soldiers learning math that they will Never use again
d. The child is doing well in other aspects of education at Brampton Christian School. Her report card dated February 19, 2025 shows that she has:
i. G (Good) grading in all areas of her learning skills and work habits, comprising of organization, initiative, collaboration and self-regulation.
ii. Mostly As in all courses, except for the mathematics which has a D+.
iii. Positive feedback from her homeroom teacher.
e. The child has made friends at her current school.
f. One of the benefits of going to school is that the child has mental health supports in place there.
g. The child’s mental health advocate from school testified that the child:
i. Appears comfortable in her small group of friends.
ii. Is happy and ‘giggles a lot.’
iii. Appears to be a well-balanced child.
iv. Did not express any concerns in their most recent meeting. They no longer meet frequently. They met about three to four times since October 2024.
h. The father offered to pay the full cost of the private school. The paternal grandparents have been paying about 80% of the cost. The paternal grandmother testified that they will continue doing so.
i. The current school is equidistant between the parents’ homes. Its location has made parenting exchanges more convenient for both parents.
j. In her second meeting with the OCL clinician, the child reported that the bullying at her current school had significantly decreased.
k. Previously, when the child attended Tall Pines, she developed skills to deal with challenging situations. Her Grade One end-of-year report card had the following comment:
Socially, she is learning her emotions maturely when dealing with challenging situations with her peers. She has oftentimes challenged during social situations and is building skills of thinking before she reacts.
120The court will order that the child continue at her current school.
121The court will order the mother to make some contribution towards the child’s private school expenses, even though the father offered to pay the full cost if the child is allowed to remain at her current school. This issue is discussed in detail below.
Part Five – Child support
5.1 -- Will this be a shared parenting arrangement requiring the court to conduct its support analysis pursuant to section 9 of the guidelines?
5.1.1 – Legal considerations
122Section 1 of the Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines) provides as follows:
- The objectives of this Regulation are,
(a) to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they benefit from the financial means of their parents and, in the case of divorce, from the financial means of both spouses after separation;
(b) to reduce conflict and tension between parents or spouses by making the calculation of child support more objective;
(c) to improve the efficiency of the legal process by giving courts, and parents and spouses, guidance in setting the levels of child support and encouraging settlement; and
(d) to ensure consistent treatment of parents or spouses and their children who are in similar circumstances.
123Section 9 of the Guidelines provides as follows with respect to shared parenting arrangements:
- Where each parent or spouse exercises parenting time with respect to a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the order for the support of a child must be determined by taking into account,
(a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the parents or spouses;
(b) the increased costs of shared parenting time arrangements; and
(c) the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent or spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.
124There is no set formula for calculating the 40 per cent. In Froom v. Froom 2005 3362 (ON CA), 11 R.F.L. (6th) 254 (OCA), the court counted overnights.
125The two most common approaches to calculating access and custody time are in days, and in hours. If using days, to reach 40 per cent, the access parent must have the child in his or her care for 146 days per year. When calculating in hours, the 40 per cent threshold lies at 3,504 hours per year: see L.(L.) v. C.(M.), 2013 ONSC 1801.
126Cases decided after Froom have highlighted that the method chosen for calculating the 40 per cent threshold is often critical to the outcome of the support analysis in shared parenting situations. In L.(L.) v. C.(M.), Justice Czutrin concluded that in light of the importance of this issue, it is desirable to be as precise as possible when calculating. Justice Czutrin noted that the overwhelming weight of authority in Ontario and other provinces supports calculating the 40 per cent threshold on an hourly basis: Scott v. Chenier, 2015 ONSC 7866 citing L.(L.) v. C.(M.) at 23-39.
127The case of Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, [2005] 3 SCR 217 provides the following principles under section 9 of the Guidelines:
a. The specific language of s. 9 warrants emphasis on flexibility and fairness. The discretion bestowed on courts to determine the child support amount in shared custody arrangement calls for the acknowledgment of the overall situation of the parents (conditions and means) and the needs of the children. The weight of each factor under s. 9 will vary according to the particular facts of each case. [para 39]
b. All three factors must be applied [para 68].
c. Not only is there no presumption in favour of awarding at least the Guidelines amount under s. 3, there is no presumption in favour of reducing the parent’s child support obligation downward from the Guidelines amount [para 31].
d. The court must examine the continuing ability of the recipient parent to meet the needs of the child. [para 41]
e. The court retains the discretion to modify the set-off amount where, considering the financial realities of the parents, it would lead to a significant variation in the standard of living experienced by the children as they move from one household to another, something which Parliament did not intend. [para 51]
f. The total cost of raising children may be greater in shared custody situations than in sole custody situations.
g. The court will generally be called upon to examine the budgets and actual expenditures of both parents in addressing the needs of the children and to determine whether shared custody has in effect resulted in increased costs globally.[para 52]
h. Financial statements and/or child expense budgets are necessary for a proper evaluation of s. 9(c). [para 57]
i. There is no need to resort to section 10 undue hardship analysis.
5.1.2 – Analysis
128The framework of section 9 of the Guidelines requires a two-part determination:
i. First, establishing that the 40 percent threshold has been met.
ii. Second, where it has been met, determining the appropriate amount of support.5
129The court will calculate the time in hours when determining the 40% threshold.
130The following table illustrates the approximate number of hours the mother will have:
Period
Parenting hours
Each weekend (Thursday to Monday school drop off is 90 hours of parenting time, multiplied by 21 weekends in a year
1890 hours
Alternate Wednesdays (21 in a year) 21 x 24
504 hours
5 weeks in the summer (7 x 24 x 5)
840 hours
Spring/March break (51 hours)
51 hours
Half of Christmas/winter break
192 hours
Mother’s day
24 hours
Approximately 2 additional days when the child is not otherwise in school on a Monday due to a holiday
48 hours
Total
3549 hours
131The court finds that the mother’s parenting time meets the 40% threshold pursuant to section 9 of the Guidelines, calculated as follows:
Total number of hours in a year (365 x 24) = 8,760
The mother’s parenting hours in a year = 3,549
3,549 (mother’s hours) divided by 8,760(total annual hours) x 100 = 40.5%
5.2 – The parties’ incomes for support calculation
5.2.1 – The father’s income
132The father has been employed full-time by the City of Guelph as a utility locator since September 12, 2024. He provided his contract of employment and paystubs showing that he earns $31.03 per hour. His annual income is $64,542.00.
133The mother asked the court to use the income of $72,072.00 earned at his previous job with NPL Canada Limited (NPL) for purposes of support calculation. The court will dismiss the mother’s request for the following reasons:
a. The father was laid off at NPL due to a shortage of work.
b. The father provided financial documentation to support his current earnings. He also explained that he chose his current job because of its job security and pension benefits.
c. The mother did not discredit the father’s position during cross-examination. He clearly stated his employment and income.
134The court will use the father’s current income of $64,542.00 for the purpose of support calculation.
5.2.2 – The mother’s income
135The mother asks the court to impute the current Ontario annual general minimum wage amount of $35,776 to her for the purpose of support calculation.
136The father’s position is that the mother’s income for the period May 1, 2025 (the agreed commencement date for support) to September 30, 2025, be imputed at $31,000.00. The court will use the amount proposed by the mother given that she is prepared to pay support for the period of September 1, 2025 until September 30, 2025 based on the minimum wage amount.
137The disputed issue pertains to the mother’s income for support calculation commencing October 1, 2025 and ongoing. The mother proposes using the minimum wage amount. The father’s position is that her annual income should be imputed at $43,680.00.
138The mother is an independent contractor and works part-time as a home stager and a real estate assistant. She is also enrolled in a Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) program at the University of Toronto. She anticipates completing the TEFL course by September 2025. She anticipates working full-time as an English-as-a-foreign-language teacher once she completes the TEFL course.
139During cross-examination, the mother provided the following evidence:
a. She has worked as a home stager since 2017, earning about $25.00 an hour.
b. She only worked for Jennifer Mills Realty.
c. She works part-time.
d. She can work full-time. Her current part-time employment is by choice.
e. Her work situation may depend on whether she is permitted to homeschool the child.
140The mother’s evidence around her income had the following credibility challenges:
a. On March 26, 2025, Justice Clay ordered her to provide an affidavit showing her anticipated income. She failed to provide details of her anticipated income.
b. During cross-examination, it was put to her that the father’s position is that she will earn $21.00 an hour as a TEFL teacher. Her response was, “I can look into that.”
c. She was asked what the hourly rate is for a TEFL teacher. She responded, saying she did not know.
141The mother was aware that her income was an issue at trial. She made a conscious decision not to follow Justice Clay’s order, and failed to address the issue at trial as well. It is trite to say that an order is not a suggestion and that compliance is not optional. Further, non-compliance must have consequences. Protection of the integrity of the administration of justice is at stake if a litigant willfully disobeys a court order. See Dumont v. Lucescu, 2015 ONSC 494, para 43.
142The court will usually draw an adverse inference against a party for his or her failure to comply with their disclosure obligations as provided for in section 21 of the guidelines and impute income. See Smith v. Pellegrini, 2008 46927 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 3616, (Ont. S.C.); Maimone v. Maimone, 2009 25981 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 2140, (Ont. S.C.). The parent must make full and complete financial disclosure to ensure that the information required to make a decision on the issue is before the court. Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719.
143The father deposed that he had searched the labour market information on ‘Indeed.’ Neither party provided wage surveys for TEFL teachers. See Lewis v. Willis, 2022 ONCJ 421.
144At trial, the mother did not challenge the father’s position that TEFL teachers early about $21.00 an hour.
145In Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, the court stated the following at paragraphs 36-37:
The most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information. This requirement is immediate and ongoing.
Failure to abide by this fundamental principle impedes the progress of the action, causes delay and generally acts to the disadvantage of the opposite party. It also impacts on the administration of justice. Unnecessary judicial time is spent and the final adjudication is stalled.
Financial disclosure is automatic. It should not require court orders – let alone three – to obtain production.
146The court must decide whether to impute income to the mother.
147Section 19 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. The relevant portions of s. 19 read as follows:
19.(1) Imputing Income – The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include,
(a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse;
(f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;
148Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to be intentionally under-employed. Clause 19(1)(a) of the guidelines is perceived as being a test of reasonableness. See Drygala v. Pauli 2002 41868 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731(Ont. CA).
149The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income:
Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?
If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of reasonable educational needs?
If not, what income is appropriately imputed?
150The court will grant the father’s request to impute the mother’s income at $43,680 starting on October 1, 2025. This is the anticipated income with respect to her TEFL job. However, it is also important to note that the mother has decided to work part-time in her staging job and can work full time. She is intentionally underemployed. She did not provide full and frank financial disclosure regarding the staging business.
5.3 - Who should be paying support, and how much should they pay?
151The following table shows the child support amount each parent would pay the other based on their annual income, for the period May 1, 2025 until September 30, 2025
Parent
Income
Table amount (monthly)
Father
$64,542.00
$600
Mother
$35,776
$313
152The court will order the father to pay the mother support for the child in the set off amount of $287.00 per month, commencing May 1, 2025, until September 30, 2025.
153The following table shows the child support amount each parent would pay the other based on their annual income, commencing October 1, 2025:
Parent
Income
Table amount (monthly)
Father
$64,542.00
$600
Mother
$43,680.00
$402
154The court will order the father to pay the mother support for the child in the set off amount of $198.00 per month, commencing October 1, 2025 and ongoing.
Part Six – Section 7 expenses
155Both parents agree that they should contribute their proportionate share towards the child’s section 7 expenses. The child is enrolled in music, gymnastics and soccer. The parties did not disagree on the current expenses. The cost of each expense is as follows:
Gymnastics – about $300.00 per year
Singing – about $666.00 per year
Soccer – about $197.00 per year.
156On the issue of private school expense, the mother’s position was that she preferred to homeschool the child. However, it was not clear from her evidence whether she was objecting to contributing towards the school expenses.
157The father’s position was that the mother should contribute her proportionate share towards the private school. Alternatively, he offered to be fully responsible for the private school expenses.
158Counsel for the mother argued that the family lacks the resources to cover private school expenses. The current school fees at Brampton Christian School are $14,000.00 per year. The court rejects counsel’s argument for the following reasons:
a. The mother deposed that even though the paternal grandparents offered to pay the full private school expenses at Tall Pines, she contributed $10,000.00 towards the child’s school expenses.
b. The mother contributed $5,000.00 this academic year towards Brampton Christian School fees.
c. The mother did not specifically state in her evidence that she lacks the resources to contribute towards the private school expenses.
d. The court does not have the jurisdiction to compel the grandparents to pay the private school expenses, even though the paternal grandmother offered to continue paying the expenses for the child.
e. The court has ordered the child to remain at Brampton Christian School. It is the parents’ responsibility to contribute towards her private school expenses.
159Software calculations (attached to this decision) show that the father’s proportionate share based on the parties’ incomes as of October 1, 2025, is 59.6%, and the mother’s share is 40.4%.
160The court will order the parties to contribute their proportionate share towards section 7 expenses, as per the percentages provided above, except for the private school expense.
161The court will order the mother to contribute $5,000.00 per year towards the child’s school fees at Brampton Christian School. Her contribution at 40.4% of $14,000.00 would have been $5,655.00. The court will require her to contribute $5,000.00, as it is the same amount she contributed during the current academic year.
Part 7 – Orders
162A final order shall go on the following terms:
Residential arrangements for the child
a. The child shall reside primarily with the father when school is in session.
b. The mother shall have parenting time with the child, when school is in session, as follows:
i. Alternate weekends. Pick up shall occur from school on Thursday after school and drop off shall occur at school on Monday morning.
ii. If the child is not otherwise in school on the Monday following the mother’s parenting weekend, the mother will return the child to school on Tuesday morning.
iii. Alternate Thursdays, overnight, with pick up from school and drop off at school. The visit shall occur on the Thursday preceding the father’s weekend with the child.
c. The father shall facilitate the mother having video or telephone calls with the child during his regular parenting time and video or telephone calls with the child every other day during his holiday parenting time.
d. The mother shall facilitate the father having video or telephone calls with the child during her regular parenting time and video or telephone calls with the child every other day during her holiday parenting time.
Mother’s Day and Father’s Day
e. If not otherwise with the mother on that day, the child shall be with her on Mother’s Day from 11:00 a.m. until school drop off on Monday morning.
f. If not otherwise with the father on that day, the child shall be with him on Father’s Day from 11:00 a.m. until school drop off on Monday morning.
Winter school break
g. The parties shall share parenting time equally with the child during the two-week winter break. The child shall spend the first week of the break with the mother and the second week of the break with the father in odd-numbered years. The child shall spend the first week of the break with the father and the second week of the break with the mother in even-numbered years.
March/spring school break
h. The parties shall equally share parenting time during the March break. The allocation of the parenting time shall follow the weekend schedule. The parent with the child during the first weekend of the March break shall keep the child until noon on Wednesday. The other parent shall have the child from Wednesday at noon until drop off at school on Monday morning.
Summer break
i. The mother shall have five weeks of parenting time during the summer break. The father shall have three weeks of parenting time during the summer break.
j. In odd-numbered years, the father shall notify the mother in writing of the weeks he is choosing by June 1st each year.
k. In even-numbered years, the mother shall notify the father in writing of the weeks she is choosing by June 1st each year.
l. For summer 2025, the mother shall notify the father of her preferred weeks within three days of receiving this order.
The child’s birthday
m. The parties shall alternate the child’s birthday. The mother shall have the child during even-numbered years. The father shall have the child during odd-numbered years.
Other
n. When school is not in session, the parent starting their parenting time shall pick up the child from the other parent’s residence.
o. The father shall have the child on Halloween in odd-numbered years. The mother shall have the child on Halloween in even-numbered years. If the parties agree, they may switch parenting days to allow the parent who celebrates Halloween to have the child on Halloween day.
Decision-making responsibility
p. The parties shall consult with one another regarding any major decision regarding the child.
q. Day to day decisions regarding the child shall be made by the parent the child is with. Each parent shall have autonomy over the decisions they make within their household.
r. The child’s current family doctor [name and address] and dentist [Dr. Laura] shall not be changed without the consent of both parties.
s. The parents shall take the child to any specialist they are referred to by the child’s family doctor or dentist.
t. The child is to receive all vaccinations recommended by any level of government, Health Canada or the child’s school board, unless the child’s family doctor indicates there is a medical reason for not receiving any specified vaccination.
The child’s school
u. The child shall continue to attend Brampton Christian School unless the parties agree otherwise.
v. The child shall not be homeschooled by either parent.
w. Each party shall be designated at the child’s school as a contact in case of an emergency.
x. Either party may obtain a tutor for the child at their own expense.
y. The parties shall jointly make major educational decisions regarding the child. The parties are put on notice that if they act in a manner that is detrimental to the child’s educational needs, either party may bring back the matter to court for a review on the issue of educational decisions.
z. The mother shall contribute $5,000.00 per year towards the child’s school fees at Brampton Christian School. The father shall be responsible for the balance of the school fees.
Culture and religion
aa. Each party may make decisions about the child’s cultural, religious, and spiritual training, as they see fit, when the child is in their care.
Extra-curricular activities
bb. The father shall contribute 59.6%, and the mother shall contribute 40.4% towards the cost of the following section 7 expenses for the child:
i. Gymnastics.
ii. Music.
iii. Soccer.
cc. The parties may enroll the child in additional extra-curricular activities during their parenting time at their own expense. They shall not schedule these activities during the other parent’s parenting time without that parent’s consent.
Communication orders
dd. The parties shall use respectful language when communicating with each other.
ee. Neither party shall make negative comments about the other party in the presence of the child.
ff. Each party shall respond within 48 hours of any communication from the other party, provided it is related to the child, except in an emergency.
gg. The parties shall keep each other informed as to their current contact information, including their telephone numbers, email addresses and residential address.
hh. If the child becomes ill or in need of medical assistance while in the care of one party, that party will notify the other party as soon as it is reasonably possible.
Child support
ii. On consent of the parties, the father shall, forthwith, pay the mother $7,555.00 in full and final satisfaction of retroactive child support and section 7 expenses for the period February 1, 2017, to April 30, 2025.
jj. Commencing May 1, 2025, until September 30, 2025, the father shall pay the mother a set-off monthly child support amount for the child [name and d.o.b.] in the amount of $287.00. This amount is in accordance with section 9 of the guidelines, and based on the following facts:
Parent
Annual income
Guideline amount (monthly)
Father
$64,542.00
$600
Mother
$35,776
$313
Set off amount
$287 per month
kk. Commencing October 1, 2025, and ongoing, the father shall pay the mother a set-off child support amount for the child [name and d.o.b.] in the amount of $198.00 per month. This amount is in accordance with section 9 of the guidelines, and based on the following facts:
Parent
Income
Guideline amount (monthly)
Father
$64,542.00
$600
Mother
$43,680.00
$402
Set off amount
$198 per month
ll. A support deduction order shall issue.
mm. All other claims are dismissed.
163Counsel for the father shall take out this order by July 4, 2025.
164If either party seeks costs, they shall serve and file their written costs submissions by July 8, 2025. The other party will then have until July 22, 2025, to serve and file their written response (not to make their own costs submissions). The submissions shall be no more than five pages, excluding any bill of costs or offer to settle. The submissions may be delivered or emailed to the trial coordinator’s office at the courthouse.
165The court thanks counsel for their excellent presentation of this case.
Released: June 24, 2025
Signed: Justice Wiri Kapurura
Footnotes
- . Referred to as section 7 expenses throughout this decision.
- . Both parties provided their preferred schedule for additional holidays and special occasions.
- . The parties received the second report on the first day of this trial. The court addressed preliminary trial issues on the first day and adjourned the trial to the next day to allow parties to review the contents of the VOC report before presenting their evidence.
- . A specific date was not provided.
- Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, [2005] 3 SCR 217 – para 37
