ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Krysta Alana Scott
Applicant
— AND —
Yohance Johnson
Respondent
Before Justice A.D. Baker
Heard on November 17th, 2025
Reasons for Decision released on November 24th, 2025
Ruchelle Heckburn .......................................................................... Counsel for Applicant
Yohance Johnson .................................................................................. On his own behalf
Baker A.D. J.:
INTRODUCTION
1This trial was about child support, parenting time and travel consent concerning the parties’ two children namely T. J.S. born […], 2007, and K. J.S born […], 2014.
2The applicant is the mother. The respondent is the father.
3The original Application commenced in 2015. It resolved pursuant to the order of Justice Sullivan dated January 18th, 2016. This order grants father parenting time with both children on alternate weekends, midweek parenting time as agreed and holiday parenting time. Father is responsible for transportation. Neither party is to remove the children from Canada absent consent of the other.
4Regarding child support, father was to pay ongoing child support in the amount of $675.00 per month commencing January 1st, 2016, and on the first of each month thereafter based on annual income of $45,760.00. Additionally, father was to pay $50.00 per month toward child support arrears of $1350.00 commencing January 1st, 2016.
5In 2021, father brought a Motion to Change the 2016 order which culminated in an order of Justice Clay dated December 9th, 2021, fixing child support arrears at $12,500.00 as of December 1st, 2021. Father was not obligated to make any payments toward arrears until September 2023, at which time he was to pay $200.00 per month effective September 1st, 2023.
6Additionally, father’s ongoing child support obligations were suspended effective December 1st, 2021, until September 1st, 2022; after which time monthly support would be payable in the amount of $475.00 per month based on a deemed annual income of $31,200.00. The minimum wage in Ontario was noted at $15.00 per hour. It was anticipated that father would be able to earn at least this amount per hour and work a 40-hour work week.
7Father has now brought another Motion to Change dated April 3rd, 2024. He seeks that child support arrears be fixed at $5000.00 as of March 1st, 2024, that he makes monthly payments toward arrears in the amount of $100.00 per month and ongoing child support payment in the amount of $100.00 per month.
8Father also sought a change to the parenting time order such that he only have parenting time visits with K. J.S.
9In her Response to Motion to Change, mother seeks a dismissal of father’s claim with costs. She seeks a variation of the 2016 order regarding travel consent. She requests that she be permitted to travel abroad with the children absent travel consent from father.
10At the outset of the trial, the court was informed there was an agreement that only K. J.S would be attending visits with father however mother’s request was that given she had not seen her father for some time, there should be some modest transitional visitation prior to resuming the alternate weekend schedule as set out in the 2016 order
11This matter was case managed between 2024 and 2025 by Justice Harris and Justice Cheung.
12There are no temporary substantive orders in place. Currently the 2016 and 2021 orders govern.
ISSUES
13The issues for the court to determine are as follows:
Whether there should be a downward retroactive adjustment in father’s child support obligations? If so, what should be the commencement date that child support obligations should change and in what amount?
Whether there should be a change in the parenting time order such that only K. J.S attend for parenting time with father and whether there should be an initial time limited reduction in duration of each visit before transitioning back to overnights?
Whether there should a change in the parenting order such that mother not require father’s consent to travel outside of Canada with K. J.S and more specifically whether mother is permitted to travel with K. J.S to the Dominican Republic for vacation in December 2025?
OVERVIEW
14Both parents provided oral testimony in court and were cross-examined. Father relied on a sworn Financial Statement dated March 1st, 2024
15OCL clinical investigator Claudette Bled was called as a witness of the court. Ms. Bled provided a Voice of the Child Report dated October 18th, 2024. Ms. Bled was cross-examined by father. Mother declined to cross-examine.
16There were multiple documents entered as exhibits in this trial. The court will refer to same in this decision as necessary.
17The court will summarize and reference evidence of witnesses as necessary. The focus on parenting issues will be K. J.S. as T. J.S is no longer a minor subject to the Children’s Law Reform Act.
FATHER’S EVIDENCE
18Father described having a difficult relationship with both T. J-S and K. J.S. which he viewed as being caused by mother. He is concerned that T. J-S has told many lies about him, that K. J.S is starting to follow a pattern.
19Notwithstanding these challenges, father states he loves both his children equally.
20Father feels he has a very good relationship with K. J.S., however he is concerned she has been adversely impacted by a need to have her mother’s respect. He acknowledges having not had consistent parenting time.
21Father states he has been made to feel unsafe in his own home due to lies that have been told by the children, such as allegations of him drinking alcohol and marijuana in their presence. He feels mother has used the children as weapons against him, that she has them in a toxic environment.
22Father notes that when K. J.S. is at his home she presents as very comfortable.
23Father’s last parenting time visit had been on July 12th, 2025.
24Father states he is objecting to K. J.S travelling outside of Canada because he does not trust the type of people that mother would have around their child. Some of father’s lack of trust also stems from his concern for mother’s behavior through online social media postings which he feels are not appropriate for a parent.
25Father states he has endured multiple health challenges relating to his ankle and back which has adversely impacted his ability to earn an income and pay child support.
26Father notes he has a criminal conviction for armed robbery, robbery and possession of a firearm dating to 2002 which has also impacted his ability to find work as many places of employment conduct police checks which disqualifies him from consideration. Father has not received a pardon for these convictions.
27Father also believes his job prospects are weak under the current economic climate.
28Two letters from father’s treating physician Dr. Hayder Kubba dated June 7th, 2024, and November 12th, 2024 were entered as exhibits. The earlier letter notes that father had an ankle operation in October 2023 and had been experiencing some discomfort after the operation. The latter notes that that father presents with left ankle neuropathic pain, left sided disc herniation, a small hiatus hernia and a blood disorder.
29Dr. Kubba’s impression is that father’s health issues prevent him from being engaged in physically demanding jobs.
30Father states that while he could explore an “office” job such positions require police checks.
31Father noted he was planning on applying to be eligible for the Ontario Disability Support Program(“ODSP”). Under cross examination, it was put to him that had previously applied to ODSP in 2020 and was rejected. Father acknowledged this was a possibility.
32Father stated he was not in school currently and that he looked after his mother who resides with him. He assists with running errands and drives a vehicle.
33Father confirmed that his sworn Financial Statement as contained in the Trial Record remains current. He receives $639.00 per month through social assistance.
MOTHER’S EVIDENCE
34Mother states she has a close relationship with both children and in contrast notes that father’s relationship with the children is “strained”. She described the parenting time visits as being “on and off” but never consistent.
35She admits to withholding parenting time for T.J-S. on one occasion but for the most part visits have not happened because father has chosen not to exercise parenting time.
36Mother states she is agreeable to father resuming visits with K. J-S. She has no safety concerns but does worry about father’s speeding with the children in the car which has caused them fear.
37Mother states that K. J-S. wants visits with her father to start slowly and build from there. She accepts that K. J.S. has a good time with her father and the paternal grandparents.
38Mother wants to travel with the children to Dominican Republic between December 25th, 2025, and January 2nd, 2026. She states that neither child has travelled abroad before and that they wish to.
39Mother notes a preference not to communicate with the father as when she does, he yells at her or “cusses her out”.
40Mother knows father has a criminal record and health issues. She is aware he typically would obtain work through agencies and that he has mostly been employed. She previously accommodated father in 2021 when the matter was last in court, providing him with an opportunity to pay the arrears. Child support arrears currently stands at $23,720.40.
41Mother states that both children are doing well in school. T.S-J. is registered in and attending Toronto Metropolitan University full time. Confirmation of same was entered as an exhibit. She acknowledges T.S-J. has experienced trauma but that things have improved; noting she is more positive and happier.
42Mother denies fathers’ claim that K. S-J. has become prone to lying, stating she does not like to get into trouble
OCL CLINICIAN CLAUDETTE BLED EVIDENCE
43Ms. Bled completed a Voice of the Child Report for T. J.S. and K. J.S. This report was defined as a summary of the children’s impressions from their frame of reference. It was noted that no other contextual information was gathered for the purpose of this report and no recommendations to the court were made.
44Ms. Bled explained that the court requested for the following issues to be addressed as follows: 1. Children’s parenting time with the father, 2. Children spending time with paternal grandparents.
45T. J.S. and K.J.S. were interviewed on two occasions at a local library on September 29th, 2024, and October 6th, 2024. The siblings were interviewed separately. It was noted the siblings had distinct yet consistent views and preferences.
46T. J.S informed Ms. Bled that she did not want to have parenting time with her father, that he would go long periods without seeing them and would be “cussing” in the presence of her sister. T.J.S described a traumatic incident that occurred at father’s home that caused her not to want to visit her father’s home.
47At the time of the second interview, T. J.S expressed an openness to visiting with her father again if he treated her better, stopped yelling at her and harassing her mother.
48According to Ms. Bled, K. J.S. described living with her mother, maternal grandmother and sister; that she loves both her mom and grandmother and feels close to her sister.
49K. J-S. informed Ms. Bled that there are reasons she why she is not close with her father but indicated she “did not want to share” those reasons. She states she has witnessed her father yelling at her sister, mother and paternal grandmother which is “annoying”
50K.J.S. noted she is not fearful of her father, that if she were to continue having parenting time with her father then it should be with her sister, that her preference would be to have visits with him once or twice per month for a couple of hours at a time and that based on her comfort level, visits could increase from there. She described being able to confide in her mother and sister about the comfort level.
51K.J.S stated she has a close relationship with the paternal grandparents and expressed wanting to see them more frequently.
52Ms. Bled observed that prior to the first interview K.J.S. was unaware of the questions that were going to be posed, however during the second interview it was apparent that the children had spoken and wanted Ms. Bled to advise the court that father had not signed a consent enabling them to travel on vacation.
53Under cross examination by father as to whether K.J.S was not being truthful as to her views and wishes, Ms. Bled referenced the second interview and the appearance that there had been some advance preparation before meeting her.
CHILD SUPPORT – RETROACTIVE CLAIM – LAW AND ANALYSIS
54In the circumstance where a Motion to Change has been brought on the issue of child support, same is governed by subsection 37 (2.1) of the Family Law Act which reads as follows:
Powers of court: child support
(2.1) In the case of an order for support of a child, if the court is satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances within the meaning of the child support guidelines or that evidence not available on the previous hearing has become available, the court may,
(a) discharge, vary or suspend a term of the order, prospectively or retroactively;
(b) relieve the respondent from the payment of part or all of the arrears or any interest due on them; and
(c) make any other order for the support of a child that the court could make on an application under section 33.
55The Supreme Court of Canada set out the framework for deciding retroactive applications to decrease support in Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24 at par. 113. The first step is as follows:
(1) The payor must meet the threshold of establishing a past material change in circumstances. The onus is on the payor to show a material decrease in income that has some degree of continuity, and that is real and not one of choice.(emphasis added)
56On the issue of material change, the Colucci decision further expounded as follows:
a) A payor seeking a downward retroactive change must first show a past change in circumstances, as required under the legislation. Section 14 of the Guidelines lists situations constituting a change in circumstances including the coming into force of the Guidelines. A change in circumstances could also include a change that, if known at the time, would probably have resulted in different terms, such as a drop in income (par. 59).
b) The onus is on the party seeking a retroactive decrease to show a change in circumstances. In some cases that may be relatively straightforward: for example, establishing that the children are no longer legally entitled to support because they are no longer children of the marriage (par. 60).
c) Most commonly, the retroactive variation claim will be based on a material change in income. To meet the threshold, a decrease in income must be significant and have some degree of continuity, and it must be real and not one of choice. Trivial or short-lived changes are insufficient to justify a variation (par. 61).
d) The payor must have disclosed sufficient reliable evidence for the court to determine when and how far their income fell, and to ascertain whether the change was significant, long lasting, and not one of choice. A decision to retroactively decrease support can only be made based on “reliable, accurate and complete information”. The payor cannot ask the court to make findings on income that are contrary to the recipient’s interests “while at the same time shielding information that is relevant to the determination of their income behind a protective wall” (par. 62).
57Based on the 2016 and 2021 orders, father has historically been capable of earning a meaningful income; by September 1st, 2022, he was deemed be earning $31,200.00 per annum.
58Father relies on several factors which he claims constitutes a material change in circumstances as follows:
(a) Medical ailments
(b) Historical criminal record
(c) Weak job market
(d) Ontario Works receipt
59Father’s criminal record dates to 2002. It cannot be ignored that this represents the third occasion, that child support issues have been before the court in less than 10 years. All three court proceedings post date father’s involvement with the criminal justice system by more than 10 years. A criminal record from 2002 does not constitute any change of circumstances.
60Father’s claim of a weak job market is based on his own bald assertion. He did not provide any reliable independent evidence to support this, nor was there any evidence on his part setting out any efforts to obtain employment. No change of circumstances can be found on this basis.
61The receipt of social assistance is not sufficient proof of one’s inability to work for support purposes. See: Tyrrell v. Tyrrell 2017 ONSC 6499 (SCJ). The court cannot take judicial notice of any eligibility requirements for social assistance. Nor can it delegate the important and complex determinations of employability and income earning capacity to unknown bureaucrats applying unknown evidence to unknown criteria. See: Abumatar v. Hamda, 2021 ONSC 2165; S.P. v. D.P., 2024 ONCJ 665.
62The most significant ground for claiming a change in circumstances was father’s recent medical ailments.
63A party who wishes to have their medical condition considered as a basis that they cannot work bears the onus to establish material disability. This goes beyond testifying that they suffer from a medical ailment: They must establish that the extent of their condition disables them from work. This onus cannot ordinarily be discharged solely based on the party’s testimony. … there would need to be produced medical records and expert evidence about the condition, prospects and treatment. See: Geishardt v. Ahmed, 2017 ONSC 5513; Wilkins v. Wilkins, 2018 ONSC 3036
64In Davidson v. Patten, 2021 ONCJ 437, Justice Carole Curtis set out that a party resisting a claim for imputation of their income based on medical reasons should provide a medical report setting out at least the following information:
i. Diagnosis;
ii. Prognosis;
iii. Treatment plan (is there a treatment plan? And what is it?);
iv. Compliance with the treatment plan; and,
v. Specific and detailed information connecting the medical condition to the ability to work (e.g, this person cannot work at the pre-injury job; this person cannot work for three months; this person cannot work at physical labour; this person cannot return to work ever).
65Support payors must use reasonable efforts to address whatever medical limitations they may have to earn income. This means following up on medical recommendations to address these limitations. See: Cole v. Freiwald, [2011] O.J. No. 3654, per Justice Marvin A. Zuker, paragraphs 140 and 141.
66The two medical reports of Dr. Hayder Kubba provide insufficient information. The initial letter communicates nothing beyond a confirmation that he had an ankle operation and experienced some discomfort following same. The second letter provides only a diagnosis and a limited prognosis to the extent that his health issues would prevent him being engaged in physically demanding jobs. The court is left with the following unanswered questions namely:
(a) What is the father’s prognosis for a favorable recovery over the medium to long term?
(b) Are there any treatments to be administered that could impact prognosis?
(c) Has father been compliant with treatment options?
(d) Has father declined any treatment options and if so why?
(e) What is meant by “physically demanding jobs”?
(f) Do father’s health issues impact his ability to engage in any type of employment with some degree of physical labor and if so, to what extent and for how long?
67The court also had limited information as to Dr. Kubba’s expertise to opine on father’s health issues as connected to his ability to work. Dr. Kubba was listed as a witness for father in Justice Cheung’s endorsement of February 19th, 2025, however he was not called. In my view this was a significant omission which could have addressed the court’s concerns
68An adverse inference is drawn from the father’s failure to provide more detailed medical evidence as to his health ailments.
69If I am wrong and am to assume that father is unable to engage in any physically demanding jobs and that all treatment options have been explored and exhausted, it is not clear to me why father cannot engage in work that does not have a physically demanding component.
70The one answer provided by father is that “office” jobs require a police check which disqualifies him, however no evidence of his job exploration efforts and outcomes were provided.
71There was no evidence of any effort by father to obtain new qualifications which could enable him to seek out other types of work nor was there any evidence of efforts made by father to obtain a pardon from his criminal record.
72Father did provide evidence that he cares for his elderly parents, is mobile, has a driver’s licence and is able run errands. There was no evidence of efforts to obtain work in a transport type role.
73The 2021 order deemed father to have an income based on working full time at Ontario minimum wage hourly rate in 2022. In 2025 the Ontario minimum hourly rate has risen to $17.60. The existing order is based on an annual income amount working less than full time in present day.
74I understand father has accumulated sizable third-party debts however his child support obligations take priority.
75I am not satisfied that father has met the onus of establishing a material change in circumstances. The evidence put before the court at trial leads me to conclude that father’s decision not to work is one of choice. His claim to vary his child support obligations must fail.
PARENTING – LAW AND ANALYSIS
76Section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act provides the statutory authority for varying a parenting order. It states:
A court shall not make an order under this Part that varies a parenting or contact order made by a court in Ontario unless there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the child.
77The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gordon v. Goertz (1996) 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), 19 R.F.L. (4th) 177 S.C.C. sets out a two-stage process for the court to conduct in motions to change custody or access(now parenting) as follows:
First, the parent applying for a change in the custody or access order must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in the circumstances affecting the child.
If the threshold is met, the court must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child's needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them.
78Any proceeding with respect to children is determined with respect to the best interests of the particular child before the court in accordance with the considerations set out in section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (the Act). The court has considered these factors, where relevant.
79Subsection 24 (2) of 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.
80Subsection 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.
81The list of best interests considerations in the Act is not exhaustive. See: White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; 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.
82An assessment of the best interests of the child must take into account all of the relevant circumstances with respect to the needs of the child and the ability of each parent to meet those needs. See: Mokhov v. Ratayeva, 2021 ONSC 5454 (SCJ).
83The 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 CanLII 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 CanLII 34 (SCC); E.M.B. v. M.F.B. 2021 ONSC 4264; Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510.
84There are very modest variations to the parenting time orders sought by both parents.
85Father seeks a variation to reflect that he would be having parenting time with the younger child K. J.S only. In all other respects he wants the current parenting time order to continue.
86Mother is agreeable that only K. J.S attend visits with a proviso that there be transitional “day only” parenting time with father before the alternate weekend visits resume.
87The elder child, T.J.S. is no longer a minor and thus no longer subject to a parenting order. Although the parents disagree as to the reasons why, both accept father has not had consistent parenting time with K.J.S. Considered together, I accept there has been a material change in circumstance warranting a fresh inquiring as to what is in the best interests of K.J.S.
88I note that there are two prior court orders determining that it is in the child’s best interests to have alternate weekend parenting time with her father. Mother concedes that father can ably care for their daughter. There are no safety concerns.
89K.J.S. has stated that she in agreeable to having parenting time with her father upwards of twice per month for a few hours. She also speaks positively of the paternal grandparents and has expressed a desire to visit with them.
90I note that the interviews were conducted nearly a year ago and that K.J.S. has seen her father more recently albeit not on a consistent basis.
91I have no evidence that these visits did not proceed uneventfully.
92Father made allegations that mother had sought to marginalize K.J.S. from him and suggested their child had been prompted to lie at his house. Mother denied this. The Voice of the Child Report noted that K.J.S. withheld information when queried about reasons she was not close to her father however the inconsistency with visiting her father seems to be a contributory factor as well as her perception that father yells at other family members.
93As there were conflicting allegations, I am unable to determine who is at fault for father not consistently having visits with K.J.S, however in my view assignment of blame is not necessary to resolve the parenting time issues.
94The most important factor for the court is that the parents have agreed for father’s parenting time visits with K.J.S. to resume; I will order same however I will also order that there be initial day visits as sought by mother. My reasons for so doing are that indisputably there have been lengthy periods of time that K.J.S has not seen her father and further K.J.S. herself wishes to start visits with her father at a modest pace.
95Regarding travel, the 2016 order notes that removal of the children from Canada by one parent requires the written consent of the other and that such consent is not to be unreasonably withheld.
96The travel issue only pertains to K.J.S as a minor. Neither she nor her sister have travelled abroad before.
97When determining whether to grant a parent permission to travel outside the country with a child, the court must weigh the benefits of travelling against the plausible risks; the weighing process is very fact specific. See: Verbanac v. Dawson, 2019 ONSC 4473; Saini v. Tuli, 2021 ONSC 3413.
98The immediate plans are for a brief one-week vacation trip to the Dominican Republic. This presents K.J.S. with an opportunity to have a new and pleasant experience.
99Father’s objection to the travel is grounded in mistrust as to persons, mother may have around K.J.S. The focus of father’s evidence was a purported Facebook screen shot from mother’s profile containing a Toronto Police Services wanted page for an individual with outstanding criminal charges. Father states this association was brought to his attention by a third party he did not name.
100Under cross examination, mother denied knowing this individual. There was no evidentiary context provided to this undated screenshot. It was also unclear to the court whether this Toronto Police Service wanted page was even part of mother’s profile page.
101I cannot place any meaningful weight on this document.
102If I were to accept that mother did know this person who was wanted by the police with outstanding criminal charges, it is not clear to me how this would be uniquely relevant to mother traveling on a one-week vacation with K.J.S.
103If father is concerned with mother’s ability to keep the children safe from persons with a criminal history, that would be relevant to mother’s ability to provide primary care to the children which was not in issue at trial.
104Father did not establish a nexus between his stated safety concerns and a planned one-week vacation to the Dominican Republic.
105It was not alleged that mother represented a flight risk or that the intended destination itself represented a specific safety concern. The travel is also scheduled over the winter break so there is no issue with K.J.S missing school. There is a short duration to the holiday, so father will not be missing any significant parenting time.
106I find father’s refusal to consent to vacation to be unreasonable.
107This refusal to consent to vacation travel represents a material change in circumstances. I will vary the current order permitting mother to travel with K.J.S outside of Canada for vacation purposes absent father’s consent conditional on travel not exceeding two weeks and the travel not occurring during school. Mother will be required to make up any missed parenting time immediately following return.
ORDER
108I make the following order:
Father’s Motion to Change the order of Justice Clay dated December 9th, 2021 is dismissed.
The Order of Justice Sullivan dated January 18th, 2016, at paragraph 15 is terminated.
Commencing November 29th, 2025, and for the next six Saturdays thereafter to proceed further on December 6th, 2025, December 13th, 2025, December 20th, 2025, January 3rd, 2026, January 10th, 2026, and January 17th, 2026, the father shall have parenting time with K.J.S. born […], 2014 from 11AM to 6PM.
Upon completion of the day visits, the father shall have parenting time with K.J.S born […], 2014, commencing January 23rd, 2026, as follows:
(a) On alternate weekends from Friday at 5:00PM to Sunday at 3:00PM to be extended to Monday at 5PM if that Monday is a statutory holiday.
(b) Any further or additional parenting time as agreed between the parties in writing.
(c) Father will be responsible for all pickups and drop offs.
The mother is permitted to travel with K.J.S born […], 2014 to the Dominican Republic from December 25th, 2025, to January 2, 2026 without requiring authorization of father.
Within 7 days the mother shall provide the father with written correspondence setting out itinerary of the vacation trip.
The Order of Justice Sullivan dated January 18th, 2016 is varied at paragraph 12 such that the mother is permitted to travel with K.J..S outside of Canada for vacation purposes without requiring authorization of father, conditional on such planned vacation not exceeding 2 weeks and not taking place during school days.
Any missed parenting time is to be immediately made up.
If a party wants to proceed with seeking costs, written submissions may be made to the court on the following terms:
a. to be submitted no later than 14 days from today with a maximum length of four pages – double spaced, 12-point font, normal margins. Bill of costs and Offer to Settle may be attached to the costs submission without counting to the page limits.
b. Responding submissions may be submitted no later than 14 days after being served with the Cost submissions and are subject to the same parameters as set out in a.
c. No reply submissions permitted.
d. Parties are to file electronically.
e. CA to send submissions to chambers upon expiry of the two deadlines.
Released: November 24th, 2025
Signed: Justice A.D. Baker