ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
Sharde Stemmler
Applicant
— AND —
Logan Hawkins
Respondent
Before Justice Joanne Beasley Heard on November 25, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on December 15, 2025
Margaret McCarthy counsel for the applicant
Robert W. Sager counsel for the respondent
1Ms. Stemmler and Mr. Hawkins are the parents of Kehlani Alexander Hawkins born […], 2024. They separated on May 23, 2024. After separation, in 2024, Mr. Hawkins saw Kehlani eight times, all supervised by Ms. Stemmler. There was no parenting time from August 2024 until the motion decision of December 23, 2024.
2Both parties bring motions before the Court.
3Mr. Hawkins’ motion is to expand his parenting time with Kehlani from the 3 days per week provided for in the temporary without prejudice Order of December 23, 2024 of Justice E. Wilson. He seeks an order for parenting time with the child, Kehlani Alexandra Hawkins, born […], 2024 commencing immediately and as follows:
(a) Sunday at 10:00 a.m. to Monday at 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday at 10:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for two weeks; then
(b) Sunday at 10:00 a.m. to Monday at 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday at 10:00
a.m. to Thursday at 10:00 a.m. for two weeks; then
(c) Sunday at 10:00 a.m. to Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. and Wednesday at 10:00
a.m. to Thursday at 10:00 a.m. for two weeks; then
(d) 2-2-3 schedule as follows:
(a) Week one - 2 days with the Respondent, 2 days with the Applicant,
3 days with the Respondent; and Week two - 2 days with the Applicant, 2 days with the Respondent and 3 days with the Applicant.
b) An order that the Applicant shall drop the child off to the Respondent's residence at the commencement of the parenting time and the Respondent shall drop off the child at the Applicant's residence at the end of parenting time.
c) An order that the Applicant shall provide to the Respondent notice of any medical appointments for the child as soon as such appointments are scheduled and the Respondent shall be permitted to attend the appointment.
4At the motion before Justice Wilson in December 2024, Mr. Hawkins sought unsupervised parenting time or equal time; Ms. Stemmler requested supervised at Dalhousie Place.
5Justice E. Wilson rejected supervised parenting time and ordered a gradual reintroduction of unsupervised parenting time with the regular schedule to Sundays, Mondays, and Wednesdays from 10:00 am – 5:00 pm. The conditions for Mr. Hawkins’ parenting time included: Father must abstain from alcohol, marijuana, or non-prescribed drugs during parenting. Both parents were ordered to avoid negative comments and to encourage a positive relationship. Both parents were granted equal rights to third-party information about Kehlani, and the court ordered a direct communication method to be established. Ms. Stemmler was ordered to pay costs to Mr. Hawkins in the amount of
$6,243.25. The costs have not been paid.
6Ms. Stemmler alleged Mr. Hawkins was aggressive, rough-handled Kehlani, and had substance abuse issues. She relied on a baby monitor video and audio recordings. Mr. Hawkins denied all allegations, claimed active caregiving before separation, and provided evidence of completing a parenting course. Justice E. Wilson reviewed the mother’s baby monitor video evidence and found that it did not show violence or aggression—only an inexperienced father responding imperfectly to a crying baby. The audio recordings were given no weight because they were surreptitiously obtained and manipulative. The Court found that there was no evidence that the father harmed Kehlani or posed a risk. Supervised parenting time was not warranted.
7Mr. Hawkins seeks to expand his parenting time to include overnight, with increases every 2 weeks until there is a shared 2-2-3 parenting schedule.
8Ms. Stemmler seeks an order for primary residence, specified daytime parenting time for Mr. Hawkins plus additional time such as soccer or swimming weekly, an OCL referral for a s.112 clinical investigation and child support retroactive to April 1, 2024.
9Both parties served voluminous materials on the current motions. I have reviewed the materials filed after the December 23, 2024 temporary decision.
Issues
10The issues before the Court are:
(1) Should Mr. Hawkins’ parenting time with Kehlani be expanded?
(2) Should there be a period of supervised parenting time for the father?
(3) What parenting schedule is in Kehlani’s best interests?
(4) How should exchanges of Kehlani occur?
(5) Should there be a s112 OCL referral?
(6) Who should have decision-making responsibility for Kehlani?
(7) Does there need to be an order with respect to Kehlani’s medical appointments?
(8) What child support should be paid?
Father’s Position
11Mr. Hawkins wants his parenting time with Kehlani to be expanded on a graduated schedule. He proposes starting with overnight visits and eventually moving to a 2-2-3 schedule so that Kehlani can spend meaningful time with both parents. He believes this is in her best interests because it will allow him to participate in bedtime routines, morning care, and developmental milestones. He emphasizes that his current parenting time has gone well, that he has completed parenting courses, and that his home is safe and equipped with a nursery. He strongly opposes supervised parenting time, arguing that it is unnecessary and humiliating, and offers family supervision if required. He denies allegations of rough handling, anger issues, or substance abuse, and points to the court’s previous finding that there is no evidence he has harmed Kehlani. He stresses that Kehlani has a strong bond with him and his extended family, and that limiting his time is harmful to her emotional well-being.
12Mr. Hawkins asserts that his request for extended parenting time is grounded in Kehlani’s best interests and supported by evidence of his consistent care, strong bond, and ability to provide a safe, nurturing environment.
13Over the past year of three days per week parenting time, Kehlani has developed a loving and secure relationship with her father. She greets him enthusiastically at exchanges, runs to him calling “Daddy,” and enjoys their time together. This attachment demonstrates that Kehlani feels safe and happy in his care.
14Mr. Hawkins provides attentive care, following Kehlani’s cues for sleep, nutrition, and comfort. He engages her in age-appropriate activities such as outdoor play,
swimming, singing, and educational games that promote language and cognitive development. He ensures healthy meals and maintains routines that support her growth.
15There is no evidence of harm or neglect in his care. The December 23, 2024 court found that Mr. Hawkins was an inexperienced but a caring father. He has learned and improved his parenting skills. He asserts that he has complied with all court orders, abstains from substances, and prioritizes Kehlani’s well-being during his time.
16Kehlani is now a toddler and ready for a more normalized parenting schedule. Mr. Hawkins proposes a gradual increase in time leading to overnights, which will strengthen her bond with him and provide continuity of care. Delaying changes until school age, as suggested by Ms. Stemmler, is unreasonable and contrary to Kehlani’s developmental needs.
17Mr. Hawkins expresses a willingness to cooperate and to share in decision- making. He asserts that Ms. Stemmler has consistently refused reasonable requests for flexibility, such as participation in activities and family events. He believes this approach limits Kehlani’s opportunities and undermines her relationship with him and the paternal family.
18Mr. Hawkins has a strong family network that provides emotional and practical support. Kehlani benefits from these relationships, which contribute to her sense of belonging and security.
19Mr. Hawkins requests that Ms. Stemmler drop off the child to his residence at the commencement of the parenting time and he shall drop off Kehlani at Ms. Stemmler’s residence at the end of parenting time.
20Mr. Hawkins acknowledges his child support obligations and requests that payments reflect his actual income as he builds his business. His growing financial stability further supports his ability to provide for Kehlani.
Mother’s Position
21In contrast, Ms. Stemmler opposes any overnight parenting until Kehlani is at least three years old. She insists that Mr. Hawkins’ access should be supervised at Dalhousie Place for five or six visits before any unsupervised time is considered. She argues that frequent transitions and overnight visits would disrupt breastfeeding and attachment, and that Kehlani needs stability and maternal care at this stage. Ms. Stemmler raises concerns about Mr. Hawkins’ alleged rough handling, temper, and marijuana use, and claims that his home environment includes parties and alcohol, making it unsafe for an infant. She also states that Mr. Hawkins resists structured parenting plans and professional involvement, such as an OCL referral. Finally, she seeks to have his income imputed for child support as he has not contributed financially to Kehlani’s care.
22Ms. Stemmler submits that Mr. Hawkins’ request for overnight parenting time and expanded access is contrary to Kehlani’s best interests. Kehlani is now 21 months old
and in a critical stage of attachment formation. She requires stability and consistency in her primary caregiving environment. Transitions to Mr. Hawkins’ care remain highly distressing: Kehlani clings to Ms. Stemmler, cries during handovers, and often continues crying in the car. This pattern has persisted for months without improvement.
23Kehlani frequently returns in soiled diapers, indicating inadequate attention to hygiene. Potty training progress at Ms. Stemmler’s home is not reinforced by Mr. Hawkins.
24Ms. Stemmler asserts that Mr. Hawkins relies heavily on his family during visits, suggesting he lacks independent parenting skills. He has admitted to her that family members interfere with his time with Kehlani.
25Ms. Stemmler is concerned about Kehlani’s screen time in her father’s care. Kehlani is placed in front of TV shows daily, contrary to medical advice limiting screen exposure for toddlers. Educational interaction (e.g., sign language videos provided by Ms. Stemmler) is ignored.
26Mr. Hawkins has provided sugary snacks and even recalled baby food products, despite Ms. Stemmler’s efforts to ensure a healthy diet.
27After visits with Mr. Hawkins, Kehlani exhibits increased aggression—throwing objects, yelling, hitting—behaviors not seen in Ms. Stemmler’s care. Ms. Stemmler asserts that these changes correlate with disrupted routines and stress during transitions.
28Ms. Stemmler finds communication with Mr. Hawkins fraught with hostility. He becomes rude and aggressive when Ms. Stemmler disagrees with his plans, even refusing to leave her porch during disputes.
29Ms. Stemmler asserts that joint decision-making is unworkable: Mr. Hawkins defers to his parents and resists professional advice. She asserts that sole decision- making authority is necessary to protect Kehlani’s health and stability.
30Ms. Stemmler seeks to maintain the existing daytime schedule (three 7-hour visits per week) plus extra activities already provided (swimming lessons, soccer). She resists overnight parenting until Kehlani is older (around age 3) and developmentally ready, consistent with expert recommendations.
31Ms. Stemmler is seeking primary residence, specified daytime parenting time to continue plus additional times including swimming lessons once per week, soccer Sunday mornings and other daytime visits as agreed between the parties. She is seeking a referral to the OCL to conduct a section 112 investigation.
32Mr. Hawkins is declaring minimal income from a marketing business and lives with his parents. He has not demonstrated financial stability or consistent child support payments. Ms. Stemmler requests that minimum wage income be imputed to ensure Kehlani’s needs are met.
33Ms. Stemmler is seeking an order that Mr. Hawkins pay child support based on an imputed a minimum wage income ($17.20 an hour or $35,000.00 a year) which results in monthly child support of $312.00 commencing April 1, 2024, to be offset by any outstanding costs award that Ms. Stemmler has been ordered to pay or may be ordered to pay in the event costs are awarded on this Motion.
Should Mr. Hawkins’ parenting time with Kehlani be expanded?
34Yes, Mr. Hawkins’ parenting time should be expanded. There has been daytime- only parenting time for a year. Kehlani is 21 months of age. She has had consistent parenting time with her father. The time period has been 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays.
Should there be a period of supervised parenting time for the father?
35I do not agree that there should be a period of supervised parenting time for the father. This issue was before Justice E. Wilson on December 23, 2024 and was rejected. I do not find that the parenting concerns expressed by Ms. Stemmler to warrant supervised parenting time.
What parenting schedule is in Kehlani’s best interests?
36I find that the parenting schedule should be changed to provide that the Sunday parenting time extends to Mondays at 5:00 p.m.. This will allow overnight parenting time to start and allow a longer period of parenting time for Mr. Hawkins.
37I do not agree that the parenting times should be automatically increased every 2 weeks. The issue of the eventual parenting schedule shall be addressed later, on consent of the parties or at a trial.
38Kehlani is 21 months of age. She has been having 3 daytime parenting times with her father each week since January 2025. I am concerned that there continues to be considerable conflict regarding Kehlani and in her presence.
39I am very concerned about the different nap schedules during the day. The determination of the parenting schedule for Kehlani is what schedule is in her best interests. The child’s routine should be similar at both households, in particular, her nap and sleep schedule. The approach and focus on potty training should also be consistent.
40Ms. Stemmler maintains a structured daily schedule, including two naps totalling 2–2.5 hours. She finds that this routine supports Kehlani’s emotional regulation and healthy development.
41In Mr. Hawkins’ care, naps are inconsistent and often less than 1.5 hours, leaving Kehlani overtired and cranky upon return. This disrupts her bedtime and overall sleep pattern, which is detrimental to her well-being.
42Kehlani is 21 months of age. An overnight parenting time is appropriate given her age, but only if she has consistent nap and sleep times during Mr. Hawkins’s parenting time. Sometimes when parents feel they have limited time with a child, sleep routine are ignored. This is not in the child’s best interests, nor is it a child-focussed approach. Currently, if Kehlani has less nap time, the impact of the loss of sleep occurs while she is in her mother’s care. Mr. Hawkins needs to be accountable to Kehlani in ensuring that she is able to maintain her routine while in his care.
43I am also concerned about the events of January 2025 and in particular, Mr. Hawkins’s communications with Kehlani’s medical doctor.
44In January 2025, Kehlani was ill. Her primary care doctor wrote a note recommending that Kehlani remain in her mother’s care for 7 days. The doctor’s note includes that he contacted Mr. Hawkins at his request. The doctor advised that he was not questioning the father’s competency to care for Kehlani. During the phone call, the doctor noted that there was “lots of comments by both (paternal grand) parents that were inflammatory and aggressive”. This conduct is inappropriate, not child-focused and not in Kehlani’s] best interest.
45I take no issue that Mr. Hawkins did not want to lose his parenting time with Kehlani or that he wanted clarification from the doctor. The negative communications to the doctor, by Mr. Hawkins and his parents, are the issue.
46I note that the maternal grandmother chose to post on Facebook: “we should never had to fight, but clearly my gloves are NOT coming off….love that baby (heart emoji).
47In April 2025, the parents disagreed about overnight parenting time. The discussion occurred on Ms. Stemmler’s porch. Ms. Stemmler asserts that Mr. Hawkins was aggressive and refused to leave her porch for over an hour.
48In her proposed schedule, she suggests reducing hours and incorporating “Daddy and Me” sessions at a Family Resource Centre to improve Logan’s one-on-one time with Kehlani without interference from his family. I will not make this part of the Court Order, but participation in highly recommended for Mr. Hawkins and Kehlani.
49Mr. Hawkins and Ms. Stemmler are two young parents with their firstborn child. They are both learning Kehlani’s needs and how to parent her. Ms. Stemmler has been the primary parent for Kehlani in her young life. Mr. Hawkins is clearly committed to parenting Kehlani but is overly resistant to Ms. Stemmler’s ideas and routines. He needs to have a more child-focussed lens and to encourage his family to allow him to take the lead in parenting Kehlani and in interacting with Ms. Stemmler.
50Kehlani can only be emotionally harmed by being exposed to the inappropriate communications and conflict displayed by the paternal family. This will be a significant factor in the determination of the parenting arrangements for Kehlani in the future.
How should exchanges of Kehlani occur?
51I will not make an order with respect to exchanges at this time. Mr. Hawkins shall continue to pick up and drop off Kehlani to Ms. Stemmler’s home or as otherwise agreed upon.
52Mr. Hawkins seeks an order that Ms. Stemmler drop off Kehlani to his residence at the commencement of the parenting time and that he drop off to Ms. Stemmler’s residence at the end of parenting time.
53Ms. Stemmler states that Kehlani becomes very upset during exchanges, clinging to her and crying when Mr. Hawkins picks her up for parenting time. Mr. Hawkins has to pry Kehlani out of her arms, and Kehlani continues crying in the car as he drives away.
54Ms. Stemmler notes that Mr. Hawkins returns Kehlani tired, cranky, and often in a soiled diaper, which disrupts her evening routine and bedtime.
55Ms. Stemmler portrays exchanges as stressful for Kehlani and herself, citing the child’s distress, Mr. Hawkins’s lateness, and his inability to maintain routines. She does not agree to overnight exchanges at this time and emphasizes that transitions should prioritize Kehlani’s comfort and schedule.
56Ms. Stemmler relies on the AFCC Ontario Parenting Plan Guide and reminds the Court that the parents separated at 2 months of age and do not have a shared caregiver history. A parenting schedule for a child must meet the child’s particular needs and take into account the parenting history. The Guide is a useful tool to assist in the determination of an age-appropriate parenting schedule.
57In the discussion for schedules for toddlers, ages 18 to 36 months, at page 19:
If the child has some trouble with transitions, or is not particularly adaptable or flexible, or if the parents are unable to effectively communicate with each other about the child, it may be better for a child this age to have a primary residence with one parent and frequent contact, including some overnight parenting time, with the other parent (for example three contacts during the week, made up of one or two 4 to 6 hour blocks and one or two non-consecutive overnights).
58A communication log is recommended with respect to the child’s eating, sleeping, health, and activity issues. Consistent approaches are needed. On December 23, 2024, Justice E. Wilson ordered: Both parents were granted equal rights to third-party information about Kehlani, and the court ordered a direct communication method to be established. The parents are urged to use a parenting app for their communication about Kehlani such as Our Family Wizard.
Should there be a s112 OCL referral?
59I agree that there should be a s112 referral.
60Ms. Stemmler requests that there be a s112 OCL clinical investigation. Mr. Hawkins resists.
61My concern about the conflict between the parents and, in particular, from the paternal family suggests a clinical investigation will be beneficial. I am also concerned about the apparent transition challenges being experienced by Kehlani. Mr. Hawkins is seeking an eventual shared parenting schedule. Information as to his ability to be child-focused with respect to Kehlani’s care and routine and his ability to have appropriate communication with Ms. Stemmler will be of assistance to the Court when determining the parenting arrangements. Ms. Stemmler’s willingness to share parenting responsibilities with Mr. Hawkins are also a significant issue for future parenting arrangements.
Who should have decision-making responsibility for Kehlani?
62On a temporary basis:
(1) Ms. Stemmler The mother shall have sole decision-making responsibility for Kehlani;
(2) Prior to making a decision, Ms. Stemmler shall have meaningful consultation with Mr. Hawkins in the manner set out below, and the parties shall endeavour to make significant decisions about the child's health, education and well-being together.
(3) If, after meaningful consultation on non-urgent significant decisions about a child's health, education and well-being, a mutual decision is not made within 14 days, Ms. Stemmler shall make the decision and shall inform Mr. Hawkins of the decision that has been made.
(4) Consultation shall be through a parent communication application or other electronic means. There is to be a record of the extent and nature of communication between the parties. Unless another communication method is mutually agreed to by the parties in writing and in advance, the parties shall use OurFamilyWizard to consult and share information related to Kehlani. Communication shall be polite, to the point, in a clear and child-centered manner, and if a response is required, it shall be given within 24 hours.
63Both parents were already granted the same rights to information as part of Justice E. Wilson’s Order.
64I am concerned about Mr. Hawkins’ communication with the doctor in January 2025. It is not in Kehlani’s interest to be caught in the middle of conflicts over straightforward decisions. Ms. Stemmler has made appropriate decisions for Kehlani to date. She has shared information with Mr. Hawkins.
Does there need to be an order with respect to Kehlani’s medical appointments?
65I will order that Ms. Stemmler advise Mr. Hawkins of any medical appointments and that both parties may attend. This is already occurring.
66Ms. Stemmler’s evidence is that she advised Mr. Hawkins of all medical appointments and he has attended all except one.
What child support should be paid?
67I find that Mr. Hawkins should pay child support to Ms. Stemmler for Kehlani in based on an imputed income of $ 35,000 per year.
68The parties separated May 23, 2024. The Application is dated May 27, 2024. Ms. Stemmler seeks child support as of April 1, 2024 when the parties were still together. Minimum wage is slightly higher than $ 35,000, which is the stated amount in the Notice of Motion. The 2017 Child Support Guideline amount for an income of
$35,000 is $ 304 per month. The Guidelines changed effective October 1, 2025. The 2025 Child Support Guideline amount for an income of $ 35,000 is $ 284 per month.
69Mr. Hawkins should pay child support of $ 304 per month from June 1, 2024 to September 1, 2025, a period of 16 months for a total of $ 4,864. As of October 1, 2025, the amount is $ 286 per month. For October through December 2025, three months of support at $286 would accrue for a total of $ 858. The total amount of arrears is $5,722.
70While it is practical for the parties to offset costs with the child support arrears, this is something that needs to be the subject of a consent, rather than a court order. Ms. Stemmler has not paid the costs award of $ 6,243.25.
71Mr. Hawkins is residing with his parents and has declared income from a business of $ 7,209.96 per year. His business is the Bold Bureau. His claimed expenses are $ 12,360.60 per year. His credit card debts is less than $ 1,300. There are no statements of business activities attached to the Financial Statement.
72An Order that the Respondent Logan Hawkins be imputed a minimum wage income ($17.20 an hour or $35,000.00 a year) which results in monthly child support of $312.00 commencing April 1, 2024, to be offset by any outstanding costs award that the Applicant has been ordered to pay or may be ordered to pay in the event costs are awarded on this Motion.
73I will impute an income of $ 35,000 to Mr. Hawkins.
74A summary of factors in imputing income is set out in Duffy v. Duffy, 2009 NLCA 48, 2009CarswellNfld 211 (N.L. C.A.) as follows:
The fundamental obligation of a parent to support his or her children takes precedence over the parent's own interests and choices;
The parent will not be permitted to knowingly avoid or diminish, and may not choose to ignore, his or her obligation to support his or her children;
A parent is required to act responsibly when making financial decisions that may affect the level of child support available from that parent;
Imputing income to a parent on the basis that the parent is intentionally under- employed or unemployed does not incorporate a requirement for proof of bad faith;
The determination to impute income is discretionary as the Court considers appropriate in the circumstances;
Where a parent is intentionally underemployed the Court may exercise its discretion not to impute income where that parent establishes the reasonableness of his or her decision;
A parent will not be excused from his or her child support obligations in furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations or interests;
A parent must provide proper and full disclosure of financial information. Failure to do so may result in the Court drawing an adverse inference and imputing income.
75The leading case is Drygala v. Pauli, the Respondent Logan Hawkins002] O.J. No. 3731 (OCA) which sets out a three-part test:
Three-part Test:
Is the spouse intentionally underemployed or unemployed.
If so, is the intentional underemployment or unemployment required by virtue of his reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child of the marriage, or reasonable health needs.
If the answer to #2 is negative, the court must decide whether it should exercise its discretion, and if so, what income is properly imputed in the circumstances.
Other Drygala principles:
there is no need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations before income be imputed. Look at whether the act is voluntary and reasonable.
the payor is intentionally under-employed if they choose to earn less than they are capable of earning.
imputing 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 legal obligation, a parent must earn what she is capable of earning.
76I find that Mr. Hawkins is underemployed. I do not find that he is pursuing his business to avoid child support. When the parties resided together from April to August 2023, Mr. Hawkins was employed and quit his job to pursue his marketing business. I do not find the underemployment is for reasonable education needs, for Kehlani’s needs or reasonable health needs.
77I find that I should exercise my discretion and impute an income. Ms. Stemmler seeks an imputation of $ 35,000, which is just under the minimum wage income. I find this amount reasonable on a temporary basis. Imputing 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 legal obligation, a parent must earn what they are capable of earning.
78Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322:The approach mandated by this court in Drygala v. Pauli 2002 41868 (ON C.A.), (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 711 requires a consideration of whether the spouse is intentionally unemployed or under-employed, and, if so, what the appropriate income is under the circumstances. The onus is on the person requesting an imputation of income to establish an evidentiary basis for such a finding.
79However, in Graham v. Bruto, 2008 ONCA 260, the court inferred that the failure of the payor to properly disclose would mitigate the obligation of the recipient to provide an evidentiary basis to impute income. I find that the minimum wage income level is appropriate.
80Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position they are taking. Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663; Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719.
81Cook v. Burton the Respondent Logan Hawkins005] O.J. No. 190 (SCJ) and Stoangi v. Petersen the Respondent Logan Hawkins006] O.J. No. 2902 (SCJ) set out that cogent medical evidence in the form of detailed medical opinion should be provided by the payor in order to satisfy the court that his/her reasonable health needs justify his/her decision not to work.
82A person making a decision to start a business in which he or she has no experience may result in a finding that he or she is intentionally underemployed: Dang v. Hornby, 2006 12973 (OSC); Ruszczak v. Scherbluck, 2012 ONCJ 14; Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719.
83Where a party chooses to pursue self-employment, the court will examine whether this is a reasonable choice in the circumstances: Smith v. Smith, 2012 ONSC 1116.
84I am cautious in imputing minimum wage income in the current economy and with Mr. Hawkins out of the work force since 2023. Even in 2018, it was noted there were now far more part-time workers that come before the court. See: T.M.B. v. B.P.G., 2018 ONCJ 435.
85To impute anything more than a minimum wage income the court needs to have some evidence upon which to make such a finding. See: Dassin v Perpignan, 2021 ONSC 1066, at para. 8; Ebrahami v. Ali Muradi, 2025 ONSC 2718.
86Mr. Hawkins resists imputation of income and asserts that he is building a business, and that the business income is improving each year. He notes that Ms. Stemmler is going to school to improve herself. He asks for the opportunity to build his business. HIs business income in 2022 was $4,563.00; in 2023 was $11,276.04 (gross income $20,862.81); in 2024, was $20,000.00. He asks that child support be based on his actual income.
87A decision to pursue self-employment where a payor earns no income, is not a reasonable choice. A parent will not be excused from his or her child support obligations in furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations or interests. Nor will it be acceptable for a parent to choose to work for future rewards to the detriment of the present needs of his or her children. See: Norris v. Riley, 2023 ONCJ 121; Bagust- Homes v. Devine, 2023 ONSC 2978.
88I find the income level of $ 35,000 to be reasonable and note that Mr. Hawkins did not dispute that he could be earning this income level from a T4 job.
89Income may be imputed on a motion. As motions are limited by the evidence available, “it is incumbent on the person seeking a finding of imputation of income to provide the court with sufficient information from which a reasonable inference could be drawn”. This evidence “generally involves the presence of some type of documentary evidence which assists the justice in reaching an estimate of the appropriate income”. See: Kowalik v. Kowalik 2011 1551 (SCJ); Stoyshin v. Stoyshin, the Respondent Logan Hawkins007] O.J. No. 1772 (Ont. S.C.J.) at paras. 13-14.
TEMPORARY ORDER
90On a temporary basis:
(1) Ms. Stemmler The mother shall have sole decision-making responsibility for Kehlani;
(2) Prior to making a decision, Ms. Stemmler shall have meaningful consultation with Mr. Hawkins in the manner set out below, and the parties shall endeavour to make significant decisions about the child's health, education and well-being together.
(3) If, after meaningful consultation on non-urgent significant decisions about a child's health, education and well-being, a mutual decision is not made within 14 days, Ms. Stemmler shall make the decision and shall inform Mr. Hawkins of the decision that has been made.
(4) Consultation shall be through a parent communication application or other electronic means. There is to be a record of the extent and nature of communication between the parties. Unless another communication method is
mutually agreed to by the parties in writing and in advance, the parties shall use OurFamilyWizard to consult and share information related to Kehlani. Communication shall be polite, to the point, in a clear and child-centered manner, and if a response is required, it shall be given within 24 hours.
91Paragraph 3 of the Order of Justice E. Wilson dated December 23, 2024 is changed such that the Respondent Logan Hawkins shall have parenting time with Kehlani Alexander Hawkins born […], 2024 as follows:
(1) Each week, Sunday at 10:00 a.m. until Monday at 5:00 p.m. and Wednesdays 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
(2) And such further and other times as the parties agree.
92Section 112 OCL order to issue.
93The Applicant Sharde Stemmler shall provide the Respondent Logan Hawkins notice of any medical appointment for Kehlani Alexandra Hawkins born […], 2024 as soon as such appointment is scheduled and the Respondent Logan Hawkins shall be permitted to attend the appointment.
94The Respondent Logan Hawkins shall pay child support to the Applicant Sharde Stemmler for the child Kehlani Alexandra Hawkins born […], 2024 in the amount of $286 per month commencing January 1, 2026 and on the first day of each month thereafter in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines and an imputed income of
$35,000 per year.
95The Respondent Logan Hawkins shall pay child support arrears to the Applicant Sharde Stemmler for the child Kehlani Alexandra Hawkins born […], 2024 in the amount of $ 5,722.
96SDO to issue.
97All other claims dismissed.
Costs
Any party seeking costs may make written submissions to the court, to be submitted no later than 14 days from today.
Responding submissions may be submitted no later than 14 days after being served with the submissions.
Submissions shall be a maximum length of 3 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.
No reply submissions permitted
Parties are to file electronically: send submissions to chambers upon expiry of the two deadlines.
Released: December 15, 2025
Signed: Justice Joanne Beasley