ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
A.T.
Applicant
— AND —
C.M.
Respondent
Before Justice W. Kapurura
Heard on November 27, 28 & December 1, 2, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on January 5, 2026
Karmel Sinclair counsel for the applicant
Lauren Speers counsel for the respondent
Justice W. Kapurura:
Part One – Introduction
1This trial was about the parenting and child support arrangements for the parties’ two children, CT, aged 11, and CA, aged 8 (the children).
2The children currently reside primarily with the applicant (the mother). The respondent (the father) has unsupervised parenting time on alternate weekends and every Tuesday.
3The mother also has a 17-year-old daughter, E, from a previous relationship. E resides primarily with her and is not the subject of this proceeding. She has an existing court order for sole decision-making responsibility regarding E, and an alternate weekend parenting schedule for E’s father.
4The mother seeks the following orders:
a. Primary residence of the children and sole decision-making responsibility.
b. Terms of contact and communication.
c. The father’s parenting time to remain as follows:
i. Alternate weekends, with pick up at school on Friday and drop off at school on Monday.
ii. Alternate Tuesdays (the weeks following the father’s weekend), pick up from school and drop off at 7:00 p.m.
iii. Alternate Tuesdays (the weeks following the mother’s weekend), pick up from school, overnight to Wednesday morning, return to school.
d. She shall be the custodian of the children’s passports and identification documents.
e. Support for the children, retroactive to July 1, 2019.
f. Contribution towards the children’s special and extraordinary expenses pursuant to section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines)1
5The father seeks the following orders:
a. The parties shall have a shared parenting schedule on a week about basis, with exchanges on Fridays.
b. Split decision-making responsibility. The mother shall have final decision-making responsibility for medical decisions in odd-numbered years and for educational decisions in even-numbered years. The father shall have final decision-making responsibility for medical decisions in even-numbered years and for educational decisions in odd-numbered years.
c. The parties shall retain a parenting coordinator to assist with any disagreements.
d. Terms of contact and communication.
e. The mother’s annual gross income for support calculation shall be imputed at $55,000.00.
f. Payment of a set-off child support amount, based on the mother’s imputed income, and his declared income per his notices of assessment.
g. That he be given a credit of $56,281.35 for support amounts previously paid.
6Both parties are seeking a shared holiday schedule.
7The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) conducted an investigation pursuant to section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act. Two reports were provided by the OCL: one dated October 29, 2024 (the first OCL report), completed by clinician Hayley Glaholt, and one dated May 20, 2025 (the second OCL report), completed by clinician Roy Reid.
8Both parties agreed to admit the first OCL report into evidence for the truth of its contents without calling Ms. Glaholt to testify. Mr. Reid testified at trial and was cross-examined by each party regarding his report.
9The mother called an additional witness, namely the maternal grandmother. The mother and maternal grandmother provided affidavits for their examination-in-chief. The mother and the maternal grandmother were cross-examined at trial.
10The father did not call additional witnesses. He relied on his trial affidavit for his examination-in-chief. He was cross-examined at trial.
11The issues for the court to determine are as follows:
a) What parenting orders are in the children’s best interests? In particular:
(i) What residential arrangement is in the children’s best interests?
(ii) What decision-making responsibility orders are in the children’s best interests?
(iii) What incidents of parenting and terms of communication are in the children’s best interests?
(iv) What parenting time orders are in the children’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 Child Support Guidelines (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 is the presumptive start date for child support?
(v) Should the court depart from the presumptive start date, and if so, when should support start?
(vi) How much child support should be paid for each year from the start date chosen?
(vii) What credits, if any, should either party receive for support paid?
(viii) How should any support arrears be paid?
(ix) What amounts, if any, should the parties pay for the children’s ongoing section 7 expenses?
Part Two – Brief background facts
2.1 – Undisputed facts
12The parties started living together in 2014.
13Their son, CT, was born in 2014. They married in 2015.
14The parties’ relationship included intermittent periods of separation, including one lasting about six months. They later reconciled, and their daughter CA was born in 2017.
15The parties experienced significant conflict throughout their relationship. The police and the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the CAS) were involved on several occasions, beginning on July 10, 2016, when CT was two years old.
16In 2016, the CAS expressed no concerns regarding either party’s ability to parent effectively.
17The CAS intervened again on April 8, 2018, due to conflict and concerns about emotional harm to the children. The file was closed on April 10, 2018.
18The parties separated permanently in July 2019. The CAS noted on February 15, 2021, that the parties appeared to be co-parenting well, and they described one another positively as parents.
19In March 2022, the parties’ co-parenting relationship deteriorated significantly. Around this time, the mother learned of the father’s relationship with her friend K, and the father became aware of the mother’s involvement in sex work. This led to increased conflict, further police involvement, and the father disclosing the mother’s sex work to family and friends.
20On March 25, 2022, the mother obtained a restraining order against the father, which expired in August 2023. During this period, the father had limited, supervised parenting time with the children on four occasions between April and May 2022. Notes from Renew Supervision Services indicate that the father interacted appropriately and affectionately with the children, who responded similarly.
21The father was charged with assault against the mother in April 2022. The charge was subsequently resolved by way of a 6-month peace bond.2
22On April 24, 2022, the mother was charged with operating a vehicle while impaired and driving a vehicle with liquor readily available. The children were in the father’s care at the time.3
23The CAS became involved again in July and December 2023, and in May 2024, due to accusations by the parties against each other relating to irresponsible parenting and threats to remove the children from each other’s care.
24The CAS did not verify the parties’ accusations against each other. However, it became concerned about the high level of conflict between the parties. It also noted concerns regarding the lack of supervision of CT’s cellphone and internet use.
2.2 – Procedural history and parenting arrangements
25The mother issued her application on March 25, 2022, seeking parenting orders, child support, spousal support and a restraining order. At trial, she no longer sought spousal support or a restraining order.
26On June 1, 2022, after retaining counsel, the mother filed an amended application seeking sole decision-making responsibility, specific parenting arrangements, and a defined parenting schedule for the father.
27On May 6, 2022, Justice S. O’Connell made a temporary parenting order (on a without prejudice basis) as follows:
a. The father shall have parenting time with the children every other weekend, with pick up on Friday at daycare, to Monday morning, with drop off at daycare. He shall have additional parenting time as follows:
i. Alternating Tuesdays (the weeks following his weekend), pick up from daycare (after school) until 7:00 p.m.
ii. Alternating Tuesdays (the weeks following the mother’s weekend), pick up from daycare (after school), through to Wednesday morning, return to daycare.
b. Each parent shall refrain from exposing the children to adult conflict.
c. The parties shall each conduct themselves in a responsible and child-focused manner, making their best efforts to diffuse parental conflict.
28The father filed his Answer/Claim on July 21, 2022, seeking joint decision-making responsibility and a shared parenting schedule.
29On June 9, 2023, Justice O’Connell held an urgent case conference because the parties could not agree on a summer schedule. She noted that since the parties’ last court appearance, their conflict had escalated and that the children had been adversely affected. Justice O’Connell made the following orders:
a. Commencing June 30, 2023, the children shall be with the parents on a week-about schedule, with exchanges at 7:00 p.m. on Fridays.
b. She requested the involvement of the OCL by way of an investigation and report pursuant to section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act. In her endorsement, she noted that, “the conflict between the parents has escalated and the court is concerned that the children are at risk of emotional harm. The parents have both made serious allegations about the other.”
c. The parties shall register with Our Family Wizard to communicate regarding issues relating to the children.
d. Such communication shall be respectful and directly related to the needs, routine/schedule, activities, and well-being of the children only.
e. In the event of an emergency, the parties shall communicate by text.
30On July 12, 2023, Justice M. Pawagi heard an urgent motion brought by the father after the mother failed to comply with the June 9, 2023, order regarding the summer schedule. The father’s request was granted on consent, and the parties agreed to additional terms for resuming the summer schedule. The father’s request for costs was dismissed.
31The parties continue to adhere to the regular parenting schedule set forth in the temporary order dated May 6, 2022. They also continue to follow the week about summer schedule.
Part Three – The mother’s request to call her daughter, E, to testify
32At the commencement of the trial, the parties informed the court that they wished to address a preliminary issue regarding the mother’s request that E testify.
33The father opposed the request.
34E is 17 years old and from a different relationship. She primarily lives with the mother and spends alternate weekends with her biological father (E’s father). These visits coincide with weekends when the father has parenting time with E’s half-siblings, thereby ensuring that all three children are in the mother’s home together.
35The mother’s counsel stated that E would provide evidence regarding the following:
a. Life in the home prior to the parties’ separation, including the father’s alleged inappropriate conduct.
b. The parties’ challenging parenting relationship.
c. Conflict between the parties.
d. Post-separation conflict.
36The court held a voir dire to consider the mother’s request to call E as a witness. At its conclusion, the court dismissed the request and gave brief reasons, with detailed reasons to follow. The following are the court’s detailed reasons.
3.1 – Legal considerations regarding children’s testimony
37The issue of children’s testimony has been addressed in both child protection and domestic proceedings.
38The courts are generally reluctant to allow a child to testify in cases involving allegations of parental alienation due to concerns around coaching and influence. See Jones v. Jones [1994] O.J. No. 3144 (para 52).
39In Taberner v. Taberner, [1971] O.J. No. 574 (para 1), Justice Wright strongly disapproved the involvement of children in the family disputes of their parents, unless it were impossible to prove the necessary facts in any other way.
40In Dudman v. Dudman, [1990] O.J. No. 3246 (para 15), Justice Felstiner concluded that it was unlikely the child would provide the court with information that would have probative value. In the same case, one of the parties had told the court that the child “would say in court what he thinks people want to hear and it will depend upon who is asking the questions." [para 14.]
41In Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. M.(E.S.) 2011 ONSC 2434, Justice M. Linhares de Sousa noted that courts have been hesitant to permit children to participate directly in family law proceedings, which is generally not considered to be in their best interests. She provided a list of factors to consider, as follows:
9… in exercising its discretion to compel a child to be a witness in court proceedings, the Court should consider, among other things, the following factors:
(a) The age and maturity of the child,
(b) The child's view with respect to testifying,
(c) The trauma that such an experience might or would cause the child especially if it involves testifying for or against a parent,
(d) The purpose for which the child is being called as a witness,
(e) The reliability and probative value of the child's evidence,
(f) The importance and relevance of the child's evidence, and
(g) The availability of evidence from other sources to address the issue in question.
42In Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Waterloo. v. B.(L.), [2006] O.J. No. 3784, Justice P.B. Hambly summarized some of the reasons courts have declined to allow children to testify, as follows:
31 .. the overriding function to protect the best interests of the child, as required by s. 1 of the Act; any trauma that the child might experience as a result of being required to testify against his or her parent; the reliability and probative value of the child's evidence; the importance and relevance of the child's evidence; the child's view with respect to testifying and the availability of evidence from other sources to address the issue in question.
43In Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. B.M., [2000] O.J. No. 4518, the court considered the fact that the child had testified on two prior occasions, in two different courts, before allowing her to testify. The court provided additional safeguards to the child witness. The child was videotaped in the courtroom in the absence of her parents. Counsel for the child, the society and the mother were present during the child's testimony. A child care worker sat next to the child throughout her testimony as her support person.
3.2 – Analysis regarding calling E as a witness.
44The court understood that E, who is 17 years old, was capable of testifying at this trial. However, it declined to allow her to testify for the following reasons:
- Testifying would likely have been traumatic for E. She lived with both parties from 2014 until their separation in 2019 and had a positive relationship with the father during that time. The father reports that he maintained contact with E after the separation until she ended communication due to ongoing conflict between the parties. Requiring her to testify would have placed her in the middle of this conflict and risked significant emotional harm.
- Testifying at trial would have disrupted the child. Although the mother indicated E was willing to testify, E was in Grade 12 and in the middle of final examinations at the time.
- E has been impacted by the ongoing conflict between the parties. Both parties have acknowledged this conflict, as shown by multiple court endorsements and orders. The mother’s attempt to call E as a witness further highlights the challenging relationship.
d. Allowing the child to testify would exacerbate the conflict between the parties. Currently, E refuses to have any contact with the father. In Hameed v. Hameed, 2006 ONCJ 274 (para 11), Justice S.B. Sherr, stated that:
There is already enough conflict and mistrust in family law cases, ….. In a constructive family law case, the professionals and the courts work with the family to rebuild trust so that the parties can learn to act together in the best interests of the child.
e. E’s evidence was unnecessary, as follows:
i. The mother’s evidence addressed all issues E intended to cover. Both parties submitted affidavits for examination-in-chief before testifying in court.
ii. E’s evidence would add little probative value.
iii. Both parties acknowledged ongoing conflict in their parenting relationship since separation. Further evidence from the child on this matter was not required.
iv. Two OCL clinicians provided reports detailing the family’s dynamics and challenges, as discussed in detail below.
45The court dismissed the mother’s request to call E to testify for the above reasons.
Part Four – Parenting issues
4.1 – General legal considerations
46Subsection 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.
47Subsection 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.
48Subsection 24 (4) of the Act sets out factors relating to family violence. Subsections 18 (1) and (2) of the Act define family violence.
49Subsection 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.
50Section 28 of the Act sets out the types of parenting orders the court can make.
51The 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.
52The court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents. See: Gordon v. Goertz. 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; E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264; Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510.
53In 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.
4.2 – Conflict and family violence
54Subsection 33.1(2) of the Act emphasizes the parties' duty to protect children from conflict. It reads as follows
- 1 Protection of children from conflict
(2) A party to a proceeding under this Part shall, to the best of the party’s ability, protect any child from conflict arising from the proceeding.
55A 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.
56A 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.
57The 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).
58Justice 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.
59Violence 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.
60In cases of family violence, particularly spousal violence, it is crucial that the court consider whether a co-operative parenting arrangement is appropriate. A victim of family violence might be unable to co-parent due to the trauma they have experienced or ongoing fear of the perpetrator. In addition, co-operative arrangements may lead to opportunities for further family violence. See: Bell v. Reinhardt, 2021 ONSC 3353.
4.3 – Brief overview of the parties’ positions on parenting issues
4.3.1 – The mother’s narrative
61The mother’s evidence is summarized as follows:
a. She resides with her three children in the maternal grandmother’s home, which she describes as safe, happy, and family-oriented. The children are closely bonded. She reports a positive co-parenting relationship with E’s father.
b. Her highest level of education is high school. She is currently unemployed and receives Ontario Works social benefits.
c. Parenting challenges with the father began soon after CT’s birth, as he would leave the home for several days at a time. She describes the relationship as unhealthy and unsuitable for raising children.
d. After CA’s birth, she adapted to the father’s behaviour.
e. For several years, the father smoked cigarettes and marijuana in the home, despite CA’s asthma.
f. The parties’ conflict has been intense.
g. She terminated the relationship in 2019.
h. After separation, she chose the children’s school, Blantyre Public School, and selected their family doctor. She initially chose Dr. Jennifer MacDonald in Toronto, but changed doctors following verbal altercations between the father and Dr. MacDonald.
i. The father has not met either of the children’s current doctors.
j. She selected Dr. Allan Katchky as the children’s dentist. The father has taken the children to some appointments with Dr. Katchky.
k. The parents have faced challenges coordinating the children’s dental care due to ongoing conflict.
l. Around 2021, the parties were unable to coordinate CA’s dental surgery or cooperate with recommended in-home dental care.
m. On March 9, 2022, the father learned she had been working as a sex worker. He then subjected her to repeated harassment, insults, and aggression.
n. The father threatened to disclose her involvement in sex work, which caused her significant distress. He informed her family, friends, acquaintances, and parents at the children’s school. On March 24 and 25, 2022, he shared her online advertisements with the maternal grandmother.
o. On March 25, 2022, she obtained a restraining order against the father, which expired in August 2023. He was also charged with criminal harassment, which was resolved by way of a six-month peace bond.
p. She describes the father as self-absorbed and acting independently of others’ needs.
q. In 2022, while visiting a friend, CA was attacked by a dog. The mother immediately took her to the emergency room. The father responded with threats and insults. She discouraged him from attending the hospital due to concerns about his reaction. CA was discharged after four days and has fully recovered.
r. On November 1, 2022, the father unilaterally reduced his monthly child support payments from $1,000 to $675.
s. CT’s cellphone use has caused conflict between the parties. She believes CT should not have unrestricted access to the internet and cellphones. She once discovered that CT and his friends had used racial slurs and reported the incident to the school principal. CT was disciplined by the school, and the father accused her of causing trouble for CT.
t. In 2023, she found inappropriate text messages on CT’s cellphone, including explicit images. She called the recipient’s number, and an adult male answered. She immediately informed the father, who was initially reluctant to involve the police. She then reported the matter to the police, who determined that CT had been communicating with an adult in the United States.
u. She stopped engaging in sex work around November 2023 and has been seeking regular employment.
v. In 2024, the father contacted the CAS after she withheld CT’s cellphone as a disciplinary measure.
w. Both parties have accused each other of failing to facilitate phone calls when the children are with the other parent.
x. She acknowledges that the father loves the children and that they love him as well.
y. Due to ongoing conflict, the parties attend separate meetings with the children’s school. The father has shouted at her during school events in the presence of the children.
z. She regularly manages the children’s assignments and homework.
aa. The parties have experienced conflict regarding CT’s basketball practice and payment of fees. The father takes CT to practice at his discretion. Practices are held on Tuesdays in Ajax from 8:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and on Wednesdays in Oshawa from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. This has negatively affected CT’s basketball performance. The father unilaterally stopped contributing to CT’s basketball fees. In 2022, the parties agreed to share the expense, but he has not paid his $1,150 share of CT’s 2025 basketball fees.
bb. CT’s coach and other parents are now aware of the parties’ conflict.
cc. In July and August 2025, the father decided not to pay child support.
dd. She has kept the father informed about the children, but communication often leads to conflict, disagreements, and insults. In March 2025, she notified him that she was taking CT to the hospital for severe stomach pain, which resulted in further conflict as he accused her of excluding him from the hospital visit.
4.3.2 – The father’s narrative
62The father’s evidence is summarized as follows:
a. He has worked in construction since his teenage years and is currently a union drywaller. His work is seasonal, and his supervisor is aware that he requires flexibility during the weeks he cares for the children.
b. The parties have yelled at each other and have been extremely unkind to each other. Their communication is, at times, deplorable.
c. He believes the mother's involvement in sex work poses a risk to the children.
d. He states that the parties’ conflict, the court proceedings, and interruptions in his parenting time have disrupted the children’s lives and affected their emotional stability.
e. The children enjoy time with both parents, and each parent provides positive care and meaningful engagement.
f. He prefers a week-on, week-off schedule to minimize contact between the parties during exchanges. He states that the current schedule was imposed when the children were young.
g. He describes the mother as a 'skilled manipulator' who:
i. Lied to this court, Canada Revenue Agency and to the two OCL clinicians, stating that she no longer works in the sex trade, but continues to do so.
ii. Knows how the police and CAS involvement work.
iii. Knows the right words to put off the professionals.
iv. Trains the children to manipulate people.
v. Actively manipulated her family’s vulnerabilities.
vi. Is involved in behind-the-scenes intimidation tactics.
vii. Is extremely provocative.
viii. Said negative things about him to CT’s basketball coach.
h. He has been in a stable, long-term relationship with K since early 2022, and they have been cohabiting since July 2025.
i. The mother was previously flexible about additional parenting time but became increasingly hostile after he disclosed his relationship with K. He reports that she expressed anger toward both him and K and told him he was irrelevant and could be easily replaced by gifts and other men.
j. He states that his relationship with K led the mother to withhold the children from him in March 2022 and to initiate criminal charges against him in April 2022. K has two sons from a previous relationship, aged 18 and 11.
k. He denies the mother’s allegations of physical violence and states he has never physically abused her. He asserts that any verbal and emotional conflict is mutual and primarily results from disagreements over parenting arrangements and related issues.
l. Spending time with the children is his highest priority.
m. He has additional concerns regarding the children while they are in their mother’s care, specifically about their:
i. Diet.
ii. School attendance.
iii. Hygiene.
iv. Exposure to conflict with others.
n. In his home, the children receive three meals daily. He ensures they complete their homework and attend school. He attends parent-teacher meetings each year. He notes that CT is struggling academically and requires tutoring.
o. He opposes CT participating in late-night basketball in the Pickering/Oshawa region due to concerns about CT’s academic performance. He informed the mother that he cannot travel to Oshawa on Wednesdays at night due to work commitments.
p. He frequently purchases clothing for the children, but they often arrive at his home without jackets, shoes, or boots.
q. He is concerned that if the mother moves out of the maternal grandmother’s home, there will be no one except E to care for the children while the mother works. He is also concerned that no one will purchase groceries for the children.
r. The maternal grandmother has always been a stabilizing influence who has mitigated his concerns about the mother’s absences, drinking, and drug use.
s. The mother makes inappropriate comments to and in front of the children, and her outbursts frighten them.
t. The mother schedules medical appointments for the children during his work hours and shares professional information, including medical details, at her discretion.
u. He accuses the mother of attempting to micromanage everything he does with the children, including the food they eat.
v. The mother blames him for her disorganization. He notes that she allowed the children’s passports to expire and lost their birth certificates at her home.
w. He asserts that he is not responsible for the mother no longer receiving her Canada Child Benefits (CCB), and states that she has not filed her taxes. He believes her blame is unfounded.
x. The mother leaves her laptop open around her home with her work web profiles (for sex work) visible.
y. He states that he stopped using marijuana years ago and denies ever using it while the children were present in the home.
63At the conclusion of the father’s evidence, the mother objected to the admission of the father’s two proposed exhibits. The parties agreed to make submissions regarding the exhibits in their closing submissions.
64The first exhibit (Q) relates to communication between the father and the mother’s estranged sister. In her submissions, the father’s counsel states that the document is not being submitted for the truth of its contents, “but to reveal that there was more than met the eye occurring at the mother’s home, and in front of the children and that it prompted the father to call the CAS.” The court will exclude this proposed exhibit for the following reasons:
a. The mother’s sister was not called as a witness.
b. The mother did not get an opportunity to cross-examine the sister.
c. The document is obviously hearsay. Although the father states that he is not relying on the truth of its contents, his submissions are based on that truth.
d. The father did not address any exceptions to the hearsay rule that would allow the admission of the document.
65The father’s second proposed exhibit (V) is an email that was sent to the father by CT’s basketball coach on February 12, 2024. The father’s position is that the email is not being proffered for the truth of its contents, but to confirm that the father was the parent paying for CT’s representative basketball fees. The court will exclude this proposed exhibit for the following reasons:
a. The father is relying on the truth of its contents. It is hearsay evidence. The basketball coach was not called as a witness.
b. There was no opportunity for the mother to cross-examine the coach.
c. No evidence was provided, and no submissions were made regarding the circumstances leading to the writing of the email.
d. Admitting the email would be prejudicial to the mother. The email was addressed solely to the father. The mother was omitted. Both parents are involved in CT’s representative basketball and have been sharing the expense.
4.3.3 – OCL clinicians
The first OCL report
66Ms. Hayle Glaholt conducted the first OCL investigation. She filed a ‘discontinued report of the OCL’ dated October 24, 2024. The initial investigation was discontinued due to the mother's lack of active participation. Ms. Glaholt made numerous attempts through email, telephone and text to schedule a home visit with her from July 2024 through September 2024. Ms. Glaholt prepared her report based on the limited information obtained during her investigation.
67Ms. Glaholt did not make recommendations regarding parenting time or decision-making responsibility in her report. She conducted interviews with each parent and with the children. She also obtained information from collaterals such as the children’s school and the CAS.
68Ms. Glaholt described the children as sensitive. She concluded that:
a. There is high conflict between the parents.
b. CT expressed that the conflict between his parents was causing him emotional pain.
c. Despite their conflict, the parents love their children deeply and are trying their best to parent amidst significant conflict and strife.
d. The parties are exhausted by the court process.
e. The parties each have extended family members who are willing to assist in supporting the children.
f. It is possible for the mother to be both a sex worker and a good parent at the same time. There was no evidence to suggest that her involvement in sex work was impacting her ability to parent.
g. There was no evidence to suggest that the father was an unfit parent.
h. The children will benefit from spending time with their sister, E, and both of their grandmothers.
69Ms. Glaholt identified the following strengths of the mother:
a. Her amicable relationship with E’s father may provide a model for healthy co-parenting and communication.
b. She appeared to be aware of the safety and reputational risks involved with sex work.
c. She expressed significant concern about the children’s possible awareness of her past as a sex worker.
d. She asked the clinician for information and guidance on how to speak to the children in an age-appropriate manner about the issue of her involvement in sex work, if it were to arise.
e. She appeared to be committed to shielding her children from possible embarrassment, confusion, or social ostracization, and appeared to be fearful of her children seeing her in a negative light.
f. She lives with the maternal grandmother, and this provides emotional, financial and logistical support to her and the children.
70Ms. Glaholt identified the following limitations and risk factors about the mother:
a. She lacks a strong support system and experienced isolation following the public disclosure of her job as a sex worker.
b. Her isolation due to public awareness of her past employment in sex work has had an extremely detrimental effect on her ability to create connections with others and to access supportive services that may help her strengthen her emotional and professional capacity. It also affected her ability to seek and maintain “regular employment.” This may continue to be a challenge for her as she re-establishes her career outside of sex work.
c. She was interested in finding a therapist, but she feared they would be judgmental about her past employment in sex work.
d. Her lack of proactivity throughout the first OCL investigation proved to be challenging and frustrating for the clinician. Her apparent struggle to establish, implement and maintain engagements with family professionals may be detrimental to her parenting capacity.
71Ms. Glaholt identified the following strengths of the father:
a. He appeared to be passionate about his love for the children.
b. The children have a close, affectionate bond with him.
c. He takes the role of a father seriously.
d. He indicated that he has a strong support system in his relationship with his current partner, his co-workers, and his immediate family.
e. He is consistently employed in his chosen field of construction and appears to have some flexibility in his work schedule.
72Ms. Glaholt identified the following limitations and risk factors about the father’s parenting:
a. His impulsivity and temper appear to interfere with his ability to co-parent successfully and may inhibit his ability to interact with family professionals effectively.
b. School principal Ryan reported that on two or three occasions, the father had become very upset with school administration.
c. The father’s ongoing resentment of the mother appears to interfere with his ability to co-parent successfully.
d. The father’s strongly held views of the mother’s employment in sex work weaken his potential for effective co-parenting, particularly if the father uses labels such as “prostitute” and “whore” against the mother.
The second OCL report
73On October 29, 2024, Justice J. Harris requested that the OCL investigate and report on issues concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility for the children. Mr. Roy Reid, a clinician, was assigned to the file. Mr. Reid states that he completed the outstanding portions of Ms. Glaholt’s investigations.
74Mr. Reid states the following in his report:
a. Since the parties’ separation, the children have resided primarily with the mother.
b. High conflict continues between the parents.
c. The parties continue to be at odds on a myriad of subjects. One example is the father’s continued view that the mother is engaged in the sex trade. The parties have also been at odds regarding matters such as travel, travel documents, health cards, and the children's cellphone use.
d. The father believes the mother has not been a focused parent and has not supported them in their school-related activities or their school lunches. He strongly expressed that she has not been a caregiver who has fully met all of the children’s needs. He voiced that the children are frequently late or absent from school in her care.
e. The mother emotionally shared that she feels downtrodden, and due to the years of name-calling and disputes with the father, she has experienced emotional distress.
f. The parties have been unable to make joint decisions or make decisions collaboratively.
e. CT expressed wanting to have more parenting time with his father.
f. Despite the parents’ conflictual history, the children appear to be thriving. Information from their school indicates that they are average to above-average students in various subject areas.
g. Both children are endearing and enjoy their time in their respective parents’ care.
75Mr. Reid made recommendations regarding parenting time, contact and communication terms, and decision-making responsibility. The recommendations are discussed in detail below.
4.4 – Assessment of the parties’ evidence and findings on contested facts
76The mother appeared composed at trial. Some aspects of her evidence were credible and reliable, while others were not. Where she was credible, her testimony was supported by documents and corroborated by the maternal grandmother and the OCL clinician, Mr. Reid.
77The mother was credible and reliable regarding the following:
a. Her challenging relationship with the father. Both parents acknowledged difficulties in their parenting relationship.
b. Her desire for a healthy parenting relationship with the father.
c. The father’s lack of respect for her. She submitted an AppClose message regarding CT’s cellphone use, in which the father wrote, “You’re a prostitute. If there’s anyone he isn’t safe with it’s you.” The grandmother testified that the father had called the mother a ‘loser’, ‘whore’ and ‘cunt’ on numerous occasions.
d. Her feelings of hopelessness after the father disclosed her past involvement in sex work to her parents and friends. This is supported by the OCL’s evidence and the mother's documentary evidence of her communications with the father.
e. Her concerns about the children learning about her past work as a sex worker.
f. Her concerns regarding CT’s cellphone safety. She discovered inappropriate messages on his phone, including nude images of male genitalia. It was later determined that CT was communicating with an adult in the U.S.A. When she raised the issue with the father, he responded with insults and focused on the return of CT’s cellphone, calling her ‘prostitute’ multiple times.
g. The father’s inability to remain child focused. When she raised concerns about parenting, he diverted the conversation to personal insults. For example, when she addressed CT’s coughing, possibly related to his smoking, he responded:
Me bonging three times a day has nothing to do with CT’s chronic coughing and for your information I quit bongs last week so you can rest easy on that. He lives in your mother’s filthy home. Maybe it’s mold in his lungs ..
78The mother was neither credible nor reliable regarding the following:
a. She indirectly accused the father of causing her failure to receive the CCB in recent years. She claimed she was not receiving payments because ‘someone else’ notified the Canada Revenue Agency that the children were not primarily residing with her. She last received a CCB payment in 2023. However, she has not filed her taxes, which is required for eligibility. The father provided evidence that a caregiver must file their own tax return to maintain CCB eligibility.
b. She minimized her involvement in conflict, as shown by the following evidence:
i. Her attempt to call E to testify reflects poor judgment and her contribution to the conflict.
ii. The father requested the children’s passports months before his planned travel in March 2025. She stated that the passports had expired and needed to be renewed. The parties’ conversations and the OCL clinician’s mediation efforts indicate that the mother was not taking prompt steps to obtain the passports.
iii. The mother refused to provide the children’s health cards to the father as recently as December 2025, claiming the documents had ‘mysteriously disappeared’ in her home.
79The maternal grandmother’s evidence was credible and reliable, as follows:
a. Her evidence regarding parental conflict was in harmony with other evidence provided at this trial.
b. Her evidence regarding parenting challenges was consistent with other undisputed evidence. She testified that she wished the parents were more agreeable in their arrangements. Both parents admitted they struggled to agree on issues relating to the children.
c. Her evidence was unbiased. She stated that her comments regarding the need for both parents to remain committed to the children applied to both parents.
d. She identified the parents’ challenges in a non-judgmental manner. When asked about her perception of the father, she responded, “I think he is a fine fellow… I can’t say I dislike him, and I can’t say I like him.” She noted both positive and negative aspects of the father.
e. She clearly distinguished between events she witnessed firsthand and those she did not. She testified that she did not witness incidents of family violence between the parents, only ‘the aftermath.’
f. She candidly described her concerns about the parties’ conflict and its impact on the children.
g. Her description of the father’s behaviour as extremely rude, crude, and using horrific language against her was supported by the OCL’s evidence.
h. Her evidence of the mother’s poor relationship with her sister was supported by the mother’s own testimony.
80The father appeared composed at trial. Some aspects of his evidence were credible, while others were not. Where he was credible, his testimony was supported by documents and corroborated by other witnesses.
81The father was credible regarding the following:
a. His parenting challenges with the mother.
b. Ongoing conflict between the parties.
c. His love and affection for the children. This was supported by the OCL’s evidence.
d. His parenting supports. This was also supported by the OCL’s evidence.
e. His relationship with the maternal grandmother. He testified that they were civil towards each other.
f. His concerns regarding the mother’s ability to parent the children without the assistance of the maternal grandmother.
82The father was not credible regarding:
a. Certain aspects of his evidence were internally inconsistent:
i. In his trial affidavit, he accused the mother of training the children to manipulate others. During cross-examination, he retracted the statement and explained the inconsistency as arising from a different interpretation.
ii. He described the mother as a skilled manipulator who could not be trusted and had manipulated the children. However, during cross-examination, he stated that he trusted her parenting.
iii. The father testified that there had never been incidents of physical violence between him and the mother. However, in his trial affidavit, he described kicking at the door lock to enter their unit after an argument, resulting in the mother being struck on the wrist and requiring medical treatment.
b. His allegations that the mother has substance misuse issues involving alcohol and non-prescribed drugs were not credible. No evidence supported this claim, and the maternal grandmother refuted it.
c. His allegations that the mother left the children “days on end” at the grandmother’s home were not supported. The grandmother testified that she cared for the grandchildren during the day at the mother's request and disagreed with the father’s claim.
d. His allegations that the mother exposed the children to sex work were unsubstantiated. During cross-examination, he admitted there was no evidence of such exposure.
e. The circumstances leading to the loss of the child’s daycare subsidy. The mother applied for a subsidy for before and after-school care when the children were young. The father jeopardized the subsidy by failing to follow the required protocol, leading to fees he refused to pay. A temporary consent Order of Honourable J. O’Connell, dated May 6, 2022, directed him not to pick up the children before 3:30 p.m. on Fridays and Tuesdays “in order to ensure that there are no fees charged nor any negative implications to the daycare subsidy entitlement.” Despite this, he testified that he was unaware of anything that would have affected the subsidy.
f. The father admitted during cross-examination that CT has been a member of Union Elite basketball club since 2023. Basketball practice is in the Durham region. When questioned about not taking CT to his practice all summer in 2025, he stated that he would need to check his records.
g. The father was not sincere regarding his evidence about his criticism of the mother:
i. He testified that he acknowledges using inappropriate language in his text messages to the mother, and he takes responsibility. However, the evidence at this trial shows that he continues to do so.
ii. In his trial affidavit, he admitted to referring to the mother’s past involvement in sex work in a derogatory way and took responsibility for that. In the same paragraph, he goes on to say that it frustrates him infinitely that “she can do something so societally unacceptable.”
iii. The father accused the mother of relying on the maternal grandmother for help. However, Ms. Glaholt’s report notes that the paternal grandmother and paternal aunt provide significant levels of childcare for the children during the summer months (during the father’s parenting time). He appears to launch attacks against the mother without properly assessing his own situation.
83The court found the evidence of Mr. Reid, the OCL clinician, to be balanced. He outlined the parents’ strengths and challenges and did not minimize either parent’s relationship with the children. As discussed below, the court had concerns about certain opinions he expressed and positions he took.
84The court finds that the parties have engaged in extensive conflict since their separation. This evidentiary record is fraught with examples of conflict and an inability to coordinate regarding issues impacting the children:
a. Mr. Reid described the conflict between the parties as exhausting.
b. The mother described her conflict with the father as follows:
i. Their fights have always been explosive.
ii. She acknowledges her involvement in the conflict.
iii. She is frustrated that parenting discussions often escalate to personal insults or dismissive remarks from the father.
iv. The parties do not have a cooperative relationship.
v. The father acts independently, even when his actions affect the children.
iv. The father has shouted at her at school events, drawing public attention.
v. The father has utilized her history in sex work to undermine her.
c. The father described his parenting relationship with the mother as follows:
i. The mother is a skilled manipulator.
ii. Both parties treat each other poorly. They have yelled at each other and been extremely unkind.
iii. The verbal and emotional mistreatment is mutual.
iv. He claims the mother has provoked him during arguments.
v. He acknowledges that the children do not want their parents to argue.
vi. He admits to using inappropriate language in his text messages.
vii. Both parties contribute to the conflict and negative language.
viii. Mr. Reid (OCL clinician) seemed to dislike his honesty, which the father acknowledges has contributed to unpleasant communications with the mother over the years.
ix. The mother knows how to push his buttons.
x. The mother says inappropriate things to and in the presence of the children. Her outbursts frighten them.
xi. The mother blocked him from CT’s TikTok account.
xii. He claims the mother has prevented the children from attending events with his extended family.
d. The parties have been involved with the police and the Children’s Aid Society.
e. Due to ongoing conflict, the parties attend separate meetings with the children’s school.
f. The parties have disagreed about CT’s basketball practice and payment of related fees.
g. CT’s basketball coach and other parents are now aware of the ongoing conflict between the parties.
h. The parties have disagreed about the children’s diet.
i. The parties have argued about travel, travel documents, health cards, and CT’s cellphone use.
j. The mother called the father a druggie.
k. The father accuses the mother of not properly dressing the children.
l. The father alleges that the mother schedules medical appointments for the children during his work hours and shares medical information selectively.
m. The father declined to provide a letter for the Canada Revenue Agency confirming the children’s residential arrangements, which the mother needed to address CCB payments.
n. The grandmother testified that both parties admitted to incidents of family violence and conflict, which caused her significant concern.
o. The maternal grandmother testified that she wishes the parents would be more cooperative and respectful toward each other.
85The court finds that communication between the parents is hostile and volatile. The father has tormented the mother about her past work as a sex worker:
a. He called her ‘whore’, ‘cunt’, ‘loser’ and ‘prostitute.’
b. He testified that the mother needs to stop ‘hooking’ and get a real job.
c. He referred to her as “some washed up hooker” in a text message.
d. When the mother asked him about child support, he responded, “You should shut your mouth ya drug addict hooker get a real like an a real job leave me alone”
e. When discussing one of the children’s medical appointments on May 23, 2025, the father wrote, “Stop hooking an get a real job go damn it this kids deserve a mother.” When she asked him to use appropriate language when speaking to her, he doubled down, writing “..you claiming you can’t get a real job because of me is insane. Just do it. Stop hooking… is there a better word you’d rather me use then hook?”
f. Mr. Reid testified that the father continued with his accusations regarding sex work, even after the mother had communicated that she had ceased her involvement in sex work.
86The mother demonstrated the following parenting strengths:
a. She loves the children, and they love her.
b. She has the support of the maternal grandmother. They reside in the same home.
c. The children’s school principal described her as a very involved mother.
d. She is genuinely concerned about CT’s cellphone and internet safety.
87The mother demonstrated the following parenting challenges:
a. Her limited engagement with professionals is concerning. The first OCL report was discontinued because she did not actively participate in the investigation.
b. Ms. Glaholt’s report indicates the mother may have made inappropriate comments to the children regarding the father’s partner, K.
c. The court accepts the father’s claim that, after she learned of his relationship with her friend K in 2022, it became challenging to make parenting arrangements. She became hostile toward him.
d. She did not allow the children to attend their cousin’s 16^th^ birthday in July 2024, stating she would be in Niagara that weekend. The father testified that the children were not taken to Niagara.
e. On July 12, 2023, Justice M. Pawagi heard an urgent motion brought by the father after the mother failed to comply with June 9, 2023, order (regarding the summer schedule). The motion was resolved on consent.
f. When the father requested copies of the children’s birth certificates, she stated the documents were missing from her home. She accused him of “fighting over foolishness” despite his reasonable request for identification documents.
g. In or around November 2024, the father requested the children’s passports for travel, but she did not cooperate.
88The father demonstrated the following parenting strengths:
a. He began making voluntary child support payments of $1,000 per month in January 2020.
b. He shares a close and affectionate bond with the children, and their relationship is mutually loving.
c. Ms. Glaholt noted that the father was honest about his past struggles.
d. He has a strong support system that includes his partner K, co-workers, and extended family.
e. He has maintained stable employment.
89The father’s parenting challenges are detailed below.
90The court finds that the father’s negative view and derogatory comments toward the mother have impaired his ability to co-parent. His remarks are marked by sarcasm and contempt, demonstrating a lack of respect for the mother of his children:
a. Mr. Reid testified that during the OCL investigation, the father’s communication made it clear that he did not respect the mother. His interactions were harsh and abrupt.
b. Mr. Reid testified that the father’s manner of speaking about the mother was abysmal and abhorrent.
c. Ms. Glaholt noted in her report that the father continues to use the mother’s engagement in sex work against her, thereby causing harm. Mr. Reid testified that the father viewed the mother primarily as a sex worker.
d. The father testified that he is frustrated by the mother’s decision to do ‘something so societally unacceptable.’
e. He accused the mother of ‘dripping in designer but can’t afford pizza lunch.’
f. The mother testified that he jeopardized the children’s daycare subsidy by failing to follow the required protocol. In response, the father provided the following evidence in his trial affidavit:
I would note that the value of the Applicant's breast augmentation surgery two months ago alone, recently gifted by a client, much less her undisclosed income from her sex trade, would jeopardize her entitlement to a subsidy more than my picking the children up.
g. He stated that her work is primarily ‘nocturnal or weekend-based.’
h. When asked about a bruise allegedly observed on the mother’s arm by one of the children, the father testified that he did not cause it and that it was more likely to have come from one of her clients.
i. He described the mother as flighty and deliberately provocative.
91The court finds that the father’s weaponization of the mother’s past involvement in sex work against her constitutes family violence.
92The court finds that the father has acted in a manipulative manner regarding the parties’ parenting arrangements:
a. He threatened the mother with disclosing her involvement in sex work if she did not agree to his desired parenting arrangement. He sent the following messages to the mother:
You know what you can’t deny, your job. Act right or I’ll expose you to the world.
Are you prepared for me to put you on blast or are you gunna give me my fucking kids.
He went on to disclose her involvement in sex work to the maternal grandparents and the parties’ friends and acquaintances.
b. Beginning November 1, 2022, the father unilaterally reduced his monthly child support payments from $1,000 to $675.
c. In July 2025, the father unilaterally ceased child support payments.
d. In September 2025, when the mother requested child support via text, he responded that he would not pay because he had proposed a 'fifty-fifty' arrangement.
e. He paid the mother a lump sum child support amount of $2,000.00 on November 27, 2025, the first day of this trial. The amount was intended to cover the child support payments he had not made since unilaterally terminating support payments in July 2025. He was fully aware that this issue would be raised at trial.
f. During a dispute over the children’s passports in January 2025, the father threatened to withhold child support, stating, “My money won’t be seeing you till I get the passports I paid for in 2018..”
g. He unilaterally stopped contributing to CT’s representative basketball expenses due to disagreement with the location.
93The court finds that the father lacks insight into his behaviour:
a. The evidence of Mr. Reid was that the father continued with this behaviour towards the mother, even despite the warnings included in Ms. Glaholt’s discontinued report.
b. During cross-examination, he was asked whether he had sought any professional assistance, such as therapy, to address the parenting challenges. He responded that he is too busy with work and is a well-rounded individual.
c. He agreed during cross-examination that he did not prefer to pay child support to the mother.
94The court finds that there are limited examples of the parents agreeing on issues impacting the children, as follows:
a. The parties have been exercising a week about parenting schedule over the summer months since their separation.
b. The parties once disagreed on the implementation of their week about the summer parenting arrangement. They argued over whether the exchange should occur on Friday or Sunday. They finally agreed to have exchanges on Fridays at 4:00 p.m.
c. In 2021, the father took CA for a dental appointment with Danforth Dentistry without the mother’s knowledge. Danforth Dentistry then scheduled surgery at Michael Garron Hospital. The mother first became aware upon the hospital's call to her. Despite their disagreements over the scheduling of the appointments, the parties cooperated with CA’s dental surgery.
4.5– Primary residence and parenting time
95The mother seeks an order that the children reside primarily with her. She requests that the father maintain his current alternate-weekend visit schedule, with additional visits on Tuesdays.
96The father seeks a shared parenting schedule on a week about basis, with exchanges on Fridays.
97Mr. Roy Reid (OCL clinician) made the following recommendations:
a. The children should be in their father’s care each Monday and Tuesday.
b. The children should be in the mother’s care each Wednesday and Thursday.
c. The children will be in their parents’ care on alternating weekends commencing on Friday after school to Monday when they are returned to school.
d. The parties should employ the services of a parenting coordinator in response to any disagreements regarding the implementation of their parenting time.
98In Barendregt v. Grebliunis, 2022 SCC 22, 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”.
99An 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.
100The child CT expressed a desire to have more parenting time with his father. Mr. Reid stated that CT’s desire to spend more time with his father is borne out of what CT believes to be the right thing and the right schedule. CA was satisfied with the current schedule but did not understand how much time she spends with each parent.
101The father’s position is that a shared parenting arrangement is in the children’s best interests for the following reasons:
a. He was more involved with the children until the mother found out that he was in an intimate relationship with her friend, K, in 2022.
b. The mother has a demonstrated history of unilaterally trying to restrict his parenting time.
c. A week about schedule would provide the children with stability.
d. The children want to spend more time with him, as expressed by CT.
e. The current schedule was imposed on him when the children were very young.
f. His work supervisor will provide him with flexibility regarding his work hours.
g. He meets the children's needs in his home.
h. The OCL supports it.
102The mother’s position is that the current schedule is working for the children, for the following reasons:
a. Conflict between the parties will worsen if a shared parenting schedule is implemented.
b. The current schedule is working for the children.
c. The father’s current weekend schedule aligns with the weekends when E visits her father. This permits all three children to be in her home on the same weekends.
103In S.S. v R.S., 2021 ONSC 2137, at paragraphs 26 to 28, Justice Renu Mandhane stated “[a] human rights-based approach to the amended Divorce Act calls on the courts to recognize, respect and reflect each child as an individual distinct from their parents, and to empower children to be actors in their own destiny. In practice, it requires judges to probe into each child’s lived experience, to meaningfully consider their views and preferences, and to craft an order that promotes that child’s best interests and overall wellbeing.”
104Section 64 and clause 24(3)(e) of the Act requires the court, where possible, to take into consideration the views and preferences of the child to the extent that the child is able to express them.
105Children are now recognized as “full rights bearers” who merit society’s full protection: See Michel v Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 at para 77.
106In Decaen v. Decaen, 2013 ONCA 21 the Ontario Court of Appeal set out the following factors in assessing he weight to be given to a child’s wishes:
a) whether both parents are able to provide adequate care;
b) how clear and unambivalent the wishes are;
c) how informed the expression is;
d) the age of the child;
e) the child’s maturity level;
f) the strength of the wish;
g) the length of time the preference has been expressed for;
h) practicalities;
i) the influence of the parent(s) on the expressed wish or preference;
j) the overall context; and
k) the circumstances of the preferences from the child’s point of view.
107Many courts have followed the wishes of mature children in the child’s age range. The Court of Appeal in DeMelo v DeMelo, 2015 ONCA 598, found that children aged 15 and 13 were of sufficient age and maturity to warrant judicial respect for their positions. They were not forced to see their father against their wishes.
108In V.L. v M.L., 2019 ONSC 7367, the court respected the wishes of a 13-year-old not to have any contact with a parent.
109The court will give little weight to CT’s views, and will disregard Mr. Reid’s recommendation for a shared parenting arrangement, for the following reasons:
a. A shared parenting arrangement would likely increase conflict and instability.
b. The level of conflict between the parents is severe.
c. Mr. Reid’s recommendation is not supported by the evidence as follows:
i. He wrote in his report that the children should be afforded the opportunity to spend more time with their father, and thus, the recommendation will be for the children to have a more balanced parenting schedule beyond the current one. However, immediately following the above statement, he wrote that:
There is no indication that (the father) will amend his way of communication, and (Mr. Reid) remains concerned about the impact this may have on the children.
His position is contradicted by his evidence.
ii. Mr. Reid’s conclusions are contradicted by the evidence of Ms. Glaholt who prepared the first OCL report. Ms. Glaholt concluded that:
(The father)’s impulsivity and temper appear to interfere with his ability to co-parent successfully.
(The father)’s strongly held views of (the mother)’s employment in sex work weaken his potential for effective co-parenting.
iii. Mr. Reid admitted that he did not discuss his recommendations with Ms. Glaholt, the author of the first OCL report. It was unclear why the OCL office did not assign the same clinician to complete both reports to ensure consistency.
iv. Mr. Reid described the father’s conduct toward the mother as ‘abysmal and abhorrent.’ Given this assessment, it is unlikely the father could co-parent successfully.
v. Mr. Reid described the conflict between the parents as exhausting. Shared parenting requires a high level of cooperation and communication. During cross-examination by Ms. Sinclair, Mr. Reid admitted that the parents face significant communication challenges.
vi. In his evidence, the father agreed that a shared parenting schedule would require cooperation between the parents.
vii. Mr. Reid stated in his report that he 'hopes' the father will become more reflective about his conduct. However, he also testified that he does not believe the father will change.
viii. The parents have not exercised a shared parenting arrangement during school days, since their separation in 2019.
ix. The father admitted during cross-examination that his requested schedule would be a significant change for the children.
x. Mr. Reid’s recommendation aligns with CT’s wish for more time with the father. However, it does not address CA’s satisfaction with the current schedule or how CA’s views were taken into account.
xi. Mr. Reid’s suggestion to appoint a parenting coordinator in the event of disagreements may be problematic. The mother has limited financial resources, receives social benefits, and is not currently receiving the children’s CCB. Both parents have a history of noncooperation with professionals. The first OCL report was discontinued due to the mother’s lack of cooperation, and the father has experienced difficulties in working with the children’s physician and school principal.
110In Knapp v. Knapp 2021 ONCA 305, the court stated that a trial judge is not required to accept the OCL recommendations.
111The court finds that it is in the children’s best interests to remain in the mother’s primary residence, and for the father to maintain the current parenting schedule (with some adjustments), for the following reasons:
a. The parties’ parenting relationship is marked by intense conflict, volatility, and explosive interactions.
b. The children have resided primarily with their mother since 2019. Attempting a significant change to their lives through a shared parenting arrangement risks further destabilizing them.
c. The father has not had primary care of the children during the school year since the parties’ separation.
d. The OCL testified that the children appear to be thriving.
e. It is important that their schedule aligns with their sister E’s schedule.
f. The father testified that the current pick up/drop off has been working well.
112The court will grant the mother’s request for the children’s primary residence. It will order that the father’s regular schedule remain the same. However, it will order that on all Tuesdays (for his regular schedule), the father will have an overnight visit, with pick up from school and drop off at school on Wednesday morning, for the following reasons:
a. It is important to minimize contact between the parties. School pick ups and drop offs will eliminate or minimize contact during the school year.
b. CT expressed wanting to spend more time with the father.
113The parties and the OCL support maintaining the current week about summer schedule. The court will maintain it.
114The court will also provide a shared parenting schedule for the children’s spring (March) and winter breaks.
4.6 – Decision-making responsibility
4.6.1 – Legal considerations
115The court has reviewed the provisions under subsections 24(2) and 24(3) of the Act.
116A parallel parenting order in which each parent is allocated his or her exclusive sphere of decision-making still requires some ability of the parents to communicate in the face of inevitable gaps in even the most detailed order. See: Montforts v. Clarke, 2019 ONCA 723.
117Parallel parenting in high conflict cases was rejected in Ruffudeen v. Coutts, 2016 ONSC 3359 and Nloga v. Ndjouga, 2015 ONSC 5925 (S.C.J.).
118In K.H. v. T.K.R., 2013 ONCJ 418, Justice S.B. Sherr summarized the relevant legal principles as follows:
45Parallel-parenting orders can take the form of “divided parallel parenting”, where each party is given separate, defined areas of parental decision-making, independent of the other; or alternatively, “full parallel parenting”, where both parents are given the right to make major decisions respecting the child in all major areas of parental authority while the child is with them, without the consent of the other parent. See: Hensel v. Hensel 2007 CarswellOnt 7010 (Ont. S.C.J.); Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 6451.
46Parallel-parenting orders have been made in high-conflict cases, particularly in cases where:
a) One parent is unjustifiably excluding the other from the children’s lives and can’t be trusted to exercise sole custody responsibly. See: Andrade v. Kennelly 2007 Carswell 8271 Garrow v Woycheshen, 2008 ONCJ 686; Madott v Macorig, 2010 ONSC 5458, [2010] OJ No 4371 (SCJ); Cooke v. Cooke, 2012 NSSC 73; Bushell v. Griffiths 2013CarswellNS 240 (N.S.S.C.), and Izyuk v. Bilousov, supra, (where the court stated that it must still be satisfied that it is dealing with equally competent parents whose lack of cooperation does not affect the best interests of the child (par. 507)).
b) Where the parents are incompatible with one another, but are both capable parents and agree on major issues. See: Hajkova v Romany, 2011 ONSC 2850, 2011 ONSC 2850; Scervino v Scervino 2011 ONSC 4246, 2011 ONSC 4246 (SCJ). In this line of cases, the conflict between the parents is not so high that it will interfere with responsible decisions being made about the children and the parents appear to be willing to put the best interests of their children first. See: Moyer v. Douglas [2006] OJ No 5124 (Ont. S.C.J.); Ursic v. Ursic (2006), 32 R.F.L. (6^th^) 23 (Ont C.A.).
47In Baker‑Warren v. Denault, 2009 NSSC 59, the court held that a parallel-parenting regime is usually reserved for those few cases where neither sole custody, nor cooperative joint custody, will meet the best interests of the child.
48Courts have found that parallel-parenting orders will not meet the best interests of the children where the conflict is too high to make such an order work. See: Roy v. Roy, 2006 CarswellOnt 2898 (C.A.); Mo v. Ma, 2012 NSSC 159 and Graham v Bruto, [2007] O.J. No 656 (Ont. S.C.J.) aff’d at 2008 ONCA 260 (where the trial judge found that a joint custody and parallel-parenting regime made little sense since it would put the “children in the middle of conflict every few days” and “the parents' inability to cooperate in such cases may result in frequent visits to court which would present a greater opportunity for conflict”).
49In V.K. v. T.S., ONSC 4305, Justice Deborah Chappel conducted a thorough review of the case law and set out in paragraph 96 the following factors to consider when determining whether to make a parallel-parenting order:
a) The strength of the parties’ ties to the child, and the general level of involvement of each parent in the child’s parenting and life. In almost all cases where parallel parenting has been ordered, both parents have consistently played a significant role in the child’s life on all levels.
b) The relative parenting abilities of each parent, and their capacity to make decisions that are in the child’s best interests. Where one parent is clearly more competent, responsible and attentive than the other, this may support a sole custody arrangement. On the other hand, where there is extensive conflict between the parties, but both are equally competent and loving parents and are able at times to focus jointly on the best interests of the child, a parallel parenting regime may be ordered.
c) Evidence of alienation by one parent. If the alienating parent is an otherwise loving, attentive, involved, competent and very important to the child, a parallel parenting arrangement may be considered appropriate as a means of safeguarding the other party’s role in the child’s life. On the other hand, if the level of alienation is so significant that a parallel parenting order will not be effective in achieving a balance of parental involvement and will be contrary to the child’s best interests, a sole custody order may be more appropriate.
d) Where both parties have engaged in alienating behaviour, but the evidence indicates that one of them is more likely to foster an ongoing relationship between the child and the other parent, this finding may tip the scale in favour of a sole custody order.
e) The extent to which each parent is able to place the needs of the child above their own needs and interests. If one of the parties is unable to focus on the child’s needs above their own, this may result in a sole custody order, even if that parent is very involved with the child and otherwise able to meet the child’s day to day needs.
f) The existence of any form of abuse, including emotional abuse or undermining behaviour, which could impede the objective of achieving a balance of roles and influence through parallel parenting.
50I would add four more considerations that I believe are relevant to a parallel-parenting analysis.
51The first consideration is for the court to evaluate the likelihood of one category of decision-making conflicting with another (the spillover effect) and the ability of the parents to navigate those conflicts. For instance, it might appear on the surface that there is a clear delineation between medical and educational decisions. However, that might not be the case with two parents determined to fight and perpetuate conflict. If a school recommends speech-language therapy or therapeutic counseling to take place at school, high-conflict parents will likely fight over whether these are medical or educational decisions.
52The second consideration is whether the parents have the ability to navigate scheduling conflicts between activities and appointments. Since they are each acting independently in their own sphere of decision making, what happens when both soccer practice and math tutoring are scheduled for the same time? How likely is one parent to schedule a dentist appointment at the same time as a child’s playoff hockey game?
53It may be possible to anticipate, define and create priorities for many of the potential conflicts regarding both the delineation of decision-making and the scheduling of activities and appointments, but a court needs to carefully consider whether this is really possible given the dynamics of the parents in the case before it. The court might just be developing a new battleground for the parties with a parallel-parenting order – a battleground that will create more conflict and instability for the children.
54The third consideration is the geographical distance between the parties. It is one thing to carve off an area of decision-making for the non-residential parent, but the court has to ask whether the residential parent (the parent with whom the children primarily reside) will logistically be able to implement those decisions. Decisions by the non-residential parent are easier to implement if the parties reside close to one another. If the parties live far apart, the residential parent may not be able to take the children to a doctor, tutor, counselor, school or activity (depending on the area of decision-making) chosen by the non- residential parent. If the parents cannot communicate well, the geographic distance between them can create significant conflict and adversely affect the children.
55The fourth consideration is about family dynamics. The court must evaluate if a parallel-parenting order is more likely to de-escalate or inflame the parents’ conflict.
56A parallel-parenting order can be a useful tool for settlement. The risks associated with it (as set out above) may be outweighed by the benefits of the parties avoiding further litigation and coming to an agreement that both can accept – an agreement where both parties are fully engaged as parents. With parents who sincerely want to be involved with their children for their children’s benefit, such an order will likely have the benefit of de-escalating conflict. The children, in such cases, will receive the benefit of two involved parents.
57However, a sad reality of family law is that there is a certain group of parents who seek such orders for the purpose of asserting control over their former spouse and children. These parents tend to be rights-based, overly litigious, unbending and the best interests of their children can be secondary considerations. For such parents, a parallel-parenting order can be a recipe for disaster. It can become a springboard for that parent to assert control and make the lives of their former partner and children much more difficult.
58All of these considerations lead this court to the conclusion that courts should be very careful before granting parallel-parenting orders in high-conflict cases. They are rife with potential complications that could have the inadvertent effect of escalating conflict and destabilizing children. There is also the risk that important decisions regarding children will not be made in a timely manner if there is a conflict over who is entitled to make that decision. It is not in the best interests of children to paralyze the decision-making process about them.
59Logic dictates that these risks grow exponentially in a high-conflict case if a party is seeking a “full parallel-parenting model” order. There are many child-related decisions that require a high-level of parental communication. Important medical and academic needs for children need to be coordinated. The treatment of any special needs of children must be coordinated. A proposed parenting model where each parent acts fully independently of the other in making these important decisions (where the parents have little or no ability to effectively communicate about the children) needs to be approached with extreme caution.
4.6.2 – Analysis
119The mother seeks an order for sole decision-making responsibility.
120The father seeks split decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final decision-making responsibility over medical decisions in odd-numbered years and over educational decisions in even-numbered years. He seeks to have final decision-making responsibility for medical decisions in even-numbered years and over educational decisions in odd-numbered years.
121Mr. Roy Reid made the following recommendations:
a. The parties should make reasonable efforts to consult with one another regarding any major decisions affecting the welfare of the children, but not limited to their education, health and religion.
b. The mother should have final decision-making authority if the parties are unable to arrive at major decisions.
c. The parties should retain the services of a parenting coordinator ‘in response to any disagreements regarding the implementation of their current decision-making arrangement.’
122The mother argues that sole decision-making responsibility in her favour is in the child’s best interests, because:
a. The parents have a challenging relationship.
b. The father has waged an incessant war against her.
c. The children deserve stability.
123The father asserts that his proposal would:
a. Shift the focus away from the parties to the children.
b. Ensure both parents are involved in making significant decisions for the children.
c. Reduce or eliminate direct contact when making decisions for the children.
124The OCL’s position assumes both parties can jointly make significant decisions for the children. However, the evidence shows ongoing conflict, disagreements, and a lack of cooperation between the parents.
125The OCL’s proposal is contradictory. Mr. Reid recommended that the mother have final decision-making authority in the event of disagreements and that the parties retain a parenting coordinator to resolve disputes. These recommendations are inconsistent and may lead to further conflict.
126The father’s proposal for splitting decision-making responsibility is not in the children’s best interests, for the following reasons:
a. The conflict between the parties is far too high to make the father’s proposal workable.
b. The extent and nature of the family violence by the father is concerning and would likely increase the mother’s vulnerability in a split decision-making arrangement.
c. It would escalate the conflict between the parties.
d. The parties lack mutual trust, as shown by neither parent seeking joint decision-making responsibility.
e. The parties have not agreed on any major decisions impacting the children.
f. It will destabilize the children.
g. It requires cooperation. In Warcop v. Warcop, the court stated that:
The best interests of the child will obviously not be fostered if the parents are unable to communicate and cooperate in making decisions that affect the child. However, a standard of perfection is not required, and is obviously not achievable. 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. [para 94]
127The court finds that granting the father decision-making responsibility, even on a limited basis, is not in the children’s best interest, for the following reasons:
a. The father has significantly contributed to family conflict. When his preferences are not met, he threatens the mother.
b. The father has demonstrated unreliability, as shown by his failure to comply with the requirements of the children’s daycare subsidy, which resulted in the loss of the subsidy.
c. The court is concerned that the father may use decision-making authority to overturn important decisions affecting the children. Although CT has played representative basketball since 2022, the father refused to contribute his share of the expense in 2025.
d. The father has a poor relationship with professionals involved with the children. His conduct demonstrates a lack of maturity:
i. In July 2023, the CAS had difficulty reaching the mother for a home visit. When the CAS worker informed the father, he responded, “What the fuck do you mean you don’t work weekends…why the fuck can’t you go to her house this weekend and look for her,” and then hung up on the worker.
ii. The children’s school principal reported to Ms. Glaholt that on two or three occasions, the father became very upset with the school administration. He accused the principal of not caring about children after being informed that the children could not re-enroll at Blantyre School due to eligibility issues.
iii. He accused Mr. Reid of accepting the mother’s ‘manipulations of the narrative.’
iv. During cross-examination, he minimized a dispute with the children’s previous doctor, referring to it as an annoyance. He admitted to becoming upset in the doctor’s office when he did not want to hear the doctor’s opinion, collected his documents, and left.
e. The court agrees with Ms. Sinclair (the mother’s counsel) that the father has used a ‘carrot and stick’ approach regarding issues affecting the children. He has acted manipulatively, as discussed in detail above.
128The court finds that an order for sole decision-making responsibility in favour of the mother is in the children’s best interests, for the following reasons:
a. The children have resided primarily with the mother since the parties’ separation.
b. Mr. Reid testified that the mother has made decisions on the children's behalf, and there is no evidence she has misused this responsibility.
c. Mr. Reid testified that the mother should continue her role as decision-maker without interference from the father.
d. The mother is meeting the children’s needs in her home.
e. The mother has taken the children to their medical appointments. The father admitted during cross-examination that he has not done so.
f. The mother has kept the father informed regarding medical emergencies.
g. The mother has kept the father informed regarding medical issues relating to the children.
129The court will require both parents’ involvement regarding the following incidents of parenting:
a. The application for or renewal of the children’s passports, health cards and other official government-issued identification documents. The mother acted unreasonably when she failed to cooperate with the father’s request to renew the children’s expired passports. The father also acted unreasonably when he refused to provide the mother with the children’s birth certificates after he obtained his own copies.
b. International travel. The mother acted unreasonably when she demanded that the father purchase the children’s tickets first before providing him with their passports.
130Both parents agree that communicating through AppClose parenting application is working well. The court will order them to maintain the communication.
131The parties' conflict has been severe. The court finds it necessary to provide the parties with some guidance going forward to help them rebuild a positive parenting relationship. The parties must understand, recognize and consider the following:
a. They will each remain in their children’s lives.
b. The children do not want conflict between them.
c. Their conflict is having a negative impact on their children.
d. They must recognize that even with a detailed parenting plan or order, future situations will arise that require cooperation and collaboration. They should remain flexible and respond reasonably to each other's requests.
e. They must consider obtaining education on children’s cellphone use and internet safety.
f. They must continue to utilize and respect each other's support networks.
g. The father must acknowledge that there is no evidence that the mother’s history as a sex worker has impacted her ability to meet the children’s needs.
h. The father must stop viewing the mother solely in relation to her past involvement in sex work. She is the mother of his children.
i. The mother must acknowledge that her former friend, K, is now in a committed relationship with the father and has an important role as a stepparent to the children.
j. The father must stop monitoring the mother’s social media accounts.
k. Each party must consider engaging in counselling that focuses on the impact of family violence on families.
l. The father must consider individual counselling. Mr. Reid testified that the father has not addressed his conduct towards the mother.
m. The parties must continue to communicate through AppClose. The mother should use this platform consistently.
n. The mother must engage in individual therapy to address challenges related to the impact of her past involvement in sex work.
o. The father must support CT’s basketball by taking him to practice and respecting the mother’s genuine efforts to support CT.
Part Five – Child support
132The mother seeks support for the two children, retroactive to July 1, 2019.
133The father agreed to pay child support commencing on July 1, 2019 (per his draft order for trial). However, he sought an adjustment. In Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, the court set out the framework to be applied to retroactive child support claims.
134It is not necessary to conduct a Colucci analysis in this case, as the father agrees to the July 1, 2019, commencement date.
135The father has been employed by ESA Acoustics and Drywall since April 2022.
136The father seeks a credit of $58,281.35 for support amounts previously paid. The mother’s position is that the father should receive a credit of $49,923.00 for support payments made. There is an $8,358.35 difference between the two amounts provided by the parties.
137In her evidence, the mother provided a detailed calculation of the father's child support payments for each year since separation.
138The father provided neither evidence nor calculations in support of the amount he is seeking to be credited for support payments previously made. The mother acknowledged that she received $2,000.00 from him on the eve of the trial.
139The mother’s calculations were not challenged by the father. The court will rely on the mother’s calculations for support payments previously made.
140The following table shows the father’s undisputed income, the guideline child support amount, and the total child support for each year:
| Year | Father’s income | Monthly guideline amount for two children | Total child support for the year | Total Payments Made by the father |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | $76,569.00 | $1,162.19 (6 months) | $6,973.14 | $0 |
| 2020 | $79,680.00 | $1,205.93 (12 months) | $14,471.16 | $10,000.00 |
| 2021 | Disputed | |||
| 2022 | $50,914.00 | $770.72 (12 months) | $9,248.64 | $9,572.00 |
| 2023 | $66,828.00 | $1,019.00 (12 months) | $12,228 | $7,074.00 |
| 2024 | $57,753.00 | $880.30 (12 months) | $10,563.60 | $7,675.00 |
| 2025 Jan – Sept 30 | $57,753.00 | $880.30 (9 months) | $7,922.70 | $3,602.00 |
| 2025: Oct 1-Nov 30 | $57,753.00 | $873.95 (2 months) (New Guideline amount) | $1,747.90 | $2,000.00 |
| Total | $63,155.14 | $39,923.00 |
141The parties dispute the father’s income for the year 2021. His line 150 income per his 2021 notice of assessment is $33,703.00. The mother seeks to impute his income at $50,000.00 for purposes of support calculation.
142Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines) permits the court to impute income to a party as it considers appropriate.
143The jurisprudence for imputation of income sets out the following:
a) 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 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. See: Drygala v. Pauli, [2002] O.J. No. 3731(Ont. C.A.).
b) The 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:
i) Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?
ii) If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs?
iii) If not, what income is appropriately imputed?
c) The onus is on the party seeking to impute income to the other party to establish that the other party is intentionally unemployed or under-employed. The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made. See: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, [2009] O.J. No. 1552. (Ont. C.A.).
d) Once 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.
e) As a general rule, separated parents have an obligation to financially support their children and they cannot avoid that obligation by a self-induced reduction of income. See: Thompson v. Gilchrist, 2012 ONSC 4137; DePace v. Michienzi, [2000] O.J. No. 453, (Ont. Fam. Ct.).
f) The court must have regard to the payor’s capacity to earn income in light of such factors as employment history, age, education, skills, health, available employment opportunities and the standard of living enjoyed during the parties’ relationship. The court looks at the amount of income the party could earn if he or she worked to capacity. See: Lawson v. Lawson.
g) The court can also impute income where the evidence respecting income is not credible for any other reason. See: Heard v. Heard, 2014 ONCA 196 (C.A.), at paras. 33-35; Gostevskikh v. Gostevskikh, 2018 BCSC 1441 (S.C.).
144The father’s evidence regarding his 2021 income is summarized as follows:
a. The amount of $33,703.00 reflects his actual earnings.
b. The Covid 19 pandemic impacted his earning capacity.
c. There was a time when he got infected with the COVID 19 virus and stayed home for 10 working days.
d. There were other times when he stayed home after he came into contact with an infected individual.
145The mother argues that the father was capable of earning a higher income in 2021, and that he failed to provide details of the steps he took to address his low earnings.
146The court does not accept the mother’s position regarding the father’s 2021 income. The court accepts the father’s evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic affected his earning capacity. Further, the father’s position was not challenged during his cross-examination at trial. The court will use his actual earnings of $33,703.00 for purposes of support calculation. The following chart illustrates the relevant support calculations for 2021:
| Year | Father’s income | Monthly guideline amount for two children | Total child support for the year | Total Payments made |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | $33,703.00 | $512.98 | $6,155.76 | $10,000.00 |
147The following is a calculation of child support amounts owing from July 1, 2019, to November 30, 2025:
Total Guideline amounts from July 1, 2019, to November 30, 2025: $63,155.14 + $6,155.76
- $69,310.90
Total payments made by the father:
- $49,923.00
Child support owing from July 1, 2019, to November 30, 2025:
- $69,110.90 - $49,923.00 = $19,387.90
148The father proposed to pay child support arrears at the rate of $250.00 per month until the full amount owing is paid. His proposal is reasonable. The court will grant his request.
Part Six – Section 7 expenses
149The mother seeks the following orders regarding section 7 expenses:
a. The parties shall share CT’s representative basketball fees and all other section 7 expenses equally between them. Any medical expense not covered under either party’s benefits plan, where applicable, shall be equally shared between them. Neither party shall incur an expense without first canvassing same with the other party. Neither party shall unreasonably withhold their consent to such expenses. The incurrence of medical/dental expenses shall be determined by the applicable treating professional.
b. By December 31, 2025, the father shall pay his outstanding 50% portion of CT’s Fall 2025 representative fees. The Respondent shall pay same directly to the league and need not go through the mother. He shall provide her with confirmation once paid.
150The major section 7 expense currently is CT’s representative basketball. CT has been enrolled in representative basketball since 2022 and has played basketball since 2021. The OCL reported that he enjoys playing basketball.
151The cost of CT’s representative basketball is $2,500.00 per season (for a total of $5,000.00 per year, representing two seasons).
152The mother’s evidence is that the father abruptly decided to stop paying CT’s basketball fees. The parties previously agreed to share the expense equally in 2022 when CT started representative basketball. As of the trial date, the father had not paid his $1,150.00 half portion of CT’s 2025 basketball fee.
153In his evidence, the father states that CA should also be eligible to enroll in one extra-curricular activity.
154The father’s position is that the mother’s income should be imputed at $55,000.00 per year. He argues that the mother is still involved in the sex industry and is not disclosing all her income.
155It is to be noted that even if the court were to accept the father’s position regarding the mother’s income, the mother is not seeking a proportionate contribution towards section 7 expenses. She is only seeking that the parties share the expenses equally.
156The father’s current income of $57,753.00 remains higher than the $55,000.00 income he seeks to impute to the mother.
157The mother did not file her personal income taxes for 2023 and 2024. She earned $39,350 in 2020, $24,333 in 2021, and $19,667 in 2022. She is currently receiving Ontario Works social benefits.
158The court would have imputed the current Ontario general minimum wage amount of $36,608 to the mother for purposes of her section 7 contribution, for the following reasons:
a. The court accepts the mother’s evidence that she is no longer involved in sex work.
b. She has deliberately failed to file her personal income taxes for the years 2023 and 2024. It is difficult to assess her income without the income tax information.
c. She testified that she is working towards finding employment.
d. The father’s disclosures to the public regarding her past engagement in sex work may have contributed to her challenges in terms of securing employment and moving forward with her life. The father’s conduct may have impacted her ability to find employment.
159The father does not dispute that CT’s representative basketball is a section 7 expense. He only disputes the location of the representative basketball. He prefers that CT join a club in Scarborough and not in the Durham region.
160The court will grant the mother’s request that the parties equally share Section 7 expenses. It will also order the father to contribute towards CT’s current basketball season and past basketball expenses not paid.
161The court will also order the parties to contribute equally to two extracurricular activities for CA.
Part Seven – Conclusion
162A final order to go on the following terms:
Primary residence, decision-making responsibility and incidents of parenting
a. The mother shall have final decision-making responsibility for the children.
b. The children shall have their primary residence with the mother.
c. Either parent shall require the other parent’s consent when travelling with the children outside of Canada. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
d. Either parent may apply for or renew the children’s passports, health cards and other official government-issued identification documents. The other parent’s consent and signature shall be required, not to be unreasonably withheld.
e. The mother shall be the custodian of the children’s health cards. She shall, forthwith, provide the father with copies of the health cards upon renewal.
f. The mother shall be the custodian of the children’s passports. She shall promptly provide the father with the passports upon request when he is travelling internationally with the children.
g. Each parent has the right to consult with and obtain information directly from the children’s teachers, doctors or other professionals about the health, education and welfare of the children.
The father’s regular parenting time
h. The father shall have parenting time with the children as follows:
i. Alternate weekends, with pick up at school on Friday and drop off at school on Monday.
ii. Every Tuesday overnight, with pick up from school and drop off at school on Wednesday.
iii. If there is a statutory holiday on the Monday of his parenting time weekend, the father will return the children to school on Tuesday morning.
iv. If the children are not in school on the Friday preceding the father’s weekend, he shall pick up the children on Thursday after school.
Mother’s Day and Father’s Day
i. If not otherwise with the mother on that day, the children shall be with her on Mother’s Day from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
j. If not otherwise with the father on that day, the children shall be with him on Father’s Day from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Winter break
k. The parties shall share parenting time equally with the children during the two-week winter break. In odd-numbered years, the children shall spend the first week of the break with the mother and the second week of the break with the father. In even-numbered years, the children shall spend the first week of the break with the father and the second week of the break with the mother.
March school break
l. The children shall spend the March school break with the father in even-numbered years and spend the March school break with the mother in odd-numbered years.
Summer schedule
m. The parties shall have a week about parenting schedule during the summer break. The party with the children on the first weekend of summer break shall keep them for the first week of summer break.
n. Exchanges shall occur on Fridays at 7:00 p.m. at the mother’s residence.
Communication orders
n. All written communication between the parties shall be through a parenting communication application, such as AppClose.
o. The communications between the parties shall be brief, respectful, and only relate to issues pertaining to the children.
p. Neither party shall criticize, demean, or make disparaging comments about the other.
q. Each party shall respond within 48 hours of any communication from the other party, provided it is related to the children, except in an emergency.
r. The parties shall keep each other informed as to their current contact information, including their telephone numbers, email addresses and residential address.
s. If a child becomes ill or in need of medical assistance while in the care of one party, that party shall notify the other party as soon as it is reasonably possible.
t. Each parent shall refrain from exposing the children to adult conflict.
Child support
u. Child support arrears as of November 30, 2025, are fixed at $19,187.90, as calculated in this decision.
v. The father shall pay the arrears owing in the amount of $250.00 per month, commencing February 1, 2026, and on the 1^st^ day of every month thereafter, until the full amount of $19,187.90 is paid. However, if he is more than 3 months late in making support payments, the full amount of arrears shall become due and payable.
w. Commencing December 1, 2025, and the 1^st^ day of every month thereafter, the father shall pay the mother monthly support for the two children in the amount of $773.95. This amount is in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines. The father’s income is $57,753.00. The table amount for two children is $773.95 per month.
x. Nothing in this order precludes the Director, Family Responsibility Office, from collecting arrears from the father from any government source (such as income tax, GST/HST returns), lottery or prize winnings or inheritances.
y. Starting in 2026, the father shall provide the mother, by June 30^th^ each year, with complete copies of his income tax returns, including all schedules and attachments, and copies of his notices of assessment.
z. Starting in 2026, the mother shall provide the father, by June 30^th^ each year, with complete copies of her income tax returns, including all schedules and attachments, and copies of her notices of assessment.
aa. Support deduction order to issue.
Section 7 expenses
bb. The father shall, within 7 days of the date of this order, contribute his 50% share towards CT’s current representative basketball season.
cc. The parties shall equally share CT’s representative basketball fee, including tournament fees.
dd. The parties shall equally contribute towards two extracurricular activities for CA. Either party shall contribute solely to any additional extracurricular activities.
ee. The parties shall equally share any other special/extraordinary expenses for the children (other than extracurricular activities stated in subparagraphs (cc), (dd) and (ee) above.
Other
ff. All other claims are dismissed.
163If either party seeks costs, they shall serve and file their written costs submissions by January 23, 2026. The other party will then have until February 6, 2026, to serve and file their written response. 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.
Released: January 5, 2026.
Signed: Justice Wiri Kapurura