ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO. D46776/25
B E T W E E N:
WHITNEY ANN MARGARET PEDICAN
ACTING IN PERSON
APPLICANT
- and -
ALEXEY KARPOV
ACTING IN PERSON
RESPONDENT
HEARD: JUNE 19, 2026
JUSTICE S.B. SHERR
REASONS FOR DECISION
Part One – Introduction
1The parties have both brought motions for temporary parenting and support orders about their six-year-old son (the child).
2The applicant (the mother) lives in Toronto. The respondent (the father) lives in Ajax. The parties presently have a shared parenting arrangement. The child attends school in Toronto. The parenting exchanges take place at the child’s school.
3The parties both seek orders that the child’s primary residence be with them. The father wants the child to live and attend school in Ajax. The mother wants the child to live and attend school in Toronto.
4The father seeks an order for joint decision-making responsibility for the child. The mother opposes this. She did not make a claim for decision-making responsibility.
5The parties both seek child support from the other.
6The parties filed affidavits and financial statements for the motions. The court allowed them to cross-examine each other for up to 45 minutes. They provided oral and written submissions.
7The issues on these motions are:
a) What temporary parenting orders are in the child’s best interests? In particular, should the child attend school in Toronto, or in Ajax?
b) What temporary child support order should be made?
Part Two – Background facts
8The mother is 36 years old. She has always lived in Toronto. She was employed as a property administrator until she was recently laid off on May 12, 2026. She is presently unemployed and looking for work.
9The father is 44 years old. He lived in Toronto until he moved to Ajax in September 2025. He lives there with his wife and 15-year-old stepson. He is employed full-time and works in Toronto.
10The parties lived together in Toronto from December 2018 until July 21, 2022.
11The parties disagreed on what the parenting arrangements were after their separation. The mother said the parties had a shared parenting arrangement until 2024, when the father unilaterally cut back her parenting time. The father said the child lived with him 65% of the time until February 2025.
12The mother was charged with assaulting the father in 2024 and was charged with three counts of failure to comply with an undertaking in December 2024. She entered into a 12-month peace bond in November 2025.
13The mother was arrested again in September 2025 for breaching her release conditions. The charges related to her contacting the father. Those charges are still outstanding.
14The mother’s present criminal release terms restrict her from communicating with the father, except through an agreed-upon third party or a family court order. The parties both have a positive relationship with the father’s parents (the paternal grandparents), who have conducted many of the parenting exchanges.
15The parties agreed they have had a shared parenting arrangement since February 2025.
16Since the father moved to Ajax in September 2025, the child has lived with the mother in week 1 from Thursday after school until Monday morning and in week 2 from Wednesday after school until Saturday morning. The child lives with the father at all other times.
17The child attended senior kindergarten this year in Toronto. He will go into grade one in the fall. The child’s school is five minutes from the mother’s home.
18The mother issued her application on November 13, 2025. The father filed his answer/claim on December 23, 2025.
19The parties agreed to the following temporary without prejudice orders on February 13, 2026:
a) The child shall remain in his present school in Toronto.
b) The child shall continue to have the same doctor and dentist in Toronto.
c) The parties will arrange specific times when they can call the child when the child is with the other present, so that the child answers the call and the parties do not have direct contact.
20On April 10, 2026, the process for the hearing of these motions was organized.
21No child support has flowed between the parties since the application was started. The father has paid for the child’s before and after-school program (daycare), Kumon lessons, summer camp, and his martial arts and swimming activities.
Part Three – Preliminary comment about relocation
22There is an issue as to whether the father’s plan for the child to primarily live with him and go to school in Ajax is a relocation as defined by the Children’s Law Reform Act (the Act). On the one hand, the child has lived with the father in Ajax since September 2025 for about half of the time. When traffic is clear, it is a 25-minute drive on the highway from the mother’s home to the father’s home in Ajax.
23On the other hand, the mother’s relationship with the child will be affected if the child primarily lives in Ajax. It will be a struggle for her to exercise mid-week parenting time with him if she gets a full-time job in Toronto. She will have less involvement with his school. The father’s plan to have the child exclusively live with him during the weekdays implicitly recognizes this challenge for the mother.
24The mother submitted that she is not relying on the relocation provisions of the Act on these motions.1 Rather, she is only relying on the best interests provisions set out in section 24 of the Act.2
25The court will set out below that whether the father’s parenting plan constitutes a relocation does not affect the outcome. The court is still guided by the child’s best interests. The child’s stability and need for continuity are important best interests factors on a temporary motion. The father’s proposal disrupts the child’s school and parenting structure whether it is labelled a relocation or not.
26The mother is not precluded from making submissions at trial that the father’s plan is a relocation.
Part Four – Where should the child live and go to school?
4.1 Summary of the parties’ positions and narratives
4.1.1 The mother’s position and narrative
27The mother’s position is summarized as follows:
a) The child should attend the same school and daycare in Toronto.
b) The child should attend summer camp in Toronto.
c) The father should have parenting time with the child on alternate weekends, from Friday after school until a Monday return to school, and on two evenings during the week.
d) In the summer, the father should have the child from Friday after camp until Monday morning, drop-off to camp in week 1, and from Wednesday after camp until Saturday morning in week 2.
e) There should be mutual telephone or video contact with the child when he is in the other party’s care.
f) The parties should inform each other about the address the child is staying overnight at, and the identity of any third-party caregivers for the child.
28The mother’s narrative is briefly summarized as follows:
a) The child’s home base has always been in Toronto. He is established there. His school, daycare, camp, friends and community are there. The paternal grandparents help the mother and live close by.
b) The child had significant emotional and behavioural issues when her parenting time was arbitrarily reduced by the father in 2024. The child struggles when he is away from her for too long.
c) Supports were put in place at the child’s school to help him with his emotional regulation.
d) The child had done much better with a stable routine since September 2025. He would be destabilized by changing it.
e) She is the parent most engaged with the child’s school and health-care providers.
f) The father lets third parties do much of the caregiving during his parenting time.
g) The father acts unilaterally. He is secretive and does not communicate with her. For instance:
i) He unilaterally reduced her parenting time after July 2024.
ii) She gave permission for him to take the child on a vacation to the Dominican Republic in 2024. The father got married during that trip. He did not tell her about this in advance and didn’t discuss with her that he would be introducing the child to his new partner.
iii) He moved to Ajax without notifying her in advance.
iv) He enrolled the child in activities and Kumon without telling her.
v) He took the child for a developmental assessment without telling her.
vi) He will not let her know where he is living.
h) The child’s school is much more diverse than any school in Ajax. The child is mixed-race.
i) If the child moves to Ajax, her relationship with the child will be seriously compromised. She would struggle to exchange him at school and work in Toronto. She could not be as involved with his school. This would not be in the child’s best interests.
j) She regrets messages she sent to the father and his spouse.
k) She does not have current mental health issues affecting her parenting. She filed a letter from her physician supporting this. He confirmed she experienced post-partum depression in 2021 and that her symptoms had improved by 2023. Since then, her mood has been stable, and she has not experienced any excessive anxiety.
4.1.2 The father’s position and narrative
29The father’s position is summarized as follows:
a) The child should primarily live with him in Ajax.
b) The child should attend school and summer camp in Ajax.
c) The parties should have joint decision-making responsibility for the child.
d) The mother should have parenting time with the child on alternate weekends from Friday after school until Sunday evening.
e) Holiday time with the child should be shared. He set out a proposed schedule in his affidavit.
f) Summer parenting time with the child should be shared on a two-week rotation with each parent.
g) Communication between the parties should be through a written-only platform or agreed-upon third party.
30The father’s narrative can be briefly summarized as follows:
a) He was the child’s primary caregiver after the parties separated.
b) The mother suffered post-partum depression and had challenges with her emotional regulation after the child was born. This adversely affected her parenting.
c) The mother has been abusive to him and his spouse. She has harassed them. He is afraid she will continue to do this if she knows where he lives or has direct contact with him. He submits her actions show a lack of emotional control and judgment. He worries that these behaviours and qualities will adversely affect the child.
d) He can offer a much better plan for the child than the mother. He has a spacious and comfortable home in Ajax with a backyard and finished basement for the child to play in. The child will have his own bedroom. He has the support of his spouse. Conversely, the mother lives in a bachelor apartment and is struggling financially. She often relies on the paternal grandparents for help.
e) He is the parent who has assumed primary financial responsibility for the child.
f) He is the more stable parent and can offer the child better parental consistency.
g) The child has connections in Ajax. His best friend lives there. There is a community of young children his age who live near him.
h) The child will have to “transition no matter what” since he is entering grade one.
i) The child will have no trouble transitioning to a new school in Ajax. He said, “when children are in conflict, moving is a blessing”.
j) He described the child remaining in Toronto as a “sunk cost fallacy”. He submitted it is time for “a clean break” to Ajax. The time is now.”
4.2 Legal considerations
4.2.1 Statutory considerations
31Any proceeding with respect to children is determined with respect to the best interests of the particular child before the court in accordance with the considerations set out in subsections 24 (2) to 24 (7) of the Act.
32A temporary motion is meant to provide a reasonably acceptable solution on an expeditious basis for a problem that will be fully canvassed at subsequent conferences or resolved at a trial. The status quo should be maintained until trial unless there is material evidence that the child’s best interests require an immediate change. See: Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002; Costello and McLean, 2014 ONSC 7332; Munroe v. Graham, 2021 ONCJ 253; Sain v. Shahbazi, 2023 ONSC 5187.
33Subsection 24 (2) of the Act provides that the court must give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being in determining best interests.
34Subsection 24 (3) of the Act sets out a list of factors for the court to consider related to the circumstances of the child.
35Family violence is defined in subsections 18 (1) and (2) of the Act. Subsection 24 (4) of the Act sets out a list of factors for the court to consider related to family violence.
36Subsection 24 (6) of the Act states that in allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the child’s best interests.
37The list of best interests considerations in the Act is not exhaustive. See: White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736. It is also not a checklist to be tabulated with the highest score winning. Rather, it calls for the court to take a holistic look at the child, his or her needs and the persons around the child. See: Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.
38A 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, 2022 ONSC 6510; I.A. v. I.G., 2023 ONCJ 523.
39Choice of school is a custodial decision. Only when there is no temporary or final Order for custody should a court be asked to determine particulars of a child’s education. When a child is already enrolled in a program of education the starting point for the determination is clear: absent compelling circumstances, students will continue their education in September at the school at which they were enrolled in June. Disrupting a child’s school placement is to be avoided. School is often the most stable and neutral place for children whose parents are transitioning from one home to two homes. The court needs to ask if there are compelling circumstances that justify a change in school pending a final custody and access decision. See: D.B. v. M.R.B., 2019 ONSC 4925.
40The general principles guiding the court in deciding where a child shall attend school when the parties disagree were set out by Audet, J. in Thomas v. Osika, 2018 ONSC 2712 (S.C.J.) at para. 37 as follows:3
The decision as to the choice of school that a child should attend, when the parents disagree, is ultimately a matter of judicial discretion. However, a number of general principles have emerged from the caselaw to assist the decision-maker in making the decision in the child's best interests. They can be summarized as follows:
a. Sub-section 28(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act specifically empowers the court to determine any matter incidental to custody rights. The issue of a child's enrollment in a school program must be considered as being incidental to or ancillary to the rights of custody (Deschenes v. Medwayosh, 2016 ONCJ 567 (Ont. C.J.));
b. It is implicit that a parent's plan for the child's education, and his or her capacity and commitment to carry out the plan are important elements affecting a child's best interests. In developing a child's educational plan, the unique needs, circumstances, aptitudes and attributes of the child, must be taken into account (Bandas v. Demirdache, 2013 ONCJ 679 (Ont. C.J.));
c. When considering school placement, one factor to be considered is the ability of the parent to assist the child with homework and the degree to which the parent can participate in the child's educational program (Deschenes v. Medwayosh, 2016 ONCJ 567 (Ont. C.J.));
d. The emphasis must be placed on the interests of the child, and not on the interests or rights of the parents (Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] S.C.J. No. 52 (S.C.C.);
e. The importance of a school placement or educational program will promote and maintain a child's cultural and linguistic heritage (Perron v. Perron, 2012 ONCA 811 (Ont. C.A.);
f. Factors which may be taken into account by the court in determining the best interests of the child include assessing any impact on the stability of the child. This may include examining whether there is any prospect of one of the parties moving in the near future; where the child was born and raised; whether a move will mean new child care providers or other unsettling features (Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746 (Ont. S.C.J.);
g. The court will also look to any decisions that were made by the parents prior to the separation or at the time of separation with respect to schooling (Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746 (Ont. S.C.J.);
h. Any problems with the proposed schools will be considered (Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746 (Ont. S.C.J.);
i. A decision as to the choice of school should be made on its own merits and based, in part, on the resources that each school offered in relation to a child's needs, rather than on their proximity to the residence of one parent or the other, or the convenience that his attendance at the nearest school would entail (Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479 (Ont. S.C.J.));
j. Third party ranking systems, such as the Fraser Institute's, should not factor into a Court's decision. These systems of ranking do not take into consideration the best interest of the particular child in a family law context (Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479 (Ont. S.C.J.));
k. If an aspect of a child's life, such as school placement, is to be disrupted by an order of the court, there must be good reason for the court to do so. Thus, before a court will order a child to transfer schools, there must be convincing evidence that a change of schools is in the child's best interests (Perron v. Perron, 2012 ONCA 811 (Ont. C.A.);
l. Custodial parents should be entrusted with making the decision as to which school children should attend. When a sole custodial parent has always acted in the best interest of a child, there should be no reason to doubt that this parent will act in the best interest of the child when deciding on a school (Adams v. Adams, 2016 ONCJ 431 (Ont. C.J.));
m. Those cases are very fact-driven. The courts are not pronouncing on what is best for all children in a general sense but rather deciding what is in the best interests of this child before the court (Deschenes v. Medwayosh, 2016 ONCJ 567 (Ont. C.J.)).
41Courts do not like to create disruptions in the lives of children by making an order that may have to cause further disruption later if the order has to be reversed. See: Goodship v. McMaster 2003 CanLII 53670 (ON CJ), [2003] O.J. No. 4255 (OCJ); Gomez v. Isaza, 2024 ONCJ 324. This caution is consistent with the best interests factors relating to a child’s stability set out in clause 24 (3) (a) of the Act.
42In Tremblay-Chartier v. Blanchette, 2025 ONSC 6273 (Div. Ct.), the appeal court wrote that while the AFCC-Ontario Guidelines are not binding law, Ontario courts have accepted the social science behind the Guidelines when making parenting orders in the best interests of young children: Hatab v. Abuhatab, 2022 ONSC 1560, at para. 61.
43The Ontario Court of Appeal in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 275 (OCA), sets out the following principles in determining whether a joint decision-making responsibility order is appropriate:
There must be evidence of historical communication between the parents and appropriate communication between them.
It can’t be ordered in the hope that it will improve their communication.
Just because both parents are fit does not mean that joint custody should be ordered.
The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate does not preclude an order for joint custody.
No matter how detailed the custody order there will always be gaps and unexpected situations, and when they arise they must be able to be addressed on an ongoing basis.
The younger the child, the more important communication is.
44In deciding on the appropriate decision-making responsibility regime, the court is required to consider all possible frameworks, and not simply those proposed by the parties. See: Chomos v. Hamilton, 2015 ONSC 5208 (S.C.J.); Koliniati v. Manolessos, 2025 ONSC 3274.
45Ultimately, the court must determine if a joint decision-making responsibility order, or an order allocating any decision-making responsibility between the parties, is in the child’s best interests. The court also has the option, if it is in the child’s best interests, to leave some or all aspects of decision-making responsibility silent. See: M. v. F., 2015 ONCA 277.
46The court has taken these legal factors into consideration, where relevant, in determining what parenting orders are in the child’s best interests.
4.3 Findings of material facts
47The court makes the following findings of material facts based on the record before it:
a) The parents both love the child and want what they feel is best for him.
b) The parents both have a close bond with the child and the child has a close bond with them.
c) The parents have both been very involved in the child’s upbringing. The mother has had more involvement with the child’s school and daycare. More recently, she has been the parent more involved with the child’s medical care. The father has arranged tutoring for the child. He organizes the child’s extracurricular activities.4
d) The parents both ensure the child has friends to play with.
e) The child has emotional and behavioural challenges. He has received considerable support for those challenges at school and has improved in the past year.5
f) The parents are both very capable caregivers and able to meet the child’s physical, emotional and developmental needs.
g) The child has thrived with having both parents deeply involved in his life.
h) The child is settled and stable in his school and daycare.
i) The child changing his school, daycare and community would be a major change for him.6
j) The court read a sampling of the mother’s messages to the father and his spouse in 2024 and 2025.7 They were vile and abusive. The mother breached criminal release conditions by sending those messages. Her excuses for sending these messages are not acceptable. They create concern about her emotional regulation. However, that concern is mitigated because there is no evidence that she has exhibited similar unregulated conduct with the child or any other person. Also, this conduct has not continued in 2026.
k) The mother does not presently appear to have any mental health issues affecting her parenting.
l) The father appears to have acted unilaterally and secretively as described by the mother in paragraph 28 (g) above. This has contributed to the poor communication between the parties and the lack of trust between them.
m) The mother has proposed more generous parenting time for the father than the father has proposed for her.
n) There is preliminary evidence of a power imbalance between the parties. The father has an assertive and confident personality. He is absolute about his positions. He views the mother as unstable. He has dictated parenting arrangements in the past and has acted unilaterally. There is some evidence of a controlling personality. This will need to be explored in more depth at trial.
4.4 Analysis
48The evidence informs the court that there should be no significant changes in the existing parenting arrangements for the following reasons:
a) The child had emotional challenges when he started school. Supports were put in place at the school that have succeeded in improving his emotional regulation. He is now settled at his school and daycare. It is not in his best interests to risk disrupting these gains.
b) The school knows the child and his needs. It has proven capable of meeting them. The father had no knowledge at the hearing of what supports his proposed school in Ajax would put in place for the child. He testified that he was waiting for the court’s decision before exploring details about the Ajax school and programs.
c) The court accepts that the child has more friends and connections in Toronto. This has been his main home.
d) The child’s doctor and dentist are in Toronto. The mother can take him to his appointments. It is in his best interests to have this continuity of care pending trial.
e) The paternal grandparents live close to the child and assist taking him to and picking him up from school. They will be less available in Ajax, although the court agrees with the father that they will still be able to have a close relationship with him.
f) The father deserves a lot of credit for ensuring the child is always on time for school during his parenting time. He makes this arrangement work. He gets up early, takes the child to school in Toronto and then drives to his job near Pearson Airport. He reverses this routine on the way home. He said his employer gives him the flexibility to do this.
g) The mother is unlikely to have the same flexibility with a new employer. Presently, she lives five minutes away from the child’s school. She was able to exchange him at school and work full-time. She is involved with the school. She takes him to his medical appointments. She will not likely be able to do this if the child goes to school in Ajax – it is unlikely she can find a job that facilitates this.
h) It was the father’s choice to move further away from Toronto, without prior notice to the mother.
i) The court’s concerns about both parents (the mother’s emotional regulation and the father’s unilateral and secretive conduct) do not rise to a level that dictates the present parenting arrangement should be changed.
j) It would not be in the child’s best interests to disrupt him from his school and daycare, and then after a trial, possibly move him back again to Toronto.
k) The child is used to spending equal time with his parents. It is not in his best interests to reduce his time with either parent, as suggested by them. The father has shown that he can reliably get the child to school in Toronto.
l) The current parenting plan is consistent with recommended parenting plans for six-year-old children in the AFCC-Ontario Parenting Guide.
m) The court placed little weight on the father’s argument that he has more resources and a nicer home than the mother. The mother’s home is small but appropriate. Financial disparities between parties should rarely be the basis for determining a child’s best interests.
49The court will order that the child rotate spending one week with each parent during the summer in 2026. The two-week rotation proposed by the father is too long for the child to be away from either parent.
50The court will order many of the father’s holiday parenting time proposals. It will not make an order for March Break, Father’s Day and Mother’s Day parenting time at this point. The case should be resolved or tried before then. The court will equally divide the two-week winter school break between the parties.
51The court will make orders about parenting exchanges and communication to ensure that the child is not exposed to parental conflict and that information about the child is exchanged.
52The evidence does not support making an order for temporary joint decision-making responsibility for the child. The parties have been precluded by the mother’s criminal release conditions from communicating with each other. Their communication is poor. They do not trust each other. The mother sent abusive messages to the father and his spouse. The father made unilateral decisions about the child and has acted in a controlling manner.
53Instead, the court will continue the parenting terms in the February 13, 2026 order on a with prejudice basis. The child will attend the same school and daycare in Toronto. He will see the same doctor and dentist in Toronto.
54The court will order the parties to consult with each other on any other major academic or medical issue about the child. If the parties cannot agree, the mother will make the decision, subject to the right of the father to bring the issue before the court. She has been the parent with more involvement with the child’s school and doctors.
55The father will decide the child’s extracurricular activities. He has been the parent in charge of arranging them and this should continue. He shall not arrange them on the mother’s parenting time. He shall inform her about these activities.
56The parties can enrol the child in summer camps in their local areas during their parenting time.
Part Five – Child support
5.1 Legal considerations
57The parties spent little time in their motion materials or at the hearing about child support. They were focused on the parenting issues.
58The parents both sought the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines) table amount from the other on the assumption they would be given primary care of the child. However, the parties have a shared parenting arrangement. This means the child support analysis must be conducted under section 9 of the guidelines. Section 9 of the guidelines reads as follows:
Shared custody
9. Where a parent or spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the order for the support of a child must be determined by taking into account,
(a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the parents or spouses;
(b) the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and
(c) the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent or spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.
59In Contino v. Leonelli-Contino [2005] 16 R.F.L. (6th) 277 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada set out the following principles when dealing with cases under section 9 of the guidelines that are applicable to this case:
a) Once the payor surpasses the 40% threshold, section 9 creates a different method of determining child support in shared custody cases. There is no onus on the payor to convince the court to order a different amount than the table amount.
b) There is no presumption of a reduction in the table amount for child support in section 9 cases. A court may still order the full table amount after conducting the section 9 analysis.
c) There should be no mathematical formula or multipliers applied to section 9 cases. In particular, the simple set-off only serves as a starting point under subsection 9 (a) of the guidelines, but it has no presumptive value.
d) The court should consider all three factors in section 9. None should necessarily prevail over the others.
e) Section 9 of the guidelines is broad enough to incorporate section 7 guideline expenses directly in the examination of child-related expenses, and expenses can be considered that might not fit within section 7.
60In Flick v. Flick, 2011 BCSC 264, the court, citing Contino, identified these additional factors for consideration in a section 9 analysis:
a) The language of section 9 warrants an emphasis on flexibility, fairness and consideration of the overall situation of the parents and the needs of the child.
b) The weight of each factor under section 9 will vary with the particulars of the case.
c) The court retains the discretion to modify the set-off amount where, considering the financial realities of the parents, it would lead to a significant variation in the standard of living experienced by the child as they move from one household to the other.
d) The analysis should be contextual and remain focused on the particular facts of each case.
e) The court has full discretion under subsection 9 (c) to consider “other circumstances”.
61In his article, The TLC of Shared Parenting: Time, Language and Cash, Professor Rollie Thompson summarizes how the Supreme Court in Contino has directed courts to conduct a section 9 analysis as follows:
a) Determine the simple set-off amount – The starting point under subsection 9 (a) is the straight set-off of each parent’s table amount for the number of children involved in the shared custody arrangement.
b) Review the child expense budgets – A court must look at the parents’ actual spending patterns, based upon child expense budgets, and not just make assumptions about spending. Under subsection 9 (b), a court has two concerns: the over-all increased total costs of child-rearing for both parents, especially duplicated costs; and any disproportionate assumption of spending by one parent or the other. The child-related expenses should be apportioned between the parents based upon their incomes, to verify the set-off and to determine the need for significant adjustments to the set-off amount.
c) Consider the ability of each parent to bear the increased costs of shared custody and the standard of living for the children in each household – In assessing each parent’s ability to bear the increased costs of shared custody, a court should look at the incomes of the parents, the disparity in incomes, and their assets and liabilities. Children should not experience a significant variation in the standard of living as they move from one household to another.
5.2 The set-off amount
62The court accepts the father’s evidence, set out in his financial statement sworn on June 4, 2026, that his annual income is $143,640. The guidelines table amount for one child at this income is $1,277 each month.
63Based on her year-to-date income, in her pay stub ending April 15, 2026, the mother was on pace to earn $84,648 in 2026. She was laid off on May 12, 2026. She said she received about $3,000 for vacation pay and severance from her employer.8 She is applying for Employment Insurance and is actively looking for work.
64The mother’s ability to earn income is in a state of flux. In the short term, which is what this order is addressing, the mother is in a difficult financial position. The court will assess her annual income at $40,000, from July 1, 2026, for the purpose of this analysis. If she cannot find a job soon, this amount is high. If she finds a job quickly, it will be low. The trial judge will be able to adjust this amount. The guidelines table amount for one child at this income is $334 each month.
65The set-off amount is $943 each month ($1,277 - $334).
5.3 The increased costs of a shared parenting arrangement
66The parties agreed that the father has paid the entirety of the child’s daycare, Kumon, martial arts and swimming expenses. He also paid for the child’s summer camp expenses in past years.
67The court accepts the father’s evidence that the annual gross amount of the childcare expenses is $3,470. The father acknowledged that he obtains the tax benefits and credits associated with the childcare expenses he claims on his income tax returns. These benefits and credits are significant. The court finds that the net amount of the childcare expenses is closer to $1,800 annually.
68The court accepts the father’s evidence that the annual amount of Kumon expenses he pays is $2,040 and the child’s extracurricular activities he pays are about $2,400 annually. Together, with the net daycare expenses, the father pays $6,240 annually for these expenses.
69This order will provide that each party will pay for the expense of the local camp the child attends while in their respective care this summer. The mother said the summer camp in Toronto costs $22 per day. She believes she will have to pay for any days the child does not attend. Summer camp will cost her about $900 this summer. The father testified the Ajax camp only charges for the days the child attends. The court estimates he will pay about $500 this summer for summer camp.
70Based on these calculations, the father is paying a total of $6,740 annually ($6,240 +$500) for extra expenses for the child, and the mother is paying $900. The father’s proportionate share of these expenses is 78.2% of $7,640 ($6,740 + $900), or $5,974. He is paying $766 more than his proportionate share of these expenses ($6,740 - $5,974).
71Based on the assumption that the parties will continue to pay the expenses set out above, the set-off amount will be discounted by $64 each month, being the excess $766 of payments divided by 12 months. This leaves the child support at $879 each month ($943 – $64).
5.4 The condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent or spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.
72The father relied on his being able to provide a much better lifestyle for the child in support of his claim that the child should have his primary residence with him. He lives in a nice home. He goes on vacations. Not including his payroll deductions, his monthly expenses are close to $11,000. This is contrasted with the mother, who lives in a bachelor apartment and has monthly expenses of about $4,500.
73As set out by Professor Thompson in paragraph 61 above, children should not experience a significant variation in the standard of living as they move from one household to another. Here, there is a material difference in the child’s standard of living between the two households.
74The court took into consideration that the father is supporting his spouse, who does not work, and his stepson.
75Based on the disparity of their means, needs and circumstances, the court will make an upwards adjustment to child support based on this third factor in the Contino analysis and order the father to pay the mother child support of $925 each month.
76The mother only sought temporary child support starting on July 1, 2026. This will be ordered. This does not preclude her from seeking child support from a different date at trial.
77This temporary support order is premised on the following assumptions:
a) The father will pay for the child’s daycare expenses starting in the fall and declare all tax benefits and credits associated with the expense on his income tax return.
b) The father will continue to pay for Kumon for the child.
c) The father will continue to pay for the child’s activities.
d) Each parent will pay for the local summer camp the child will attend this summer.
e) The mother’s income will end up being close to $40,000 on an annualized rate, between July 1, 2026, and the trial.
78The mother will be required to immediately notify the father if she obtains employment and provide him with the particulars of that employment. Any adjustment of support will depend on when she is able to obtain this employment and the amount she will be earning.
Part Six – Conclusion
79A temporary order shall go on the following terms and conditions:
a) The parties shall have a shared parenting arrangement.
b) The child shall attend his present school and daycare in Toronto.
c) The child shall continue to see his present doctor and dentist in Toronto.
d) The parties will be required to consult with each other on any other major academic or medical issue regarding the child. If the parties cannot agree, the mother will make the decision, subject to the right of the father to bring the issue before the court.
e) The father will determine the child’s extracurricular activities. He shall not arrange them to take place during the mother’s parenting time. He shall inform her about these activities.
f) The parties may enrol the child in summer camps in their local areas during their parenting time this summer.
g) The parties’ present parenting arrangement shall continue until July 6, 2026.
h) The parties shall share summer parenting time with the child in 2026 as follows:
i) Starting on Monday, July 6, 2026, the father shall pick up the child from camp in Toronto at the end of the day and return the child back to his summer camp in Toronto the following Monday morning.
ii) The child shall then spend a week with the mother until the father picks up the child from summer camp the following Monday at the end of the day.
iii) The parties will continue this week-on, week-off arrangement until the child starts school in September.
iv) All summer parenting exchanges shall take place at the child’s summer camp in Toronto regardless of where the child attends camp that week.
i) Starting in September 2026, the regular parenting schedule shall be as follows:
i) In week 1, the child shall have parenting time with the mother from Thursday after school until Monday morning school drop-off.
ii) In week 2, the child shall have parenting time with the mother from Wednesday after school to Saturday morning.
iii) The father shall have parenting time with the child at all other times.
j) The child shall spend the first week of the child’s two-week winter school break with the mother and the second week with the father. This takes priority to the regular parenting schedule.
k) The parties will arrange specific times when they can call the child when the child is with the other parent, so that the child answers the call and the parties do not have direct contact.
l) The parenting exchanges shall take place at the child’s daycare or school in Toronto. If the daycare or school (or in the summer, the child’s camp) are not available, the parenting exchanges shall take place through one of the paternal grandparents, or such other person the parties agree to.
m) The parties shall communicate in writing only through a parenting application agreed upon by them, or failing agreement, through WhatsApp. They are to only communicate about the child. Specifically, the mother shall not discuss the father’s spouse or stepson. The parties are to communicate in a respectful and child-focused manner. They are not to disparage the other.
n) Neither party shall discuss this litigation, adult conflict, or the other party’s conduct with or in the presence of the child.
o) The father shall pay child support to the mother of $925 each month, starting on July 1, 2026. This is based on the following assumptions:
i) The father will pay for the child’s daycare expenses starting in the fall and declare all tax benefits and credits associated with the expense on his income tax return.
ii) The father will continue to pay for Kumon for the child.
iii) The father will continue to pay for the child’s activities.
iv) Each parent will pay for the local summer camp the child will attend this summer.
v) The mother’s income will end up being close to $40,000 on an annualized basis, between July 1, 2026 and the trial.
p) The mother shall immediately notify the father if she obtains employment and shall provide him with the particulars of that employment.
q) A support deduction order shall issue.
80If either party seeks costs, they shall serve and file written submissions by July 13, 2026. The other party will then have until July 27, 2026 to serve and file their written response (not to include their own claim for costs). The submissions shall not exceed 3 pages, not including any bill of costs or offer to settle.
81The next appearance will be for a settlement conference. If the case is not resolved at that time, it will be placed on the trial sittings.
82The return date for the settlement conference will be September 11, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., for one hour. The parties shall serve and file settlement conference briefs, updated sworn financial statements and offers to settle.
83The court praises the parties for the quality of their motion materials and for the civil way they conducted themselves during the hearing. They both have many parenting strengths and if they start to support one another, the child has a bright future ahead of him. This case should be resolved.
Released: June 29, 2026
_____________________ Justice S.B. Sherr
Burden of proof
39.4 (5) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, family arbitration award or agreement that provides that a child spend substantially equal time in the care of each party, the party who intends to relocate the child has the burden of proving that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child
Footnotes
- Counsel assisted the mother in preparing her materials and submissions.
- Subsection 39.4 (5) of the Act would have placed the onus on the father to show a relocation was in the child’s best interests. It reads as follows:
- The court is aware that this case involves more than a request for a change of school – it involves a change of residence for the child. However, many of the principles set out in these cases are applicable in determining the child’s best interests.
- The court is not making a finding, as requested by the mother, that the father is delegating his parenting responsibilities to third parties. This could not be determined on this record.
- The mother attributes the child’s emotional challenges to his having had less contact with her. However, there are many possible explanations for this behaviour, including the stress of his parents’ separation.
- The father agreed with this.
- The court accepts the father’s evidence that the mother sent many more similar messages.
- The mother said she had worked for this employer for about one year.