Littler v. Fowler, 2026 ONCJ 488

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: Littler v. Fowler, 2026 ONCJ 488

DATE: 2026 08 11

COURT FILE No.: FO-12-000042-007

BETWEEN:

Murray Anthony Littler

Applicant

— AND —

Christina Patricia Lynn Fowler

Respondent

Before Justice B. C Oldham

Heard on June 11, 2026

Reasons for Decision released on August 11, 2026

M. Littler........................................................................................................... self-represented

T. Fowler........................................................................................................... self-represented

OLDHAM J.:

[1] This decision is about the child Mason Keith Frederick Zappacosta, born on […], 2011 (“Mason”). Mason is the only child of Murray Littler, the Applicant Father (“AF”) and Tina Fowler (formerly, Zappacosta), the Respondent Mother (“RM”). The RM has three other children with her current husband Adam Fowler; Hudson (11); Raven (7) and Brighton (4).

[2] The AF commenced this Motion to Change (“MTC”) on March 5, 2025. The MTC was heard by way of a focused hearing on June 11, 2026. Both parties were self-represented. The issues to be addressed are the following:

(1) Should there be a change in the decision-making responsibilities for Mason?

(2) Should the RM be permitted to relocate Mason to Woodstock, New Brunswick?

(3) What parenting-time schedule would accommodate Mason’s best interests?

(4) Who should be responsible for the travel costs associated with the parenting-time order.

[3] The RM acknowledged that the move to New Brunswick was a material change requiring a variation to the order of this court dated September 24, 2021 (the “Current Order”). Both parties confirmed that regardless of whom Mason resided with, neither were seeking child support orders as the travel costs to accommodate parenting time is significant.

[4] The parties filed affidavits and the witnesses were cross-examined. Specifically, the Court heard from the following witnesses:

(1) For the AF:

(a) Tina Crisp, Mason’s great aunt and sister of his maternal grandmother;

(b) Leona Grisdale, Mason’s paternal aunt; and

(c) Marshall Cassels, Mason’s paternal uncle.

(2) For the RM:

(a) David Fowler, Mason’s step grandfather;

(b) Dianna Emerson, Mason’s maternal grandmother; and

(c) Adam Fowler, Mason’s stepfather.

[5] Prior to the RM’s move to New Brunswick, Mason resided with his mother with the AF having parenting time on alternate weekends from Friday at 5:00 pm to Sunday at 7:00 pm, extending to Monday or Friday, if the parenting time fell on a holiday. The AF had one additional weekend every other month; one week in July and one week in August to be added to the regularly scheduled weekends for a total of seven or nine consecutive days for each week scheduled in the summer. The AF also had parenting time on Father’s Day from noon until 7:00 pm and on the AF’s birthday, alternating Family Day, Easter and Thanksgiving weekends and shared Christmas holidays.

Position of the Parties

[6] The AF seeks to have Mason live with him in Parry Sound and seeks sole or joint decision-making responsibilities.

[7] The RM seeks to relocate Mason to New Brunswick and to maintain sole decision-making responsibilities.

[8] Unfortunately, much of the evidence and cross examination focused on historical arguments and issues and not a real plan for Mason going forward. Rather than return on a separate date for closing submissions, the parties agreed to provide written closing submissions which were to include details of the relief requested particularly with respect to a parenting-time plan and the costs of travel as that was not well set out in the affidavits or evidence provided to the court during the hearing.

[9] In his closing submissions, the AF set out a parenting plan for the RM which included nine days (from Friday after school to the following Monday) each month to be scheduled around school holidays, birthdays and other significant dates such as Mother’s Day. Christmas holidays would alternate with the RM having even years and the AF having odd years. Summer holidays would be shared equally. The AF proposed that the RM should pay for the costs of transportation given that she was the one to relocate and given that he was not seeking child support if Mason were to remain in his care.

[10] The RM submitted that the AF should get no more time with Mason than she was provided by the Court and the AF in 2026 which she set out as follows:

• September 13 at 7:00 pm until September 20 at 3:00 pm

• October 9 at 7:00 pm until October 13 at 3:00 pm

• November 15 at 7:00 pm until November 22 at 3:00 pm

• No Christmas visit

• March break from 7:00 pm until return at 3:00 pm

• May 16 at 7:00 pm until May 25 at 3:00 pm

• July 31 until August 10

[11] The RM proposed that the AF should pay all the costs for transportation given that she paid all the costs for the past year.

[12] The parties have been separated for over 14 years.

[13] Mason lived with his mother in the Parry Sound area from birth until June 2025. The parties have been back to court numerous times since the original application commenced in 2012. The AF claims that he was continually fighting to maintain and increase his access as it has always been his goal to have shared parenting time.

[14] The RM claims that the AF’s approach is tantamount to harassment. She states that she is emotionally, physically and financially exhausted by the court process and wants Mason home in New Brunswick so that she and her family can have peace.

[15] The situation for Mason changed dramatically at the end of June 2025 when the RM moved to Woodstock, New Brunswick. Mason did not want to leave Parry Sound and raised concerns with the AF in March 2025. While the RM had not formalized any plans at that point, the notion of a move was concerning to the AF, and he promptly commenced this MTC.

[16] Parenting time between Mason and his father has expanded over the years. The AF regularly and consistently exercises parenting time with Mason. Notwithstanding the lack of communication and co-operation between the parents, Mason has a close relationship with both of his parents.

[17] The RM did not provide formal notice of her intention to relocate as required by s. 39.3 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (“CLRA”) until May 13, 2025, the same day that she finalized the purchase of a home in Woodstock, New Brunswick and almost two months after she sold her home in Seguin, Ontario. Upon receipt of the notice, the AF brought an emergency motion. On May 28, 2025, this Court adjourned the motion for hearing and made an order prohibiting the RM from removing Mason from the Province of Ontario until the temporary motion could be heard.

[18] Clinician Michelle Anthony was appointed by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and provided a Voice of the Child (“VOC”) Report on September 18, 2025. Following the hearing of the temporary motion the Court dismissed the RM’s request to temporarily relocate Mason to New Brunswick. The Current Order continued, but given that the RM had already moved, Mason remained in the RF’s care in Parry Sound. Written reasons were provided to the parties on September 24, 2025, but suffice to say that the significant concerns included the lack of notice and compliance by the RM with the requirements for relocation and notice of the relocation, the lack of planning in respect of parenting time for the AF should Mason move from Parry Sound to New Brunswick, and the fact that Mason was very clear that he wanted to stay in Parry Sound and live with his father. Mason was consistent with the clinician indicating that he was 100% sure about his decision and that he wanted to start high school in Parry Sound with his friends.

[19] The RM remained in New Brunswick following the September 24, 2025 temporary order. The parties were left to arrange parenting time between Mason and his mother, or to bring a motion if necessary. The parties were able to agree and arrange parenting time for one week in October and one week in November 2025. Christmas posed a greater challenge.

[20] The AF was concerned about the RM willingness to return Mason given her failure to return Mason in accordance with this Court’s Order dated September 2, 2025 which provided that Mason could travel to New Brunswick for parenting time with the RM from “September 5, 2025, until September 14, 2025 (or later if mutually agreed upon by the parties)”. The extension was proposed by the AF because the start of in class instruction was delayed by the construction of a new school. Construction of the new high school was not complete by the September deadline and children were directed to online learning while the school board sorted out options for in class learning. The AF agreed that this was a good opportunity for Mason to spend time with the RM in New Brunswick as learning was remote and he was not missing out on time with his friends.

[21] When it was announced that school would return to the classroom on September 15, 2025, the AF wanted Mason home and was not prepared to extend the stay. The RM refused to drive Mason back to Parry Sound, claiming lack of finances. The AF drove 14 hours to New Brunswick to pick him up on September 14, 2025, in accordance with the order. The RM refused to allow the AF to pick up Mason. The AF obtained an Order from Justice Rocheleau in Ontario dated September 12, 2025 directing the police to locate, apprehend and return Mason, but the RCMP in New Brunswick would not act on an order from out of province. So, the RM refused to return Mason and the AF returned to Parry Sound without him. The RM returned Mason on September 20, 2025 one week after the commencement of in class learning and six days after the ordered return date.

[22] The RM claims that the AF was unreasonable in negotiations around Christmas parenting time, making her beg and provide unreasonable assurances. The AF claims that the RM’s failure to return Mason in September and her refusal to pay costs when found to be in breach of the order made him very hesitant about allowing Mason to travel to New Brunswick for Christmas; particularly, without a court order. The AF’s concerns were legitimate. The Court does not accept that this is an example of his unwillingness to agree to parenting time for the RM. The AF has not opposed parenting time in any motion and has demonstrated a willingness to accommodate parenting time when the opportunity presents such as at the beginning of the school year in 2025. The desire to seek clarity with respect to the dates and times to ensure Mason’s return was reasonable in the circumstances.

[23] The MTC was before a settlement conference judge on November 28, 2025 and back before this Court on December 16, 2025 to address Christmas parenting time. The RM had not served or filed a motion in advance of December 16, 2025 appearance and accordingly, her motion for Christmas access could not be heard in a timely manner. The RM was provided with filing deadlines for a motion on January 21, 2026. The RM did not file her motion in accordance with the timelines set out by this Court on December 16, 2025 and the motion was adjourned from January 21, 2026 to February 18, 2026 for hearing.

[24] On February 18, 2026, this Court granted the RM with parenting time for March Break (March 13 to 22, 2026); Mother’s Day (May 8 to 18, 2026) and summer holidays (June 26 – July 26, 2026).

[25] Historically, the parties have relied heavily on court orders for parenting time. The AF claims that the RM has never granted him a day longer than was provided in the court orders. He was not allowed to pick up Mason from school or to interact with him outside of the court ordered schedule. The RM does not provide any evidence to dispute that claim, but states that the AF was never involved in Mason’s schooling. The AF maintains that he wished he could be involved in Mason’s schooling, but he was never provided with the opportunity.

[26] The RM’s proposal for parenting time if Mason relocates to New Brunswick is to ensure that the AF only gets what she got over the last year, which specifically excludes any parenting time over the Christmas holidays. This posture supports the AF’s claim that the RM is not willing to work with him on a flexible parenting time schedule if Mason leaves Ontario.

[27] Moreover, this level of hostility and lack of trust between the parents significantly impacts their ability to work together and provides a partial explanation for the repeated returns to family court. This is now the seventh opening for this family. Unfortunately, the lack of trust and the ‘tit-for-tat’ approach does not bode well for the RM’s hope for peace.

[28] Given the history of discord, it is important that the Court provide a very clear and detailed plan for Mason.

The Law and Application to this Case

[29] In the past, courts have held that it is important to decide which parent will have decision-making authority (formerly, custody) before deciding whether a child should relocate. However, the amendments to the CLRA clarify that there is no presumption in favor of the party who has decision-making responsibility. Rather it is the role of the parent, the terms of the order, which impacts who bears the onus of proving whether the relocation is or is not in the child’s best interest. Whoever should have decision-making responsibilities going forward will depend to a certain extent on whether the RM’s request that Mason be permitted to relocate with her is granted. Accordingly, I will address the issue of relocation first.

Statutory Framework

[30] The CLRA sets out framework within which decisions about relocation must be decided. Section 39.4 (3) of the CLRA directs the Court to take into consideration the best interests set out in s. 24 of the CLRA and the following additional best interest considerations:

Best interests of the child

(3) In determining whether to authorize the relocation of a child, the court shall take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with section 24, as well as,

(a) the reasons for the relocation;

(b) the impact of the relocation on the child;

(c) the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or is an applicant for a parenting order with respect to the child, and the level of involvement in the child’s life of each of those persons;

(d) whether the person who intends to relocate the child has complied with any applicable notice requirement under section 39.3 and any applicable Act, regulation, order, family arbitration award and agreement;

(e) the existence of an order, family arbitration award or agreement that specifies the geographic area in which the child is to reside;

(f) the reasonableness of the proposal of the person who intends to relocate the child to vary the exercise of decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new residence and the travel expenses; and

(g) whether each person who has decision-making responsibility or parenting time or is an applicant for a parenting order with respect to the child has complied with their obligations under any applicable Act, regulation, order, family arbitration award or agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 15.

[31] Section 24 of the CLRA provides for the following considerations when making decisions related to decision making responsibilities and parenting time orders for children:

Best interests of the child

24(1) In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

Primary consideration

(2) In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

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,

(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

Onus

[32] Pursuant to section 39.4(6), the onus is on the AF to prove that the relocation is not in Mason’s best interest. Section 39.4(6) provide as follows:

(6) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, family arbitration award or agreement that provides that a child spend the vast majority of time in the care of the party who intends to relocate the child, the party opposing the relocation has the burden of proving that the relocation would not be in the best interests of the child.

[33] Prior to the move to New Brunswick, Mason had been in the primary care of the RM since the parties separated in 2012.

Credibility Issues

[34] It is important to address issues of credibility at the outset.

[35] Both parties prepared affidavits and were cross-examined. The Court has concerns about the credibility and reliability of the RM’s evidence. The RM was not forthcoming with information that did not support her case, which meant that to the extent that the AF’s questions were not precise she would simply deny the suggestion. For example, the AF had a post of the RM with Ryan Johnson. When cross-examined about the relationship, she denied knowing Ryan Jacklin, the name presented to her. While the RM is not obligated to correct the information put to her, she knew what the AF was referring to because it had been put to her before. These are hallmarks of a witness who lacks candor. Her response raises questions about what evidence may lie behind any other blanket denials.

[36] This example is of greater concern because it relates to a period of time that the AF alleges that the RM and Adam separated. When asked later about Ryan Johnson (using the correct name) and the RM’s separation from Adam, the RM denied that they ever separated or that she was involved with Ryan Johnson. When cross-examining, the AF relied upon a post on the RM’s social media and the fact that he received similar information from Mason. Mason explained to the clinician in the VOC Report that his relationship with Adam was negatively impacted by the fact that he left his mother and siblings for several months. The RM’s denial that the parties separated for any period of time is not credible in these circumstances.

[37] The AF claims that the RM creates a narrative that makes her look good, even it factually inaccurate. The RM’s claim that there was no discord in her relationship with Adam appears to be an example. The couple sold their home, at least in part due to financial difficulties. This is confirmed in Mr. Fowler, the step grandfather’s affidavit. He states that ‘he and his wife helped Adam and Tina with expenses over the years and provided considerable assistance to them in the form of gifts, cash, and loans along with advice and assistance.’ The RM denied that the couple struggled with finances, only that they could not afford homes in the area because of the market. The RM presents a picture of a bonded family unit which suffers only because of the interference by the AF. Information provided in different contexts does not support this narrative. For example, when the RM sought an extension to file her closing submissions she states “I am unable to file my materials by the required deadline due to a combination of circumstances beyond my control and personal challenges. During the relevant period, I experienced an unexpected interruption of my internet and telephone services which significantly affected my ability to prepare, communicate, and electronically file my court documents. At the same time, I was managing the responsibilities of caring for my four children while experiencing significant stress and anxiety related to these proceedings. As a result of these circumstances, I inadvertently missed the filing deadline”. Her statement raises questions about why her telephone and internet services were interrupted? What personal challenges she was facing and why she would be experiencing stress and anxiety over the court process when she acknowledges that she missed the filing deadline through inadvertence (ie., not thinking about the court process and her required filings).

[38] There are also examples where the RM comes across as indifferent as to the accuracy of her evidence. For example, when the family moved to New Brunswick part of the appeal was that the RM was able to get a very good job in the hospital as a Unit Nurse effective the beginning of July 2025. At the focused hearing, the RM was no longer working in the hospital. The RM claims that she resigned in October 2025 because her husband obtained employment and is earning more than her. When asked what Adam made as a carpenter, the RM was vague. She did not know because she did not have a copy of his pay stub, but assumed he made $38 per hour, maybe more. At the temporary motion, the RM claimed that she was making $28 per hour at the hospital. At the focus hearing she said she was only making $25 per hour. At the temporary motion, the RM claimed that she was excited about her job because it was in her ‘chosen field’. At the focus hearing she testified that working in a hospital was never her passion and that she decided to refocus and that she would like to get into real estate. There does not appear to be any substance to that statement. She claims that she is taking part-time course, but there is no evidence. The Court is left to wonder whether this is really a goal. Suffice to say the move to New Brunswick was not to further the RM’s career and the lack of clarity and consistency in her answers raises concerns about the reliability of her evidence about the living situation in New Brunswick.

[39] The parties were ordered to file up to date financial statements prior to the hearing. The RM did not file a financial statement prior to the hearing. Even though she was reminded by the Court on June 10, 2026, a day before the hearing on June 11, 2026, she testified that she was unaware that she was required to file a financial statement. At the completion of the hearing, the RM was ordered to file her financial statement as part of her closing submissions. The financial statement was to be served and filed on June 19, 2026. The RM did not file her financial statement until July 20, 2026. While unsworn, it does include a pay stub from Moose Mountain Construction confirming that Adam makes $35 per hour; not the assumed $38 per hour. Based on his year-to-date income, it appears that he will make approximately the same as the RM’s forecasted annual income of $58,000 as a Unit Nurse. This raises questions about the claim that she left her job as a Unit Nurse because Adam was making more money than her.

[40] Another example is the RM’s lack of candor around the timing of her move to New Brunswick. The AF received a call from Mason on June 23, 2025 asking his father to pick him up from school. Mason believed based on a comment that his teacher made to him that his mom was taking him to New Brunswick that weekend. The police were called and Mason confirmed that he wanted to stay with this father. The AF brought an emergency motion and the RM brought a cross motion claiming that she had no intention to leave for New Brunswick that weekend. The RM claims that she had plans to take Mason to Ottawa as a graduation gift for the weekend. The AF does not believe that was the plan and the Court has concerns about the RM’s representations in the circumstances. It was the Friday before the last week of school – there were only three days left in the school year. The other three siblings were pulled out of school for the final week and began their trip to New Brunswick with their father that weekend. The RM claims that she was only going as far as Ottawa and that the rest of the family would continue on to New Brunswick. Even if the RM did not plan on leaving that weekend, the move was imminent and she knew that the AF was not consenting. She had not obtained permission from the court and had only recently filed her notice of intention to relocate. She had not told the AF, or Mason where she was taking him that weekend and claims it was to be a surprise. In all of the circumstances, her explanation is suspicious at best.

[41] Similar concerns do not arise with respect to the AF’s evidence. The RM has not challenged the evidentiary basis of the AF’s version of events. Her concerns relate more to motive and the way the AF addresses issues. In Adam’s affidavit he relays many examples of situations where the AF caused conflict at exchanges, by arriving early; by insisting on talking to the RM; and by calling the police to assist. There is some merit to these concerns. The AF has been persistent in his efforts to increase parenting time. Adam describes this persistence as an intentional effort to antagonize, instigate, threaten, abuse and belittle the RM’. Given the years of discord and litigation, I accept the RM’s claims and that Adam has observed inappropriate reactions by the AF. While not justifiable, it may be that the RM’s stringent approach, refusal to communicate with the AF has contributed to the AF’s reaction.

[42] Mr. Fowler, the step grandfather acknowledged observing both parties to be engaged in a battle over custody, of trying to leverage police action to support their differences and fighting over trivial details in an attempt to spite each other.

[43] While the Court accepts that AF’s approach has been antagonistic at times, the Court accepts that at the core, he is motivated by a strong desire to maintain his relationship and the time he has with Mason. The Court does not accept that he is intentionally harassing or instigating the RM and her family.

Applicable Best Interests Factors in this Case

[44] The significant considerations in this case include the following:

The reasons for the relocation

[45] The RM maintains that life in New Brunswick is much better. The family has purchased a home which accommodates all four children. It is close to schools, a recreation center and is in a residential community. The RM claims that the other children are thriving and have made new friends. Mr. Fowler also testified that the family is doing well. He assisted in driving the children out to New Brunswick in June 2025 but has not been back. He clarified that he stayed in a hotel as the family home was not set up and that he was only there for one day. His opinion of how the family is doing is based primarily on information he receives from phone calls or Facetime communications.

[46] The AF claims that the move was an effort to run away from the financial difficulties which arose because of Adam’s mismanagement of his construction business. The AF works for a lumber yard and heard rumors that Adam was struggling with addiction issues and was overwhelmed by unpaid bills.

[47] The RM denies that claim and maintains that the couple decided to move to New Brunswick because they could not afford housing in the Parry Sound area for a family of their size. They wanted a new opportunity, and they chose the east coast because housing was cheaper and the RM has family in Nova Scotia. Both the RM and Adam’s parents live in the Parry Sound area, but Mr. Fowler supported and may have even suggested the move.

[48] The reasons for the relocation must be relevant to the parents’ ability to meet the needs of the child. Courts have declined relocation applications where the court is satisfied that the custodial parent is moving for an improper purpose such as to frustrate an access parent’s relationship with the child (see: Jantzi v. Jantzi 2003 CarwellOnt 5370 (Ont. S.C.) at para 40) or where the move would completely sever the relationship between the access parent and the child because of distance and prohibitive costs of access (see: Bartlett v. Bartlett, 2004 ONCJ 276).

[49] Much of the RM’s evidence is unchecked because the AF does not live in the same community and because there is no opportunity for rigorous cross-examination. Not only is it challenging for a self-represented party to effectively cross-examine their former partner, but the concerns about the credibility and reliability of RM’s evidence justify a caution approach to her narrative. As a result, it is difficult for the Court to get a real appreciation of situation in New Brunswick.

[50] While the Court has some reservations about the RM’s stated reasons for the relocation, there is no permissible evidence to support the AF’s claim that they are fleeing a failed business or that Adam is struggling with addiction issues. The RM claims that they had outgrown their home in Seguin and New Brunswick presented an affordable option. In coming to that decision, the RM did not have any regard for the AF’s parenting time and the disruption that would result from the relocation, but the evidence does not support a finding that the reason for the move was to frustrate the AF’s parenting time. The couple was able to find an affordable home, jobs and a community that supports the family. By all accounts it does appear that they are doing better. Mr. Fowler testified that he is no longer having to support them financially. The distance, while problematic does not make ongoing parenting time with the AF impossible as was the situation in Bartlett where the parent proposed a move to Japan.

Impact of the relocation on Mason

[51] The relocation has had a significant impact on Mason. The move represents a change from everything that Mason has been accustomed to. He has always lived in the Parry Sound area. His extended family on both sides resides in the Parry Sound area. All his friends live and go to school in the Parry Sound area. He enjoyed time with his father, uncles and until her passing on April 19, 2025, his paternal grandmother on a regular basis.

[52] The clinician noted how he became emotional a number of times when he talked about the fact that he would not be able to see his father enough if he moved and the separation from his mother if he stayed. Mr. Fowler reported observing the same reaction when the RM left for New Brunswick in September 2025 after her visit with Mason.

[53] Following the RM’s move, Mason remained in Parry Sound for his first year of high school. The RM claims he has become more isolated and that he is no longer spending time with friends or playing sports as he has done in the past. Both Adam and Mr. Fowler claim that Mason has become more confrontational. Mr. Fowler was less charitable suggesting that Mason is now living in a dilapidated home, and that he is unhygienic as it relates to cleanliness, clothing and oral hygiene. He describes Mason as an unusually belligerent, bullying and resistant to parental advice and supervision. When questioned about how often he sees Mason he confirmed that he has only spent a few hours kayaking with him and only for short periods when the RM is returning him to Parry Sound.

[54] Mr. Fowler’s position with respect to spending time with Mason following the RM and Adam’s move to New Brunswick is troubling. He claims that the AF has made no attempt to allow for contact between he and his wife and Mason. The AF reminded him in cross examination of the meeting in the Walmart parking lot where he said Mason was welcome to visit at any time. This was followed up by a text message of the same tenor. Mr. Fowler found this to be a haphazard approach which did not warrant a response. He further confirmed that given that the AF suggested that he and his wife could be a support for Mason in Parry Sound and given that he did not want to detract from the RM’s request to move to New Brunswick, he did not want to engage with Mason. This approach is disappointing. It is clear that Adam’s parents have been involved in Mason’s life since Adam and the RM started dating in 2013. Mr. Fowler acknowledges having been involved in all aspects of Mason’s life by providing babysitting, childcare, hosting sleepovers and having all of the children for periods of up to a week to provide the parents with a break. The decision not to engage with Mason while he is in the AF’s care, no doubt had an impact on Mason and does not represent a child focused approach.

[55] Mason was able to go to New Brunswick at least six times over the past year. While he has been able to connect with his mother and siblings, the change in residence and distance from them represents a significant change for him.

[56] The AF claims that Mason has done well in his care. While off to a bit of a rocky start with school, he was doing well by the end of the year. Many students were affected by the fact that the new high school construction was incomplete and the decision to go online while students were redistributed to other schools and approvals to return to the old school were granted. Mason tried out for basketball but as his father explained, like most of the grade nine students who tried out, he was passed over in favor of grade ten students who had played last year. The AF continued to engage Mason in activities around the house and did his best to minimize the impact of the changes in Mason’s life.

[57] The RM submits that she believes that the AF manipulated Mason into staying over the guilt of the passing of his paternal grandmother. There is no evidence before the Court to support this claim. The clinician was confident that Mason was able to express his independent wishes. In the Court’s meeting with Mason, he did express any pressure or regret, but there are clearly aspects of his life with his mother and siblings that he missed.

Ability and willingness to comply with orders

[58] The RM’s ability and willingness to comply with orders is a significant concern for the Court. The RM has demonstrated an unwillingness to accept the terms of court orders which do not meet with her expectations. The RM creates an excuse for non-compliance but does not appreciate that her explanations do not justify the breaches. The following are examples:

(1) The RM did not provide notice of her intention to relocate as required by section 39.3 of the CLRA. Even after the AF commenced the MTC, she did not reconsider her decision or the timing of it. Her approach appeared to be one of entitlement and expectation. She had decided to move to New Brunswick and she did not consider for a moment that she had to seek permission. Her stated expectation being that Mason is her son and if she has decided that they will move, then he will move. In her affidavit the RM states “I have decision making rights and full custody and to my knowledge that gives me the right to decide where my child whom I birthed, should be raised and how to be raised”. That approach does not recognize that Mason has a father, nor does it take into consideration the impact that her decision has on Mason’s relationship with his father or Mason’s concerns about his ability to spend time with his father or his friends. It is significant that Mason contacted his father to express his fear that the move was imminent and that his mother had not been fully candid with him. He was confused and did not trust her. Not only does the RM’s actions demonstrate a failure to comply with the notice requirements, but it also demonstrates a complete lack of insight into the importance of Mason’s relationship with his father.

A parent who engages in self-help tactics despite the best interests of the child will generally raise serious questions about their own parenting skills and judgment. See: Izyuk v. Bilousov (supra); Clement v. Clement 2010 ONSC 1113 ((SCJ); Rifai v. Green, 2014 ONSC 1377..

(2) When granted parenting time in New Brunswick the RM refused to allow the AF to pick him up, even though the court order required the return. This was a brazen breach of this Court’s order and the Order of Justice Rocheleau with the only explanation being ‘Mason wanted to stay another week’. Frankly, that is not a credible explanation given that Mason was so adamant that he wanted to go to school in Parry Sound so that he could start high school with his friends. School was scheduled to resume on September 15, 2025, the day after the AF attempted to pick him up. Even if Mason did express that he wanted to stay longer, it was not a child focused decision in the circumstances and represents a willingness to disregard a court order if it does not suit the RM’s plan for Mason.

(3) The AF brought a contempt motion and this court declined to make an order that the RM was in contempt because she had remedied the contempt by the time the motion was heard. She was found to be in breach and was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs. Costs were due in 90 days from the date of the order, September 25, 2025. To date, the RM has not complied with that order. The issue has been raised on many occasions, including at the hearing and the RM feels entitled because the AF has not paid the child support she claims he owes. That issue is with the Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”) and was not formally put before the Court. The AF testified that he is working with the FRO to confirm their calculations and that he is making contributions. There is no justification for the RM’s non-compliance with the cost order flowing from her breach of two separate court orders.

(4) While not an order, the AF asked the RM to provide him with Mason’s Health Card and SIN. The Court supported the request but did not make it an order as it appeared that would not be necessary. The RM did not accommodate the request and still has not. The AF had to apply for a new Health Card for Mason. He wanted the SIN so that Mason could apply for a job this summer. The RM made excuses related to the change in Mason’s last name suggesting that she was waiting for another card. Her explanation does not explain her non-compliance. There is no justifiable reason for her to withhold Mason’s SIN.

[59] The lack of co-operation and refusal to respect and comply with orders is a significant concern. Given the RM’s approach, there is a very real risk that she will not comply with parenting time orders. This is a significant consideration given this Court’s finding that it is in Mason’s best interest that he be able to maintain a relationship with his father and a connection to Parry Sound and extended family and friends.

The reasonableness of the parenting time proposal, including travel expenses

[60] When a parent proposes a significant move the willingness to accommodate and support parenting time is an important aspect of the plan. The RM did not present any plan to accommodate the AF’s parenting time. In fact, she never even confirmed the date of the move with the AF. It was not until the RM retained counsel to assist in preparing materials for the temporary motion that a parenting plan was provided. The RM has retracted from that proposal and now seeks less parenting time and to have the AF pay for all of the travel costs.

[61] There are no specific statutory rules as it relates to transportation cost and the allocation of those costs in a particular case. In the ordinary course, it is not uncommon for the access parent to be responsible for pick-up and drop-offs for parenting time, but the CLRA provides jurisdiction to order the sharing of transportation as an incident of decision-making responsibilities and parenting time. (see: Dookie v Surujmohan 2017 ONSC 6073 at para 27.)

[62] The order must be consistent with the child’s best interests, which includes not putting too heavy of a burden on the access parent. The relocation in this case is a decision made by the RM mother alone. It is her decision to move that imposes increased costs, and strain on the AF’s parenting time. The AF should not have to bear those costs alone.

[63] In Porter v Bryan, 2017 ONCA 677, in granting the mother’s appeal and allowing the relocation, the Court of Appeal noted the following:

18We are encouraged in this result by the mother’s offer to facilitate access by providing air travel to Cochrane for the child, taking advantage of an employment benefit of her new job in Thunder Bay. She is also willing, we are advised, to accept an unequal sharing of summer and non-school days during the school year to accommodate the father’s work schedule as a forest firefighter deployed across Canada.

[64] The RM’s approach in this case is not encouraging. Although the RM claims that the relocation makes financial sense, she maintains that she is unable to financially contribute to the costs of transportation. The position appears to be more retaliatory than child focused. She had to pay for the transportation last year (with the exception of the AF’s trip to New Brunswick in September 2025 when he was unable to pick up Mason), and accordingly it seems fair, in the RM’s submission, that the AF should have to pay all of the travel costs going forward.

[65] Even the decision not to claim child support, has its roots in the fact that the AF has not sought child support for the year that Mason has been in his care.

[66] The costs of exercising parenting time are substantial and the distance is significant. This is a case where it is appropriate that the travel and costs be shared. To ensure compliance each parent should be responsible for their portion of the travel being the return of the child to their care. This means that the AF would be responsible for picking up Mason (or arranging for travel) at the commencement of the visit and the RM should be responsible for the costs and arrangements to have Mason return to her home.

Relationship and ability to provide care

[67] Both parents have demonstrated an ability to meet Mason’s needs. The AF provided copies of Mason’s report cards, vaccination and an optical receipt to confirm that he has been attending to Mason’s medical and educational needs. The RM, Adam and Mr. Fowler suggest that Mason is not doing well and has become confrontational and disrespectful. The RM does not believe that the AF provides proper meals, supervision or grooming. She claims that Mason is no longer active and engaged with friends and that he has missed a lot of school.

[68] Both parents have a strong relationship with Mason. Mason reported the strength of his relationship with each parent to be an 8 or 9 out of ten in the VOC Report. He is able to go to either his mother or father for support and reports that he loves them both.

[69] Mason is well connected with his siblings and with his extended family. He is close with his uncles and aunts on his father’s side and with his paternal step-grandparents on his mother’s side. The RM’s mother, Diane Emerson lives in McKellar and while the RM has reconciled, it has been many years since Mason has seen his maternal grandmother. The RM alleged that her stepfather sexually abused her when she was young and for many years she was estranged from her mother. The AF recalls the RM’s insistence that Mason not be in his maternal grandmother’s care and was concerned about the change in heart. Given Mason’s age, the length of time that has passed, there is no evidence that Mrs. Emerson poses a risk to Mason, but she is not a close support for him either.

[70] The AF has never raised concerns about the RM’s ability to care for Mason. She has been caring for Mason since birth and there is no suggestion that she is unable to meet his needs.

[71] Some of the RM’s concerns are understandable. The AF’s parenting style and environment are very different from the RM’s. The AF has never re-partnered and lived with his mother and two brothers until his mother’s passing in April 2025. Marshall, one brother, has since moved out. There is no female or mother figure in the home. The RM’s home is a more traditional family environment. While one is not necessarily better, they are different.

[72] The RM claims, and Adam confirms that the RM was very involved in Mason’s school, sports and arranging play dates. The RM was a stay-at-home parent throughout the time that Mason was in her care. Given the AF’s work schedule which requires that he (and Mason’s uncles) leave the home at 6:30 am, Mason is left to his own devices in terms of getting himself to school. Mason has taken on some of the responsibilities for making meals, looking after the dogs and cleaning the house. His father is encouraging him to think about work and finances. None of these are negative attributes but again represent a very different routine from what Mason has been used to.

[73] Accordingly, while both parents are able and have met Mason’s needs, they do it in a very different ways.

Willingness and ability to support Mason’s relationship with the other parent

[74] The Court has concerns about the RM’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of Mason’s relationship with his father. This is not a concern in respect of the AF. The AF recognizes the importance of the RM’s role in Mason’s life. If the RM was still in Parry Sound, the AF’s position would be very different. He would like to share parenting time but has never doubted the RM’s ability to care and provide for Mason. He recognizes and supports that relationship.

[75] The RM on the other hand, does not acknowledge the AF’s ability to care for Mason. While she may have her own past with the AF, it is unfortunate that she cannot accept that the AF is important in Mason’s life. She equates his persistent requests for parenting time with harassment. The AF claims that she never allowed him to attend at the school or any parent/teacher meetings. The RM claims that he was not interested. That claim is simply not credible considering the years of litigation and consistent requests for increased parenting time and increased involvement in Mason’s life, education and sports. The Court does not accept that the AF’s persistence is an effort to harass or interfere with the RM’s parenting, decision-making or relationship with Mason. His efforts are a genuine attempt to maintain and grow his relationship with Mason.

[76] While the affidavits from Tina Crisp and Leona Grisdale included hearsay statements, they were able to provide direct evidence about observations of activities that Mason and his father engage in and about the family gatherings that Mason attends. They have observed interactions between Mason and the AF. While not present for every interaction and conversation, they both know the AF well. They know that he built a treehouse for Mason in his backyard. They know that he makes trails for tobogganing. They know that he plans activities – bowling, snow/tubing parks, fairs, trampoline parks and birthday parties at their homes. They have talked to Mason about the things he does with his father.

[77] They are a close family and can speak to the AF’s character. Both witnesses describe him as someone who would not bad mouth the RM in front of Mason. Of a parent who puts his child’s interests first and they describe him as a loving father. One example provided was the day that the AF’s mother passed away. Mason was staying with him, and his first thought was to call the RM so that she could pick up Mason and remove him from the home. Considering all the animosity and friction, that is a very child-focused decision.

[78] The AF’s brother Murray Cassels lived with the AF until just prior to the hearing. He has had numerous opportunities to observe Mason with the AF over the years. He claims that Mason and the AF were always doing fun things on the weekends. He describes the AF as an amazing, father, son and brother noting that he stepped up to support the family when their mother was working to raise her sons as a single mother.

[79] The RM’s approach is different. She has been rigid. The AF claims that he must modify his parenting time to ensure Mason can join family gatherings on the RM’s side, but that she does not reciprocate. She did not dispute that claim or provide any evidence of situations where she did accommodate in providing flexibility in parenting time to accommodate the AF’s family gatherings. The AF testified that he would cut short or interrupt his time with Mason to accommodate the RM’s family events and that on occasion she would refuse or delay Mason’s return.

[80] One particular situation that stands out involved a birthday party in Barrie that the AF arranged for Mason. It was post-covid and the first opportunity to get a group of friends together. The AF claims he had been planning the party for two years. Mason asked if his stepbrother Hudson could come. The AF reached out to the RM and arrangements were made for the step-grandparents to bring Hudson to the party. The AF made it clear that while Hudson was welcome to come, he did not want the RM or Adam to attend the party to deliver Hudson. The AF learned just before the party that the grandparents were not going to bring Hudson. He repeated his condition that neither the RM, nor Adam drive Hudson to the party. The RM ignored that request and attended the party and refused to leave. When the AF threatened to call the police, she left in tears. Shortly after the police attended and arrested the AF on an allegation that he had shoved the RM. The AF was taken away from Mason’s birthday party in handcuffs. The RM later changed her assertion that she was shoved and no charges were laid.

[81] In the circumstances the AF’s request that the RM and/or her husband not attend was reasonable. The parties had years of litigation behind them, their communication is limited and strained, and they do not have a history of attending shared birthday parties. The RM’s refusal to leave and decision to call the police resulting in the AF’s arrest at Mason’s birthday was not justified by the RM at the hearing. She should not have come and should have left when requested.

[82] If the RM does not respect Mason’s relationship with his father, her willingness to support and promote that relationship is unlikely to change or improve. The importance of her willingness and ability to support the relationship increases with the distance and challenges of accommodating parenting time from across the country.

Mason’s views and preferences

[83] It is well settled that when determining how much weight to give a child’s wishes, a court is to consider:

1. whether the parents are able to provide adequate care;

2. how clear and unambivalent the wishes are;

3. how informed the expression is;

4. the age of the child;

5. the child’s maturity level;

6. the strength of the wish;

7. how long they have expressed their preference;

8. the practicalities of the situation;

9. parental influence;

10. overall context; and

11. the circumstances of the preference from the child’s point of view.

See: Decaen v. Decaen, 2013 ONCA 218, 303 O.A.C. 261, at para. 42; J.N. v. C.G., 2023 ONCA 77.

[84] Views of children 17, 15 and 10 were given significant weight in Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 641, recognizing that over the past several years, courts have taken great initiative to seek out and consider the views and preferences of the child.

[85] The OCL declined the Court’s request to provide an update to the VOC Report from September 2025. Mason is 15 years of age and is capable of expressing his views and preferences. It was important to the parties, and to the Court to get an update from Mason. He has now had the opportunity to live with his father for a year and has been able to travel to New Brunswick a number of times such that he has a good sense of what the relocation may look like for him. With the consent of the parties, the Court met with Mason to obtain his views and preferences at the hearing. The information obtained by Michelle Anthony as set out in the VOC Report is still relevant and important as it delves into deeper discussions with Mason.

[86] In his meeting with me, Mason was not emotional. He was engaged and willing to talk, but understandably a bit reserved. He described his relationship with his parents, his like and dislikes. He described his school year, living arrangements and activities. From his comments, the Court gleaned that Mason is comfortable, and likely happiest with a lot of people around him. He expressed that he missed his mom and siblings and has enjoyed his visits to New Brunswick. The opportunities that New Brunswick offers has piqued his interest and he expressed that he would like to see what it is like. His suggestion was to move in the second semester; to start Grade 10 in Parry Sound and then move for the second half of the year. Mason explained that he has some friends who were a year behind him and this would give him a chance to spend time with them and see how they like high school.

[87] He had no complaints about living with his father. He did miss his uncle, Marshall who moved out to live with his girlfriend, but enjoys his other uncle, his dad and his dogs. Mason does have a fair amount of independence at his father’s home but did not express any concerns in that regard.

[88] In the VOC Report, Mason expressed that he truly believed that both his parents would support his decision and that does not seem to have changed. He did not present as reserved or hesitant to express his views.

[89] The Court was cautious in its approach with Mason and did not have the opportunity to meet with him more than once. Mason’s suggestion of relocating halfway through the year could be interpreted as an attempt to make both his parents happy.

Decision on relocation

[90] Mason’s wishes are only one consideration. Notwithstanding the concerns about the RM’s disregard for court orders, her lack of insight and willingness to support Mason’s relationship with the AF, it is the Court’s view that the AF has not proven that it is in Mason’s best interests to remain in Parry Sound.

[91] While Mason has done well over the past year, he has not thrived or excelled. He enjoyed his time at Parry Sound Highschool but was not overly excited about any aspect. He enjoys his friends, but they seem to have become secondary. In the VOC Report they were the driving factor in his mind. In meeting with the Court Mason indicated a continued connection with his friends but did not reference any strong relationships and did not appear to be concerned about his ability to meet new friends. He clearly missed his mother and the routine that has been consistent for him for years.

[92] Mason continues to have a strong connection with this father, but the Court is left with a sense that he feels somewhat isolated and perhaps lonely with only his dad and one uncle in the home. The AF had hoped to get Mason working over the summer which is something that many of his friends were doing. The RM’s refusal to provide the SIN prevented this from happening and may have negatively impacted Mason’s experience in Parry Sound to some extent.

[93] The RM has remained in the same home in Woodstock. The home is close to the school and community activities. Mason is able to walk to school. Mason identified as only being close to his oldest brother in the VOC Report but confirmed that he misses his siblings. The RM and Adam report that the family dynamics are different and that Masons’ siblings miss him. It appears that the family is doing well financially. Adam is working full time and the RM is able to stay home. That structure is one that Mason is familiar and comfortable with.

[94] While Mason has suggested the relocation occur in the second semester (which would be February 2027), it is not in his best interests to disrupt his school year. Accordingly, the RM’s request to relocate Mason effective September 2026 will be granted provided that she complies with a number of conditions which will ensure that the Mason is properly registered in school and that the AF has all of the contact information for the school so that he may receive report cards, updates and be connected with Mason’s education.

Decision-making responsibilities

[95] The RM has been the sole custodial parent (now the sole decision-maker) since the parties separated in 2012. The AF sought sole decision-making responsibility as a necessity if Mason remained in his care. As an alternative the AF seeks joint custody.

[96] The RM submits that if the AF were granted custodial rights, it would severely affect her ability to parent Mason. She claims that the AF is incapable of making appropriate decisions and only likes to control people. Mason would not get the proper care and that the AF would say no for no reason and only as a mechanism to control her. She uses the example of the AF’s unwillingness to agree to Mason travelling to New Brunswick for Christmas as an example of his threats and control. Copies of the text messages were attached to the RM’s affidavit. In them the AF does say that he is busy and that he is not willing to absorb the costs of a missed day of work and travel to Toronto to accommodate Mason’s return. He also explains that the $1,000 cost order has not been paid and that the RM has not provided Mason’s health card (although the full message on this issue was not provided). At the hearing, the AF explained that he was fearful that Mason would not come back on schedule without an order and that he would incur more costs.

[97] These concerns are valid and do not represent an effort to control the RM or the situation. The AF was reasonably trying to confirm a detailed plan. The inability on behalf of both parties to communicate effectively and work through the issues prevented resolution. The AF claimed that the RM was simply re-texting the same request and the RM thought the AF was just unreasonable.

[98] The Court of Appeal in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis 2005 CanLII 1625 (Ont. C.A.) held that there must be evidence of historical communication between the parents and appropriate communication between them before a joint custodial order could be made. Such an order could not be made in the hope that it will improve their communication, but had to be based on a proven past.

[99] In 2006, in Ursic v. Ursic 2006 CanLII 18349 (Ont.CA), the Court of Appeal upheld a joint custody order and the trial judge’s finding that such an order was necessary and in the child’s best interests “to maintain a relationship with both parents beyond that provided by access.” It was significant that the trial judge had also ordered parallel parenting. In Urisic the parties essentially shared parenting time. That is a distinction in the facts before me. The AF will be provinces away and would not be able to parent in a parallel manner.

[100] In recent years, there has been more willingness to grant joint custody where such an order is necessary to preserve the balance of power between the parents, especially where one parent has been primarily responsible for the conflictual relationship: see: Garrow v. Woycheshen, 2008 ONCJ 686, Hsiung v. Tsioutsioulas, 2011 ONCJ 517; and where both parties are caring and competent parents. Khairzad v. Macfarlane, 2015 ONSC 7148, Fraser v. Fraser, 2016 ONSC 4720 and Roloson v. Clyde, 2017 ONSC 3642, par. 59 for a review of these cases.

[101] Decision-making authority assists in ensuring that a parent’s relationship with his or her child is not marginalized. See: Rigillo v. Rigillo, 2019 ONCA 548; Teeple v. Millington, 2020 ONSC 896.

[102] There are aspects of both the necessity to preserve the balance of power between the parents and to ensure that the AF’s relationship with Mason is not marginalized, but there are also aspects of inappropriate gatekeeping in the facts before me.

[103] Subsection 18 (1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act (the Act) defines decision-making responsibility as follows:

“decision-making responsibility” means responsibility for making significant decisions about a child’s well-being, including with respect to,

(a) health,

(b) education,

(c) culture, language, religion and spirituality, and

(d) significant extra-curricular activities.

[104] Having decision-making responsibilities over a child’s well-being, does not grant a parent with the right to trounce on another parent’s rights to access to information, to parenting time and importantly to have a relationship with their child. It is a genuinely held belief by the RM that there should be no reason why she cannot just move Mason 14 hours away from his father. Her refusal to follow orders that interfere with that belief is concerning. Those concerns compel the Court to give significant weight to the AF’s request for joint decision-making responsibility.

[105] The RM believes that as an incident of custody she can make significant decisions, such are relocation without any input from the AF. In her affidavit she states, “I genuinely thought that this relocation would not be an issue or last a whole year, as I have been the sole custodial parent to Mason and have had decision making rights his whole life.” She goes on to say that “I genuinely thought that relocation would undoubtably be granted and that the only issue would be for the court to assist to determine an appropriate timeline for visits with Mason’s father in ON and how the travel would look for that.” It is difficult to understand how the RM thought that relocation would not be an issue and that her request would ‘undoubtably be granted’, in a case where the parties have been back to court six times prior to this MTC; where the AF has consistently and regularly exercised parenting time every other weekend (which clearly cannot be accommodated with the relocation); and where the AF has continually, and persistently sought to enforce his parenting time rights.

[106] In J.Y. v. L.F.-T., 2019 ONSC 1718, the divisional court addresses the issues of gatekeeping. Specifically, starting at paragraph 6, the court describes the issue as follows:

6The trial was not “about” the conflict and failures to communicate between the parties. Those difficulties arose because of the mother’s improper “gatekeeping”, as described in detail by the trial judge: the mother unilaterally gave the child her husband’s surname, rather than the father’s. She trained the child to call the father “Bubba” rather than “Daddy”. She removed the child from the jurisdiction without prior notice to or consent of the father. Starting in January 2015, she made and persisted in false allegations of sexual assault against the father (for which no evidence was found by police, child welfare authorities, the child’s physician, or the child’s teachers). She made health care decisions affecting the child without informing the father or seeking his agreement. She unilaterally determined when and under what circumstances the father would see his child, including insisting that access be conducted under her mother’s supervision at her mother’s residence.

7Aside from the gatekeeping, the mother is a fine and experienced parent, with an established household, and she is well able to care for G. The father, for his part, seems a bit of a free spirit, irresponsible with money, without prior experience as a parent, residing with his own mother. At trial he was not seeking sole custody and he was not proposing that G live primarily with him.

8In the absence of the mother’s gatekeeping, this would have been a straightforward case: primary residence with the mother, defined access with the father, joint custody with some guidelines on decision-making processes. The “problem” in this case is the gatekeeping which has been pervasive and extreme, and which was the central challenge for the trial judge in fashioning an appropriate custody and access order.

9McGee J. concluded that joint custody was the best way forward. She found that “[w]hen one parent seeks to marginalize the other parent, joint custody may be necessary to ensure that one parent’s continued involvement in the child’s life.” We agree with this statement.

10McGee J. noted that this solution might not succeed. She commented about what might happen, in future, if joint custody does not work: she admonished the father to work on his parenting skills and on settling his life, in case things did not work out and an order for sole custody and primary residence with the father presented as the best solution to secure the father-daughter relationship. These comments were not improper obiter dicta. They were analytically sound and were designed to reinforce the joint custody order. We would provide further reinforcement.

11Absent the mother’s gatekeeping, obviously the best place for G to reside primarily is with her mother and half-siblings. The father did not contest this at trial, and properly so. But the mother should not understand that this obvious point precludes a change of custody and primary residence if she will not stop gatekeeping.

15Gatekeeping is borne of a fundamental disrespect for the other parent, as a parent. An order for sole custody to the gatekeeping parent can reinforce that disrespect. Where, as here, parental conflict arises because of the gatekeeping, the intractable nature of the problem is obvious: awarding sole custody to the gatekeeper supports and rewards past gatekeeping and reinforces its lessons for the future.

[107] This Court struggles with the same issues. The RM is a good parent, with the exception of her gatekeeping. She does not respect the AF, or his role as a parent for Mason. Neither does her husband or his father. That was clear in their evidence and affidavits. Both Adam and Mr. Fowler support the RM’s gatekeeping decisions. There are concerns that if the AF is given joint decision-making responsibilities that important decisions may be delayed or opposed because of the lack of effective communication. The risk however, of the AF being marginalized if he is not included in decision-making is greater, in my view.

[108] It will be incumbent on the AF to ensure that he does not unreasonably withhold his consent. He should be provided with access to all service providers for Mason which includes teachers, counsellors, health care providers and coaches. He should be given timely information about important decisions involving Mason so that he may provide input and know what is going on in Mason’s life. There should be no restriction on his ability to interact with the school and Mason’s teachers. If either parent inappropriately abuses their right to decision-making authority they risk losing that right and the AF would be wise to bare that in mind.

Parenting-Time

[109] As noted at the outset, given the lack of co-operation and flexibility demonstrated by these parties over the years as it relates to parenting-time and access it is important that there be a very detailed order. It is not appropriate to include a police assistance clause at this time. Such directions should be used as an exception and not included as a standard order. While there is some history in this case that may justify such a clause, one can only hope that the RM has learned the importance of ensuring that orders are followed.

[110] Given the distance and costs to exercise parenting-time, the schedule should maximize time with the AF when Mason is not in school. This will allow Mason to reconnect with his father, extended family and friends in Parry Sound. It is challenging to set out the parenting time schedule without the specifics of the school schedule. The following is the framework, but the Court will require that the RM provide the AF and the Court with the school calendar as soon as Mason is enrolled so that specific dates and times can be inserted in the order for the first year.

[111] As noted above, transportation will be shared with the AF being responsible for arranging for transportation or for picking up Mason at the commencement of the parenting time. If the AF attends in New Brunswick to pick up Mason, he will be able to pick him up from the school, if parenting time commences on a day that Mason is in school. The RM shall be responsible for the transportation at the end of the parenting time.

[112] If the parent responsible for the transportation decides to have Mason travel by air or train, they will be responsible for ensuring that Mason is picked up and delivered to the other parent’s home.

[113] Given that Mason is in school and attendance is important, monthly parenting time is not realistic, particularly as he gets into Grade 10, 11 and 12. However accommodation can be made around long weekends where a short absence could be acceptable.

[114] The AF will have at least the following parenting time with Mason:

(1) Thanksgiving weekend commencing on the Friday after school and ending on the following Sunday for a nine-day visit;

(2) Christmas break commencing on the Friday after school with Mason returning three days before the school break ends so that he may celebrate Christmas with his family in New Brunswick.

(3) March break for a nine-day visit commencing on the Friday of March break and ending on the Sunday following.

(4) One of either:

(a) Easter weekend commencing on Thursday after school and ending on the following Sunday for a ten-day visit; or

(b) The May long weekend commencing on Friday after school and ending on the following Sunday for a nine-day visit.

The AF will be required to provide the RM with his choice by February 1st each year.

(5) Summer holidays commencing on the Friday following the last week of school (allowing Mason to remain in New Brunswick with the RM for one full week after school ends) until the Sunday one week prior to the return to school in September.

(6) Parenting time in New Brunswick should upon reasonable notice and which can include parenting time on Mason’s Birthday and/or Father’s day. If the AF travels to New Brunswick he should be afforded no less than three days (or a weekend) of parenting time. Mason’s birthday should be shared.

(7) If the RM travels to Parry Sound in the summer, upon reasonable notice she should also be afforded no less than a three day (or a weekend) of parenting time.

(8) Reasonable notice should not be less than 14 days notice.

[115] The expected return of Mason to New Brunswick will be August 30, 2026 at 3:00 pm provided that the RM complies with the following conditions:

1. She must provide the AF with proof of enrollment in the school in Woodstock, New Brunswick by August 26, 2026. This information must include contact information for the school, consent that the AF have access to any online communication applications (such as Edsby) and proof that the AF has been added as an emergency contact with school.

2. A copy of the school calendar for 2026/2027 shall be provided to the AF and filed with the Court.

3. The RM shall provide the AF with Mason’s SIN.

4. The RM shall pay the $1,000 cost order.

[116] For this one occasion, Mason’s return on August 30, 2026, the AF will drive Mason to New Brunswick. This will provide the AF with the opportunity to spend additional time with Mason and familiarize himself with the school and surrounding. If Mason has any belongings that need to be move the AF can facilitate.

[117] If the RM does not comply with the above terms Mason’s relocation can be deferred to the second semester which is not inconsistent with his wishes. Mason would then remain in Parry Sound, and the RM would receive the parenting time set out above for the AF.

[118] The details of the parenting time order and the date for Mason’s return to New Brunswick will be finalized once the RM provides the above information.

[119] While it makes some sense to suspend child support for the next 12 months (consistent with the period of time that the AF did not request child support), however, child support is a right of the child and the parties should consider the commencement of child support in September 2027. Payment of child support may be impacted by either parent’s failure to comply with their obligation to share the cost of travel as outlined in this decision and is not an issue that is before this Court at this time.