DATE: November 27, 2023 COURT FILE NO. D41815/21 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

I.O. ACTING IN PERSON APPLICANT

• and –

I.G. LEROY A. BLETA, for the RESPONDENT RESPONDENT

HEARD: NOVEMBER 21-22, 2023

JUSTICE S.B. SHERR

REASONS FOR DECISION

Part One – Introduction

[1] This trial was about the parenting and child support arrangements for the parties’ four children (the children).

[2] The children live with the respondent (the mother). There is a temporary order that the applicant (the father) have supervised parenting time with the children at Access for Parents and Children in Ontario (APCO). However, the father has chosen not to exercise that parenting time. The children have not seen the father since March 2023.

[3] The father seeks orders for primary residence of the children, decision-making responsibility for them and other incidents of parenting. He proposes that the mother exercise her parenting time each weekend. He asked for child support at trial, although he did not make a claim for this in his application and did not specify how much child support he was seeking.

[4] The mother also seeks orders for primary residence and decision-making responsibility for the children. She seeks orders for several incidents of parenting, including the ability to travel outside of Canada with the children and obtain government documentation for them without the father’s consent. The mother wants the father to complete a parenting program prior to his having supervised parenting time with the children. The mother also seeks communication and non-contact orders pursuant to section 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (the Act).

[5] The mother asks the court to impute the father’s annual income at $64,927 and order him to pay the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines) table amount for 4 children of $1,532 each month, starting on December 1, 2022.

[6] This case was organized by the case management judge as a focused hearing. The parties filed affidavits for their direct evidence. The court modified the hearing plan at trial and permitted the father additional time to orally reply to the mother’s case. The father called two additional witnesses. The mother called one additional witness. They provided their direct evidence by affidavit and were all cross-examined.

[7] The mother was assisted by Twi interpreters throughout the trial.

[8] The issues for this court to decide are:

a) What parenting orders are in the children’s best interests? b) What communication and non-contact orders should be made? c) What child support order should be made?

Part Two – Background Facts

[9] The father is 40 years old. The mother is 37 years old.

[10] The father immigrated to Canada from Ghana in 2002. He graduated from Seneca College and works as a laboratory technician.

[11] The parties were married in Ghana in August 2009. The father returned to Canada after the marriage and the mother remained in Ghana.

[12] The parties’ first child J, who is now 13 years old, was born in Ghana. J has profound special needs. He is not verbal, cannot walk on his own, uses a wheelchair, and cannot feed, bathe or dress himself. He is fed through a G-tube.

[13] The father sponsored J and the mother to come to Canada in 2012.

[14] The parties’ three other children are G, age 10, Da, age 8 and De, age 4. These children were all born in Canada.

[15] The parties lived together in Toronto until July 16, 2021. On that day, the father was charged with assault/choking and uttering a death threat against the mother. He was required by the terms of his criminal release to have no contact with the mother or the children except for the purpose of making arrangements to see the children through a mutually agreed upon third party. He had to leave the home.

[16] The children have lived with the mother since the parties separated.

[17] The father issued this application on September 3, 2021.

[18] The mother filed her Answer/Claim on October 12, 2021.

[19] On March 14, 2022, on consent, Justice Carole Curtis made a temporary without prejudice order for the father to have parenting time with the children at a supervised parenting time center, at his cost.

[20] On April 5, 2022, on consent, Justice Curtis made a temporary order, on a without prejudice basis, that the mother have decision-making responsibility for the children. Justice Curtis restrained the father from directly or indirectly contacting the mother, except through counsel, or to come within 100 metres of her. She also made an order that the father produce financial disclosure.

[21] The father subsequently moved to terminate the April 5, 2022 order, and for an order for sole decision-making responsibility for the children. Justice Curtis dismissed his motion on June 17, 2022.

[22] The parenting time ordered by Justice Curtis, on March 14, 2022 never took place.

[23] On October 13, 2022, the father was acquitted of the criminal charges that had been laid against him. The trial decision, written by Justice Edward J. Kelly, was filed at this trial.

[24] Temporary motions were heard by Justice Debra Paulseth on November 25, 2022. Justice Paulseth ordered that the temporary orders made by Justice Curtis continue with the following changes:

a) The father was to have parenting time with the children every Saturday for 2 hours with exchanges through the mother’s grandfather in the lobby of her building. b) The father was to pay temporary child support to the mother of $783 each month, starting on December 1, 2022. This was the guidelines table amount for four children based on an imputed annual income to the father of $31,200.

[25] The father attended for five visits before the end of 2022.

[26] The father stopped attending for visits in January 2023. He did not resume them until March 2023.

[27] On February 22, 2023, Justice Curtis ordered that the father must give the mother 48 hours notice if he intended to exercise his parenting time, failing which his visit would be cancelled.

[28] The father’s March 4, 2023 visit was cancelled because he did not give the mother the required notice.

[29] The father’s parenting time took place on March 11 and 18, 2023.

[30] The father attended at 8:30 a.m. on March 25, 2023 for the visit that was supposed to start at 10:00 a.m. He left and did not return.

[31] On April 13, 2023, Justice Paulseth suspended the father’s parenting time. The father had refused to take J’s wheelchair for the two visits on March 11 and 18, 2023. The children had also reported to the mother that the father had left them alone in the car twice on March 18, 2023.

[32] On May 11, 2023, after a contested motion, Justice Curtis ordered that the father’s temporary parenting time be supervised at APCO, with the father to pay the costs. She ordered that the father use J’s wheelchair when he exercised his parenting time.

[33] The mother signed the intake forms for the APCO visits to start. The father disagreed with Justice Curtis’ decision. He has chosen not to attend at APCO. He has not seen the children since March 18, 2023.

[34] On August 1, 2023, Justice Curtis ordered that only the mother could deal with J’s medical supply company. This was after the mother alleged that the father contacted the medical supply company to have a mechanical lift that had previously been ordered for J installed in his home instead of the mother’s home.

Part Three – Brief overview of the parties’ narratives on the parenting issues

The Father's Narrative

[35] The father deposed that:

a) The mother feels that J’s disability has been caused by witchcraft, evil spirits and Black Magic. He said that he brought the mother and J to Canada because the mother wanted to kill J in Ghana. The mother believed that if she did not kill J, any other children she had would be just like him. b) The mother has resisted medical treatment for J because of her spiritual beliefs, placing J in danger. c) The mother only came to Canada to obtain government benefits and to destroy his life. This is why she called the police on July 16, 2021, and had false charges laid against him. d) The mother has used the police, the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the society) and the courts to harass him. e) The mother withdrew $10,000 from their joint account a few days after their separation. He has sued her in Small Claims Court. f) The mother also made false allegations to the society that he had sexually abused G. g) He has never abused the mother or the children. h) He was the children’s primary caregiver prior to the parties’ separation. He provided 95% of the care for the children. i) He was the parent who took the children to medical appointments and dealt with their service providers. j) He has devoted his life to the children. He is a loving and involved father. He respects the children and has empathy for them. k) He is much more educated than the mother. He is the parent who can help them with their homework. l) The mother screamed at the children daily. m) The mother is a toxic parent. n) The mother neglected the children – she hardly took care of them. o) The mother is not meeting the children’s educational and medical needs. He is the parent who can meet those needs. p) “Raising children is a very serious business but unfortunately, the mother has no idea on how to do it”. q) The mother has an undiagnosed mental health problem. r) The mother is a violent individual, obsessed with child tax benefits. s) The children are in danger in the mother’s care. t) The mother is attempting to religiously indoctrinate the children and is forcing them to align with “cultic ideologies”. u) The mother has alienated the children against him. She tells the children not to take food from him and tells them that he is a witch. v) The mother changed her address at the end of 2022 without proper notice to him. w) The mother has consistently lied to the court to obtain orders. x) Justice Curtis and Justice Paulseth just “cut and pasted” the mother’s requests into orders without any reason. y) Justice Curtis aided and abetted the mother to alienate the children against him. z) He was forced by Justice Curtis to consent to the court orders on March 14, 2022 and April 5, 2022. aa) He did not exercise parenting time from January 6, 2023 to February 18, 2023 due to weather conditions. bb) He has not exercised parenting time at APCO because Justice Curtis’ order placed the children in danger. cc) He does not agree with any of the court orders that have been made. dd) The mother’s lawyer has lied to and misled authorities. ee) He is frustrated, angry and emotionally in distress. ff) He prays that the children will recognize the truth from this nightmare. gg) He resides in the home that the family previously lived in together. It is subsidized housing through Toronto Community Housing (TCH). It is a spacious 3-bedroom unit. hh) He is prepared to have the children spend parenting time with the mother every weekend. The mother can also return to his home and co-parent the children with him.

[36] The father called his pastor and the pastor’s wife as witnesses.

[37] The pastor said that he attempted to assist the parties with their marital problems. He has not seen the children since the parties separated. He described the father as a hard-working man who managed his house well. He deposed that the mother was a devoted mother who kept her home clean and that she was nurturing for their family – “she was a good housewife who did her duty”.

[38] The pastor testified that the mother attributed J’s disability to her mother-in-law’s witchcraft. He said that the mother apologized to her mother-in-law for this. He said that the mother resisted surgery for J in 2021 because of this belief.

[39] The pastor stated that the mother never told him that the father had physically abused her. He felt that the father was protective of the children.

[40] The pastor blamed the mother’s belief in witchcraft and spiritual powers, together with her desire to be in control of the children’s government benefits to be the reason for the breakdown of the marriage.

[41] In cross-examination, the pastor said that if the mother had neglected or abused the children the father would have come to him first. He said that the father never told him that the mother had neglected or abused the children. He said that the father was more concerned about his access - not her care of the children.

[42] The pastor also acknowledged sending the mother a text shortly after the parties’ separation that differed from his positive characterization of the father. The pastor claimed that he sent the text without knowing the father’s version of events. The text he sent to the mother set out that:

a) The father has a huge ego problem. b) He is shocked at the father’s mentality. c) If the father does not genuinely feel sorry for his behaviour he will wash his hands of him. d) The father has lied on several occasions and trust is an issue. e) The father told him that he had tried to apologize to the mother,

[43] The pastor’s wife said that the mother called her a few days before the father was arrested for assault, saying that she might call the police because she thought he was taking the children’s government benefits from her.

[44] The pastor’s wife also confirmed that the father never told her that the mother had abused him or the children.

The Mother's Narrative

[45] The mother deposed that:

a) She cared for J alone in Ghana for over two years. b) She has always been the primary caregiver for the children. The father worked full-time and sometimes had two jobs. c) The children have done well in her care. She is meeting all their needs. They are doing well in school. She takes them to their medical appointments. She has supports who come to her home daily for J, to assist with his feeding, bathing and toileting. d) The father and his family excluded her from participating in J’s medical care prior to their separation. e) She understands J’s disability and does not attribute it to witchcraft or evil spirits. f) She resisted the surgery for J in 2021 because the father had excluded her from the decision. She would not sign any consent he gave to her. She did not trust him. She said that she met with the neurologist who told her that the surgery was not necessary for J at that time. g) She follows medical recommendations for J. h) Everything the father says is a lie. She denies all his allegations against her. i) The father was physically, mentally, emotionally and financially abusive to her. He was coercive and controlling. j) The father breached the criminal release terms by constantly contacting her. k) She had difficulty arranging Wheel Trans for J when supervised parenting time was first ordered on March 14, 2022. She takes some responsibility for the delay in starting it. She now has Wheel Trans arranged and has complied with the court orders. She completed the APCO intake after the new order was made on May 11, 2023. l) The father does not comply with court orders. He did not come on time for visits. He refused to take J’s wheelchair. He did not provide notice to her if he was exercising parenting time. He has refused to attend at APCO since the May 11, 2023 order. m) The father tells the children that she is trying to put him in jail and to prevent them from seeing him. n) The father constantly calls the society and the police about her. The society has investigated and found no concerns. o) She called the society in 2021 because G had told her about an incident in 2020 where the father had bathed her and had then come into her room and asked to look at her private parts. G said that he told her not to tell the mother about this. She said that the society investigated, G made no disclosures, and the case was closed. She is not saying that the father sexually abused G. p) She was able to obtain a housing transfer from TCH at the end of 2022. This is suitable accommodation for the children. The father made a financial deal with TCH and moved back into their subsidized housing unit at the start of 2023. q) The father took funds from the children’s RESP, without her consent, to pay towards the rent arrears so he could move back into the unit (the father said that he took $10,000 from the children’s RESP and $14,000 from his line of credit). r) A mechanical lift had been ordered for J. The father contacted the medical supply company in the summer of 2023 to have it sent to his home. She had to get a court order to stop this. She has had to re-order the equipment for her new home. s) In October 2023 she found part-time work as a Personal Support Worker.

[46] The mother called her support worker from Ernestine’s women’s shelter. The worker testified how much the mother loves the children and that she is a very motivated parent. She says that the mother accepts support. She believes that the mother is very afraid of the father and was abused by him.

[47] This worker has never physically seen the mother with the children. The court did not place weight on her parenting observations.

Four – Legal Considerations for Parenting Orders

Statutory Considerations

[48] Subsection 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.

[49] Subsection 24 (3) of the Act sets out a list of factors for the court to consider related to the circumstances of the child. It reads as follows:

Factors

(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability; (b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life; (c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent; (d) the history of care of the child; (e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained; (f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage; (g) any plans for the child’s care; (h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child; (i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child; (j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things, (k) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and (l) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and (m) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

[50] Subsection 24 (4) of the Act sets out factors relating to family violence. It reads as follows:

Factors relating to family violence

(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under clause (3) (j), the court shall take into account,

(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred; (b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member; (c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence; (d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child; (e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member; (f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person; (g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve the person’s ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and (h) any other relevant factor.

[51] Subsections 18 (1) and (2) of the Act define family violence as follows:

(1) “family violence” means any conduct by a family member towards another family member that is violent or threatening, that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, or that causes the other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person, and, in the case of a child, includes direct or indirect exposure to such conduct; (“violence familiale”)

“Family violence”

(2) For the purposes of the definition of “family violence” in subsection (1), the conduct need not constitute a criminal offence, and includes,

(a) physical abuse, including forced confinement but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or another person; (b) sexual abuse; (c) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person; (d) harassment, including stalking; (e) the failure to provide the necessaries of life; (f) psychological abuse; (g) financial abuse; (h) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property; and (i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property.

[52] Subsection 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 best interests of the child.

[53] Section 28 of the Act sets out the types of parenting orders the court can make. Clause 28 (1) (c) of the Act reads as follows:

(c) may make any additional order the court considers necessary and proper in the circumstances, including an order,

(i) limiting the duration, frequency, manner or location of contact or communication between any of the parties, or between a party and the child, (ii) prohibiting a party or other person from engaging in specified conduct in the presence of the child or at any time when the person is responsible for the care of the child, (iii) prohibiting a party from changing the child’s residence, school or day care facility without the consent of another party or an order of the court, (iv) prohibiting a party from removing the child from Ontario without the consent of another party or an order of the court, (v) requiring the delivery, to the court or to a person or body specified by the court, of the child’s passport, the child’s health card within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act or any other document relating to the child that the court may specify, (vi) requiring a party to give information or to consent to the release of information respecting the child’s well-being, including in relation to the child’s health and education, to another party or other person specified by the court, or (vii) requiring a party to facilitate communication by the child with another party or other person specified by the court in a manner that is appropriate for the child.

[54] Subsection 33.1 (2) of the Act addresses the importance of the parties protecting children from conflict. It reads as follows:

33.1 Protection of children from conflict

(2) A party to a proceeding under this Part shall, to the best of the party’s ability, protect any child from conflict arising from the proceeding.

Best Interests

[55] The 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, their needs, and the persons around the child. See: Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.

[56] The court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents. See: Gordon v. Goertz. Adult preferences or “rights” do not form part of the analysis except insofar as they are relevant to the determination of the best interests of the child. See: Young v. Young; E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264; Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510.

[57] A 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.

[58] A child’s best interests will be compromised if a parent does not follow court orders that are made to ensure their safety and protection. See: Wiafe v. Aboakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 201, Seyad v. Pathan, 2022 ONCJ 501; Mulik v. McFarlane, 2023 ONCJ 148.

Family Violence

[59] The Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt v. Grebliunis, 2022 SCC 22 recently made the following observations about family violence:

1. The recent amendments to the Divorce Act recognize that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the best interests analysis (par. 146).
2. The suggestion that domestic abuse or family violence has no impact on the children and has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s parenting ability is untenable. Research indicates that children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives: Department of Justice, Risk Factors for Children in Situations of Family Violence in the Context of Separation and Divorce (February 2014), at p. 12. Harm can result from direct or indirect exposure to domestic conflicts, for example, by observing the incident, experiencing its aftermath, or hearing about it: S. Artz et al., “A Comprehensive Review of the Literature on the Impact of Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence for Children and Youth” (2014), 5 I.J.C.Y.F.S. 493, at p. 497. (par. 145).
3. Domestic violence allegations are notoriously difficult to prove. Family violence often takes place behind closed doors and may lack corroborating evidence. Thus, proof of even one incident may raise safety concerns for the victim or may overlap with and enhance the significance of other factors, such as the need for limited contact or support (par. 145).

[60] Justice Deborah Chappel wrote about the importance of family violence as a best interests factor in paragraph 86 of McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, as follows:

The broad definition of family violence and the specific inclusion of this factor as a mandatory consideration in determining the best interests of children recognize the profound effects that all forms of family violence can have on children. These consequences can be both direct, if a child is exposed to the family violence, or indirect, if the victimized parent’s physical, emotional and psychological well-being are compromised, since these consequences in turn often negatively impact their ability to meet the child’s physical and emotional needs.

[61] Family violence can be insidious. It can take many forms, and frequently involves coercive and controlling behaviors which are usually very difficult to prove because they often take place in private. Abusers, especially those of the coercive and controlling kind, are often skilled manipulators; they can be charming, they can be convincing liars, and they can be very persuasive. Victims of family violence are often the only witnesses who can attest to their abuser’s behavior and unfortunately, they are sometimes not believed because of their inability to support their allegations with objective third party evidence. See: Volgemut v. Decristoforo, 2021 ONSC 7382.

[62] Failure to speak out earlier and inconsistent evidence is common for victims of domestic violence. See: A.E. v. A.B., 2021 ONSC 7302; N.M. v. S.M., 2022 ONCJ 482.

[63] The court is also very aware that family violence is sometimes difficult for the victim to prove. It is often not reported. There may be many reasons for this. There will often be no medical, police or Children’s Aid Society reports to corroborate allegations of family violence. Victims sometimes minimize and rationalize the abuse. The family violence can take place in private so that there are no witnesses. Control and coercion can be subtle and only evident to the victim. See: Wiafe v. Aboakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 201.

[64] Denigrating your spouse in front of the children fits within the definition of family violence. See: Ammar v. Smith, 2021 ONSC 3204; McIntosh v Baker, 2022 ONSC 4235.

Parenting Time

[65] Subsection 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 best interests of the child.

[66] A starting point to assess a child’s best interests when making a custody or access order is to ensure that the child will be physically and emotionally safe. See: I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615. Also see: J.N. v. A.S., 2020 ONSC 5292; A.L.M. v. V.L.S., 2020 ONCJ 502; M.R.-J. v. K.J., 2020 ONCJ 305; Abbas v. Downey, 2020 ONCJ 283; N.D. v. R.K., 2020 ONCJ 266.

[67] The best interests of the child have been found to be met by having a loving relationship with both parents and that such a relationship should be interfered with only in demonstrated circumstances of danger to the child’s physical or mental well-being. Moreover, the child has a right to have contact with both parents. See: Klymenko v. Klymenko, 2020 ONSC 5451.

[68] A custodial parent must not just accommodate access, they must facilitate it. See; Scrivo v. Scrivo, 2012 ONSC 2727, 2012 CarswellOnt 5545; Tran v. Chen, 2012 ONSC 3994, 2012 CarswellOnt 8551.

[69] The party who seeks to reduce normal access will usually be required to provide a justification for taking such a position. The greater the restriction sought, the more important it becomes to justify that restriction. See: M.A. v. J.D., [2003] O.J. No. 2946 (OCJ); Dayboll v. Biyag, 2022 ONSC 6510.

[70] Supervised parenting time is not intended to be a long-term arrangement for a child. It is beneficial for children who require gradual reintroduction to a parent, or whose safety requires it until such time as the parent is sufficiently rehabilitated and a child is no longer in danger of physical or emotional harm. See: Najjardizaji v. Mehrjerdi 2004 ONCJ 374, [2004] O.J. No. 5472 (OCJ).

[71] Supervised parenting time is usually a temporary arrangement. However, when the court does not expect the risks addressed by supervision to diminish, it is appropriate to order long-term supervision of access. See: Tuttle v. Tuttle, 2014 ONSC 5011; B.C. v. M.T, 2019 ONCJ 33; L.S. v. M.A.F., 2021 ONCJ 554; C.S. v. K.M., 2023 ONCJ 106.

Part Five – Assessment of the Evidence

The Father

[72] The court finds that the father was involved with parenting the children prior to the parties’ separation, but nowhere close to the extent that he stated.

[73] The court accepts the father’s evidence that he was the parent most involved in J’s care prior to the parties’ separation. He was the parent who dealt with J’s doctors and service providers, although it is likely that he excluded the mother from these discussions.

[74] The father is educated and articulate. He likely would be able to assist the children with their schoolwork.

[75] However, the court’s concerns about the father far outweigh these positive parenting features.

[76] It is important for the father to know that most of the court’s concerns about him are based on his own conduct, the tone and content of his evidence and his presentation at trial. The court did not need to place much reliance on the mother’s evidence to make most of its findings.

[77] The father was focused at trial on how he was falsely accused of assault by the mother. It is also important for the father to know that most of the court’s concerns about him are based on his conduct after his acquittal of those charges, as will be set out below.

[78] The court is concerned about how skewed the father’s sense of reality was, at times, at trial. For example:

a) He was insistent that he had joint decision-making responsibility for the children even though this was not the case. He has only seen the children a handful of times since the parties separated. b) He said that he has not exercised parenting time at APCO since the May 11, 2023 order because the order put the children in danger, and he would not do that to his children. He attributed the danger to having to transport all the children in his car with the wheelchair, as there is not enough space. This made no sense, as the mother was responsible for taking the children to APCO. c) He claimed that Justice Curtis blocked him from calling medical or society evidence at trial. He maintained this position even when shown her endorsements advising him to get a lawyer so he could properly introduce this evidence. d) He claimed that he was forced by Justice Curtis into signing two consents in 2022, even though he had legal counsel at the time. e) Despite his venomous characterizations of the mother and her parenting, and his ongoing claim against her in Small Claims Court, he did not feel that his relationship with her was high conflict. He felt that it would be an acceptable solution for her to move back into the home with him and the children. He was oblivious of the mother’s feelings throughout the trial. f) He could not understand why Justice Curtis ordered him on February 22, 2023 to provide notice of his intention to exercise his visits, even though he often did not attend, or attend on time for his parenting time. g) He felt that he was acting in the children’s best interests by taking $10,000 out of their RESP so that he could move back into the subsidized housing unit that the mother and the children had left.

[79] The father was not a credible witness. For example:

a) He often avoided questions or answered them tangentially. Unlike the mother, he tended to only do this when he was being challenged with difficult questions. b) He deposed in his trial affidavit that he did not exercise parenting time for six weeks in 2023 due to bad weather conditions. He then denied at trial that he had missed six weeks of visits. Then, he testified that he only missed one visit due to weather conditions. Instead, he blamed the mother for frustrating his parenting time. c) He grossly exaggerated his parenting involvement with the children prior to the parties’ separation. He was working full-time, and at times worked two jobs. He testified at the criminal court (as set out in Justice Kelly’s decision) that at the time the criminal charges were laid, he was working 75 to 80 hours each week. He acknowledged at that trial that the mother looked after the children. The mother was a stay-at-home parent. d) His multiple allegations about the mother and her parenting ability were unsupported by evidence. For example: i) The pastor testified that the mother was a good parent. ii) The pastor testified that due to the closeness of their relationship, the father would have told him if the mother had been abusive to the father or the children. He never did. iii) The pastor’s wife said that the father never told her that the mother abused the father or the children. iv) The father claimed that many of his friends are in disbelief about how bad the mother’s parenting is. He called no witnesses to support this. v) The father claimed that the society was very concerned about the mother’s parenting. He called no one from the society to confirm this. vi) The father acknowledged that he has made several calls to the society reporting his concerns about the mother’s parenting. However, the society has not intervened. He complained that the society just accepts what the mother says. vii) He filed no medical evidence to support his allegations that the mother did not make proper medical decisions for the children or that she has mental health challenges. viii) He accused the mother of sending money to her brother in Ghana and that mansions have been built with this money in Ghana in her honour. He provided no evidence in support of these allegations. ix) He accused the mother of not notifying her landlord about moving at the end of 2022. However, this was an internal housing transfer within TCH. The landlord would have known that the mother and the children were being transferred. x) He criticized the children’s academic performance. He did not file any school reports in support of this allegation. xi) The father made these multiple allegations about the mother’s parenting despite not having observed her with the children since July 2021 and having only spent nominal time with the children since then.

[80] The evidence established that the father is manipulative and selfish. For example:

a) He said that he has called the police about twenty times since the parties separated. b) He has made numerous reports to the society complaining about the mother’s parenting. None of his concerns have been verified. c) He is unsuccessfully trying to recruit authorities to support his cause. d) He misrepresented his living circumstances to TCH to be able to move into the subsidized housing unit once the mother and the children left it at the end of 2022. In his application form he represented that he and the children, but not the mother, were living at the housing unit. e) He took $10,000 from the children’s RESP to be able to move back into the subsidized housing unit. h) In the summer of 2023, he contacted the medical supply company to have J’s mechanical lift put in his home, even though the children had lived exclusively with the mother since July 2021. The father gave a convoluted explanation about this that the court did not find credible. f) In 2022, he cancelled his health coverage that he had available to him through his employer. The children no longer have this health coverage. He said that he could not afford it. However, he was able to buy an expensive vehicle in September 2023. g) He chose not to see the children after the May 11, 2023 court order because he did not agree with it. He appeared to give little thought to how his refusal to see the children could emotionally affect them. h) Throughout the case he was focused on his rights and how he was mistreated. He gave little thought to how his conduct has affected the mother and the children.

[81] The evidence established that the father lacks any insight into his conduct and instead, externalizes blame. His commentary throughout the trial about the mother, her lawyer and the judges who have managed this case was highly charged and at times, vicious. He blames all of them for his present circumstances. He took no responsibility for his actions, or for his decisions in the case.

[82] The father presented as grandiose, verbose, argumentative, intense and deeply angry. He wouldn’t back down from any point, even when faced with documents that obviously contradicted his evidence, such as his own statement in his trial affidavit that he went six weeks not seeing the children due to weather conditions.

[83] The tone of the father’s trial affidavit and his evidence at trial was consistently harsh and insulting to anyone he perceived as opposing him. He spent an inordinate amount of time in his affidavit and at trial insulting the case management judges. He wrote insulting letters to the mother’s lawyer.

[84] The father demonstrated to the court that he has a controlling personality, sometimes lecturing the mother. He has tried to control her by calling the police and the society, without cause. He has tried to control her through litigation, presently suing her in Small Claims Court. He has delayed or refused to provide financial disclosure ordered in this case and has likely used these court proceedings as an attempt to control her and perhaps compel her to return home with the children.

[85] At one point during the trial, the father yelled at the mother while cross-examining her and had to be admonished by the court. If this was the way the father acts in a structured court sitting, the court is left to wonder what he was like behind closed doors when he was defied.

[86] The evidence established that the father is disdainful of court orders that he does not agree with. He breached the criminal release terms by frequently contacting the mother. He refused to follow up with APCO and see his children after May 11, 2023, because he did not agree with Justice Curtis’ order. He did not provide the mother with 48 hours notice of visits because he did not agree that it should have been ordered.

[87] The court will not make a finding that the father has physically abused the mother. However, it also does not find that the father did not physically abuse her. There are credibility and reliability issues with both parties regarding this issue.

[88] The mother did not raise the issue about the father sexually abusing G in her answer/claim or in her trial affidavit. She did not ask the court to make this finding at trial. She reported to the society what the child had told her and was satisfied with the investigation. The court does not find that the mother made this report to the society maliciously, as alleged by the father. It was the father who wanted to make this an issue at trial. The court does not find that the father is a sexual risk to the children.

[89] However, the evidence supports a finding that the father has committed family violence against the mother and the children. The court finds that he has emotionally and mentally abused them. It is highly unlikely that his attacks on the mother’s character and parenting just materialized during this court case. This is who the father is. The father is relentless in his attacks against those who oppose him. He is also relentless in his desire to control those around him. The court found the mother much more credible than the father on this issue.

[90] The court finds that the father exercised coercive control over the mother during their relationship. He isolated her, excluded her from medical decisions about J, controlled her finances, and frequently demeaned and diminished her.

[90] The court finds that the father’s abusive conduct happened in front of the children – also making them the victims of family violence.

[92] The father has continued to perpetuate this family violence against the mother and the children since the parties separated. He cancelled their health coverage. He took money from the children’s RESP. He continues to attack, mock, demean and diminish the mother. The court finds that it is likely that the father will continue to perpetuate family violence if given the opportunity. This is an important factor in crafting any parenting orders.

The Mother

[93] The court had some concerns with the reliability and credibility of the mother’s evidence. However, these concerns paled in comparison to its concerns about the father.

[94] The mother’s distrust of the father is so deep that when he asked her to say if she agreed or did not agree with any of the statements he was about to make to her, she said that she disagreed with all of them before he even asked her a question.

[95] The mother sometimes answered questions tangentially. However, some of that might have been due to her answers being translated from Twi. She sometimes became tangential when asked simple questions by her own lawyer.

[96] In Justice Kelly’s decision, he expressed credibility issues with the mother, including inconsistencies in her description of the alleged assault, statements to police officers and no one having observed any injuries on her. The mother said that she was not provided a Twi interpreter at that trial and that she did not fully understand all the questions. She also had a medical report about her injuries caused during the July 16, 2021 incident at this trial that she said was not introduced at the criminal trial. However, credibility concerns remain.

[97] Like Justice Kelly, this court felt that the mother downplayed her spiritual beliefs about the cause of J’s disability at this trial knowing there would be concerns about them. She has told many people about these beliefs – not just the father.

[98] The court treated the mother’s evidence with some caution. It was the father’s conduct and presentation that provided the strongest corroboration of her evidence.

[99] The court observed that the mother was quiet-spoken and deferential. She appeared, at times, to be intimidated by the father.

[100] The court finds that the mother was the primary caregiver for the children during the relationship and that she has been the exclusive caregiver for them since July 2021.

[101] The court finds that the mother is a good parent who has provided appropriate care for the children in very difficult circumstances. This description was supported by the father’s witnesses. The court rejects the father’s evidence about her parenting ability.

[102] The court does not find that the mother has mistreated or neglected the children. If there had been serious concerns about her parenting, the court would have received this evidence from the society, given the father’s multiple reports to it.

[103] The mother gave a very good description of J’s needs and set out the services that she receives for him. The mother is receiving intensive supports in the home for J and welcomes this. Despite any beliefs she has expressed in the past about the cause of J’s disability, the evidence indicates that she is now managing his medical needs in a responsible manner.

[104] The court accepts the mother’s evidence that the children’s academic, emotional and health needs are being met and that they are happy children. This is impressive given that she has been raising them on her own.

[105] It is also impressive that the mother has reached out for counseling support for herself arising out of her relationship with the father and that she is now working part-time as a Personal Support Worker.

[106] The mother has accomplished this despite the father’s efforts to undermine her and remove the children from her care.

[107] The mother does not like the father. However, there is no credible evidence that she has undermined his relationship with the children or alienated them from him.

[108] The court finds that the mother has, to the best of her ability, complied with court orders.

Part Six – Primary Residence and Decision-Making Responsibility

[109] Neither party asked for an order for joint decision-making responsibility for the children. It would not be in the children’s best interests to make such an order, either in whole or in part. The communication between the parties is terrible. They do not trust or respect each other. Mutual trust and respect are basic elements for a joint decision-making responsibility order to work effectively. See: G.T.C. v. S.M.G., 2020 ONCJ 511; T.P. v. A.E., 2021 ONSC 6022; Shokoufimogiman v. Bozorgi, 2022 ONSC 5057; Jacobs and Coulombe v. Blair and Amyotte, 2022 ONSC 3159.

[110] Further, the father perpetuates family violence against the mother. There is a significant power imbalance between them that militates against making a joint decision-making responsibility order.

[111] Some of the best interests factors set out in subsection 24 (3) of the Act are neutral between the parties. For instance:

a) The court did not receive evidence about the views and preferences for the children. b) Both parties have appropriate accommodation for the children. c) Both parties are capable of feeding, clothing and bathing the children (meeting their instrumental needs). d) Both parties are capable of taking the children to medical appointments and to service providers. e) Both parties are capable of educating the children about their culture and religion.

[112] There are some aspects where the father has stronger parenting strengths than the mother, being:

a) He likely has a better understanding of J’s disabilities. b) He is more educated than the mother and can likely provide more homework assistance for the children. c) He is a strong advocate for what he wants.

[113] However, the evidence is overwhelming that it is in the children’s best interests that their primary residence be with the mother and that she has sole decision-making responsibility for them for the following reasons:

a) She has always been the children’s primary caregiver. She has been their exclusive caregiver since July 2021. She is the parent who has the closest relationship with them. b) She is properly meeting all of the children’s physical, emotional and developmental needs. c) The children are doing well in her exclusive care. d) She is the parent who has provided the children with stability and continuity. The father has attempted to destabilize the children by making constant reports about the mother’s parenting to the society and the police. e) She has made responsible decisions for the children since the parties separated. The father has exercised exceptionally poor judgment since the separation. f) The father has been an inconsistent parent since the parties separated. He chose not to exercise parenting time that the court ordered on May 11, 2023. When he did exercise his parenting time after the November 25, 2022 order, he often did not come on time or exercise it appropriately. g) The father exposes the children to conflict. She tries to protect them from conflict. h) The father has continuously perpetuated family violence against her and the children and will likely continue to do so if the court does not protect them. i) She places the children’s interests first. The father puts his own interests first and often claims that he is doing this for his children. He has cut off their health benefits and has taken money from their RESP so that he can live in subsidized housing. j) She complies with court orders. The father does not comply with court orders he disagrees with. k) She has some insight into her challenges. She seeks and welcomes support. The father has no insight into the concerns about him. He takes no responsibility for his actions. He externalizes blame to everyone else. He has not sought supports to address his parenting challenges and is unlikely to change. l) She is the parent more likely to encourage the children’s relationship with the other parent. m) She is the parent more able to communicate and cooperate about the children. The father treats her with disrespect and contempt.

Part Seven – Incidents of Parenting

[114] It is in the children’s best interests that the mother be able to obtain or renew their government documentation and to travel with them outside of Canada without obstruction. The evidence indicates that the father is angry and can be malicious. He is unlikely to reasonably provide necessary consents. The orders sought by the mother to dispense with his consent are granted.

[115] The father has given the court no reason to trust him. An order will be made that he cannot remove the children from the Province of Ontario without prior court order or the prior written consent of the mother.

[116] It is in the children’s best interests to protect them and the mother from the father’s family violence. Strict communication and non-contact orders will be made, as requested by the mother in her draft order, with minor changes, pursuant to section 28 of the Act.

[117] Orders will be made that the parties are not to speak negatively about each other in the children’s presence.

Part Eight – Parenting Time

[118] How to structure the father’s parenting time was the most challenging issue for the court in this case.

[119] An easy option is to say that the father has chosen not to exercise the parenting time afforded to him by the court, so why should he be rewarded with an order for additional time? However, this would be tantamount to an order for no parenting time, as the father has shown that he will not exercise the current parenting time ordered. This is not in the children’s best interests. Despite his flaws, the father had a loving relationship with the children prior to the separation and they would benefit from his parenting strengths.

[120] The challenge is how to structure the parenting time without risking the father destabilizing their placement with the mother. The father is able to care for the children and the court does not believe that he would physically harm them. The court’s concern is that he would relentlessly attempt to undermine their placement with the mother in an effort to recruit them to come and live with him. This would be emotionally damaging for them.

[121] The court will not require the father to attend a parenting course and provide a report prior to exercising his parenting time, as requested by the mother. This is too restrictive a barrier. Further, it is unlikely that the father would obtain any benefit from such a program, as his belief that he is the victim and has no issues that need to be addressed is deeply entrenched.

[122] Balancing these competing factors, the court finds that it is in the children’s best interests to order graduated parenting time between the father and the children with strict terms and conditions. Parenting time will be ordered in three stages.

[123] Stage 1 of parenting time shall take place on alternate Saturdays, for two hours at APCO, as soon as APCO can accommodate these visits. The parenting time shall be fully supervised.

[124] Stage 2 of parenting time shall start at the later date of April 6, 2024, or once six stage 1 visits having taken place. At this stage, the father will have parenting time in the community on alternate Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., with parenting exchanges taking place at APCO.

[125] The father will be required to use J’s wheelchair at these visits. He is free to have a friend attend with him if he needs an additional vehicle for transporting the children.

[126] The court is structuring stages 1 and 2 in this manner because:

a) There is a significant risk that the father will use his parenting time to undermine the children’s relationship with the mother. His parenting time needs to be fully supervised to start. b) Professional parenting time supervisors will be available to protect the children if the father acts inappropriately. c) The father needs to show that he will exercise his parenting time responsibly. d) The father needs to show that he will exercise his parenting time consistently. e) The father needs to show that he will follow court orders and follow APCO’s rules. f) Independent observation notes will be kept about these visits.

[127] Stage 3 will start at the later date of Wednesday, September 11, 2024, or once eight stage 2 visits having taken place. At this stage, the court will structure the visits so that the father has parenting time with two children at a time.

[128] The father will first have visits with J and G on alternate weeks from Wednesday after school until he returns them to school the next morning. On the alternate weeks, he will have parenting time with Da and De from Wednesday after school until he returns them to school the next morning. If the father is unable to pick up children any week from school, he is to notify the mother and the parenting exchange shall take place on Wednesday at 6 p.m. in the lobby of the mother’s building.

[129] In stage 3, the father will have the option to have additional parenting time with all the children on the third Saturday of each month from 10:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. The exchanges shall take place in the lobby of the mother’s building. The father is to confirm with the mother that he will be exercising this additional parenting time at least 7 days in advance of the visit and further confirm that he will be attending 48 hours before the visit. If he fails to provide either of the required notices, the visit will be cancelled.

[130] When school is closed, the exchanges shall take place in the lobby of the mother’s building. The Wednesday pick-up of the children shall be at 6 p.m. and the Thursday drop-off shall be at 6 p.m.

[131] For any parenting exchange not taking place at school, the father shall designate a third party agreeable to the mother to conduct the exchange. The father may designate the pastor or the pastor’s wife to conduct the exchange without the mother’s consent.

[132] The court is structuring parenting time in this manner in stage 3 for the following reasons:

a) It is in the children’s best interests to restrict their exposure to conflict between the parties. b) The court is confident that the pastor and the pastor’s wife can conduct parenting exchanges in a safe manner. c) The father stated that he cannot transport all the children and J’s wheelchair. He said that he can transport two children and the wheelchair in his van. d) It will allow the father to spend more concentrated time with each of the children on the visits. e) It will give the father parenting time with all the children together once each month. f) It will give the father the opportunity to have involvement with the children’s schools. g) It will give the father the opportunity to work with the children on their academics. h) The father will have first gone through a lengthy period in stages 1 and 2 where he has shown that he can exercise parenting time responsibly, not demean the mother to the children, attend parenting time consistently, and follow the court order and APCO’s rules. i) The court finds that the father can look after the children’s instrumental needs during these visits. j) Supervised parenting time is not meant to be a long-term solution.

[133] In stages 1 and 2, the father is to give 48 hours notice to APCO that he will be attending the visits. In stage 3, the father is to provide this notice to the mother. If notice is not provided as required, the visit will be cancelled.

[134] The father will be required to use J’s wheelchair and any other medical equipment J has on visits.

[135] The mother shall provide the father with J’s medications and the times he is to take them. The father shall give J his medication in accordance with this schedule. The father is to return the medications to the mother at the end of the visits and confirm that J has taken them.

[136] If the father is unable to exercise his parenting time responsibly, or consistently, the mother may move to court to suspend the progression to either stage 2 or stage 3 of this parenting order.

Part Nine – Child Support

Positions of the Parties

[137] The father deposed in his most recent financial statement that he is earning annual income of $34,926 in 2023. The mother asked the court to impute additional annual income to the father of $30,000, based on his ability to work a second job, and because she says that he has assets in Ghana. This would result in guidelines table support payments for 4 children of $1,532 each month.

[138] In her draft order the mother asked that child support start on December 1, 2022. In closing submissions, she asked the court to start the support order on September 1, 2021.

[139] The father asks that the court finalize the temporary child support order of Justice Paulseth dated November 25, 2022, if the children are placed in the primary care of the mother. This order required him to pay temporary child support of $783 each month, starting on December 1, 2022, being the guidelines table support amount for 4 children, based on an annual imputed income to him of $31,200.

The Father's Income

[140] The court finds that the best evidence of the income that the father is presently earning is the $34,926 income that he represented he was earning in his most recent financial statement.

[141] Section 19 of the guidelines permits the court to impute income to a party as it considers appropriate.

[142] Jurisprudence for imputation of income sets out the following:

a) Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to be intentionally under-employed. See: Drygala v. Pauli, [2002] O.J. No. 3731(Ont. C.A.). b) The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income: i) Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed? ii) If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs? iii) If not, what income is appropriately imputed? c) The onus is on the party seeking to impute income to the other party to establish that the other party is intentionally unemployed or under-employed. The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made. See: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, [2009] O.J. No. 1552. (Ont. C.A.). d) The court must have regard to the payor’s capacity to earn income in light of such factors as employment history, age, education, skills, health, available employment opportunities and the standard of living enjoyed during the parties’ relationship. The court looks at the amount of income the party could earn if he or she worked to capacity. See: Lawson v. Lawson. e) A person’s lifestyle can provide the basis for imputing income. See: Aitken v. Aitken [2003] O.J. No. 2780 (SCJ); Jonas v. Jonas [2002] O.J. No. 2117 (SCJ); Price v. Reid, 2013 ONCJ 373.

[143] The mother did not meet her evidentiary onus to impute additional income to the father.

[144] In Matti v. Odish, 2017 ONCJ 410, this court found that the father should not be expected to continue a second job when he was already working full-time and earning good income in the business he was running. This court made a similar decision in White v. White, 2022 ONCJ 2 and did not impute additional income to the mother when she already had full-time employment.

[145] The evidence indicated that the father has only twice worked at a second job for brief periods of time. The father deposed that he did this when he knew J was about to have surgery and that he would need to take time off work.

[146] The court finds that the father is earning income to the best of his ability and that he is not intentionally underemployed. He is working full time and should not be expected to find a second job.

[147] The father denied having any assets in Ghana. The mother filed no evidence supporting her allegation that he owned such assets.

[148] The father’s annual income for support purposes is $34,926. The guidelines table amount for four children at this income is $869 each month.

Start Date for Support

[149] Child support is presumptive payable from the date that the application is issued. See: Mackinnon v. MacKinnon, 2005 23 R.F.L. (6th) 331 (Ont. C.A.). In this case, that date is September 3, 2021.

[150] However, the father was able to rebut this presumption. The father paid the rent for the mother and the children until the end of 2022. The court finds, based on the father’s income, that this was an appropriate contribution to the children’s support.

[151] The court will start the child support order on January 1, 2023.

Part Ten – Conclusion

[152] A final order shall go on the following terms:

Parenting orders

a) The children shall have their primary residence with the mother. b) The mother shall have sole decision-making responsibility for the children. c) Except as otherwise provided in this order, the father shall not contact, attend at or communicate with the children’s teachers, schools, doctors or other service providers. d) The mother shall provide the father with copies of the children’s report cards and any medical reports concerning the children. e) The mother shall inform the father of any major medical or academic issues affecting the children. f) The mother may obtain or renew all government documentation for the children, including passports, without the father’s consent. g) The mother may travel with the children outside of Canada, without the father’s consent. In the event that she plans to travel with the children outside of Canada for more than 14 days, she shall provide the father with an itinerary of where they will be traveling. h) The father shall not remove the children from the Province of Ontario without prior court order, or the notarized written consent of the mother. i) The father shall have parenting time with the children on the following terms and conditions:

Stage 1:

1. Alternate Saturdays, for two hours at APCO, as soon as APCO can accommodate these visits. This parenting time shall be fully supervised.

Stage 2:

1. Stage 2 will start on the later of Saturday, April 6, 2024 and after the sixth stage 1 visit.
2. Parenting time shall take place on alternate Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., with parenting exchanges taking place at APCO.

Stage 3:

1. Stage 3 will start on the later of Wednesday September 11, 2024 and after the eighth stage 2 visit.
2. Parenting time with J and G shall take place first, on alternate weeks from Wednesday with pick-up after school until the father returns them to school the next morning.
3. On the alternate weeks, parenting time with Da and De shall take place from Wednesday, with pick - up after school until the father returns them to school the next morning.
4. If the father is unable to pick up the children any week from their school, he is to notify the mother 48 hours in advance and the parenting exchange shall take place at 6 p.m. from her building lobby.
5. The father shall not remove the children early from school on Wednesdays and shall return them to school before school starts on Thursdays.
6. When school is closed, the exchanges shall take place in the lobby of the mother’s building. The Wednesday pick - up shall be at 6 p.m. and the Thursday drop - off shall be at 6 p.m.
7. The father will have the option to have additional parenting time with the children on the third Saturday of each month from 10:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. Exchanges shall take place in the lobby of the mother’s building. He is to notify the mother at least 7 days in advance if he will be exercising this additional parenting time. He is also to provide the mother with 48 hours notice that he will exercise this parenting time. If he does not provide either of these required notices to the mother, the visit will be cancelled.
8. For any parenting exchange not taking place at school, the father shall designate a third party agreeable to the mother to conduct the exchange. The father may designate the pastor or the pastor’s wife to conduct that exchange without the mother’s consent.
9. In stage 3, the father will be permitted to attend at the children’s schools when conducting exchanges and may speak to their teachers.
10. The mother shall advise the children’s school, once stage 3 starts, that the father is permitted to exchange the children in accordance with this order.

Other parenting time terms:

1. The father shall pay all APCO fees.
2. The parties shall immediately contact APCO to complete the intake process.
3. The parties shall adjust parenting time hours in accordance with APCO’s availability.
4. The parties shall follow any rules set out by APCO.
5. The mother may cancel a visit due to vacations, illness or due to the unavailability of Wheel Trans. She is to provide APCO with as much notice as possible of the cancellation and in stage 3, provide the father with as much notice as possible of a cancellation. She is to make up any missed parenting time at the earliest opportunity.
6. If the father cancels a visit, that visit will not be made up.
7. In stages 1 and 2, the father is to give 48 hours notice to APCO that he will be attending the visits. In stage 3, the father is to provide this 48 hours notice to the mother. If notice is not provided as required, the visit will be cancelled.
8. The father will be required to use J’s wheelchair and any other medical equipment J has during his parenting time. He is free to have a friend attend with him if he needs an additional vehicle for transporting the children.
9. The mother shall provide the father with J’s medications and the times he is to take them. The father shall give J his medication in accordance with this schedule. The father is to return the medications to the mother at the end of the visits and confirm that J has taken them.
10. If the father is unable to exercise his parenting time responsibly, or consistently, the mother may move to court by Form 14 motion, on notice to the father, to suspend the progression to either stage 2 or stage 3.

Communication and non-contact orders

i) The parties shall communicate with each other through an internet-based application such as My Family Wizard or AppClose. The parties are to pay their own costs of these applications. j) Any communication is to be respectful and restricted to discussions about the children or parenting exchanges. l) Both parties shall immediately update each other with information regarding their change of address, phone number and email address. m) Other than the communication permitted in this order, the father shall not directly or indirectly contact or communicate with the mother or the children. n) The father shall not come within 100 metres of the mother, her home, her place of work, the children’s school (other than permitted in stage 3 of this order), or any other place that that he knows or expects she and the children shall be, except to exercise his court-ordered parenting time with the children. o) Neither party shall speak negatively about the other party in the children’s presence.

Other:

p) All temporary parenting orders are terminated.

Child support

q) Based on an annual income of $34,926, the father shall pay the mother child support of $869 each month starting on January 1, 2023. This is the guidelines table amount for four children. r) This order changes the temporary child support order made by Justice Paulseth on November 25, 2022. The Director of the Family Responsibility Office is requested to adjust its records accordingly. s) The father shall provide the mother by June 30th each year with complete copies of his income tax returns and notices of assessment. t) A support deduction order shall issue.

Other:

u) All other claims not specifically addressed in this order are dismissed.

[153] If either party seeks costs, they shall serve and file written submissions by December 8, 2023. The other party will then have until December 22, 2023 to serve and file their written response (not to make their own costs submissions). The submissions shall not exceed 3 pages, not including any bill of costs or offer to settle. They are to be either delivered or emailed to the trial coordinator’s office.

[154] This decision provides the father with an opportunity to move forward and have a relationship with the children. The court hopes that this time he takes advantage of the opportunity the court has given to him. It is now up to him.

[155] The court thanks Mr. Bleta for his professionalism throughout this case.

Released: November 27, 2023

Justice Stanley B. Sherr