COURT FILE NO.: 73-2020 DATE: 2022/03/28

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

KAREN SPRINGSTEAD Applicant – and – TYSON SPRINGSTEAD Respondent

Counsel: Self-represented for the Applicant Véronique Fournier, for the Respondent

HEARD: October 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 2021, November 29, 2021, and December 23, 2021

Reasons for Judgment

M. SMITH J

Overview

[1] This trial is mainly about whether it is in the children’s best interests to relocate from Ontario to Nova Scotia.

[2] The Applicant, Karen Springstead (the “Mother”) and the Respondent, Tyson Springstead (the “Father”) married on September 25, 2010. The parties have two children: A.S. born on […] 2013 and B.S. born on […] 2011.

[3] The Mother is originally from Nova Scotia. Her extended family lives in or around Halifax, Nova Scotia.

[4] The Father is from Southern Ontario. His extended family also lives in Southern Ontario.

[5] The Mother and Father both worked for the military, employed with the Department of National Defence (“Forces”). The Mother was medically released from the Forces on November 30, 2021. The Father continues to be employed by the Forces, but he has plans to retire and enter the private sector.

[6] The parties met in June 2010, while in training in Borden, Ontario. They were married within four months. They did not cohabite together before the marriage.

[7] After the wedding in September 2010, the parties decided to reside in Nova Scotia, where they were both posted. B.S. and A.S. were born in Nova Scotia.

[8] In or around March 2018, the Father was posted in Ottawa, Ontario. In or around June 2018, the family moved to the city of Rockland, Ontario.

[9] The parties disagree on the date of separation. The Mother says that it occurred in February 2020, while the Father’s pleadings lists it as December 2019. Regardless, the relationship turned for the worst in or around March 23, 2020. The Mother was charged with assault against the Father. Shortly after this incident, the Father moved out of the matrimonial home. The matrimonial home was sold in June 2020.

[10] Over the years, the Mother has had some health challenges. In 2012, the Mother had a severe training accident where she almost died. She required multiple surgeries. The Mother has been followed by a psychologist since November 2018 for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and other mental health issues. In or around March 11, 2021, the Mother suffered a brain hemorrhage, resulting in lesions on her brain.

[11] The Mother seeks to relocate to Halifax, Nova Scotia. The main reason for the relocation is to gain emotional health, physical health, and mental health, with the support of her family and friends that reside in Nova Scotia. The Mother feels isolated in Ottawa because her support system is in Nova Scotia. The Mother argues that by relocating to Nova Scotia, her mental health will improve with the assistance of her support system. This improvement is in the children’s best interests. The second reason for relocating is due to the Mother’s finances. In Nova Scotia, the Mother will receive financial support from her family and the housing costs are lower. With her family’s assistance, the Mother will be able to save enough money to eventually purchase a home in a more affordable housing market. The Mother says that this financial stability is in the children’s best interests.

[12] The Father opposes the relocation to Nova Scotia because it is not in the children’s best interests. The Father submits that he has always been involved in the children’s lives and wants to remain involved. By relocating the children to Nova Scotia, the Father’s parenting time will be limited to approximately seven weeks per year.

[13] During the trial, the parties were able to resolve most of the financial disputes. Minutes of Settlement were signed on November 18, 2021. The items agreed upon are:

a. The Father shall pay an equalization payment of $9,000 to the Mother. This equalization payment shall be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home held in trust. b. Neither party shall pay the other party expenses related to the matrimonial home following the separation, including unpaid mortgage payments, repairs of the matrimonial home or occupational rent. c. The child support arrears for the period of March 2020 to October 2021 shall be set at $2,020. The Father shall pay this sum to the Mother from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home held in trust. d. The Father shall make best efforts to refinance the Jeep in his own personal name and have the Mother removed as debtor before November 30, 2021. If he is unable to do so, the Father shall be solely responsible for the payments until the load is paid in full. The Father shall make regular payments when they are due. The vehicle shall be paid in full, and the loan reimbursed in full by no later than December 31, 2021.

[14] The only remaining financial dispute is a 2021 summer camp expense at Petrie Island Canoe Club.

[15] The issues to be determined are:

a. Is it in the children’s best interests to relocate from Rockland, Ontario to Halifax, Nova Scotia? b. What type of parenting orders should be made when considering the children’s best interests? c. Should the Mother pay her proportionate share of the 2021 summer camp expense at Petrie Island Canoe Club? d. What is the amount to be paid in child support payments and what is the proportionate share of the special and extraordinary expenses for the children?

[16] For reasons set out below, I conclude as follows:

a. The Mother is not permitted to relocate to Nova Scotia with the children. b. Decision-making responsibility shall be shared. The Mother shall make all major decisions related to the children’s medical care and religion. The Father shall make all major decisions related to the children’s education. c. The Father’s request for the 2021 summer camp expense is denied. d. The Father shall pay monthly child support to the Mother in an amount to be determined by the court, upon receipt of additional information. e. The Father and Mother’s proportionate share of all special and extraordinary expenses shall be determined by the court, upon receipt of additional information.

Introductory Remarks

[17] I would like to start by quoting a citation from Reeves v. Brand, 2018 ONCA 263, 8 R.F.L. (8th) 1, because it accurately summarizes the difficulties with mobility cases. At para. 17 of the decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal writes:

Relocation or mobility cases, where one parent wants to take a child and move some distance away from the other parent, are among the most difficult cases in family law. If the custodial parent is permitted to move with the child, inevitably the relationship between the non-custodial parent and the child will be affected and may suffer. Typically the court must balance the custodial parent’s legitimate interest in relocating with the non-custodial parent’s legitimate interest in maintaining a relationship with the child. But in every case, the ultimate question is what is in the best interests of the child.

[18] The mobility case before me is no different. The Mother’s request to move to Nova Scotia with the children is a difficult decision to make and my decision was not made in haste. I have balanced the parents’ competing interests, all while considering the children’s best interests.

[19] Often, in proceedings of this kind, the court must conduct credibility assessments of the parties. This is not one of those cases. While there was some diverging evidence on certain facts and/or events, I nonetheless found the Mother and Father to be kind-hearted, thoughtful, and credible people. Their relationship has clearly been tumultuous at times, and during those times, the Mother and Father behaved in ways that were uncharacteristic and simply put, mean spirited. I believe that this type of behaviour was reactive and situational.

[20] The Mother and Father deeply care and love their children. They both have their children’s best interests at heart. However, the children have been exposed to parental conflict. The parents are aware that this has occurred in the past and I believe that they are making efforts to avoid conflict in the children’s presence. The parents are working hard to set aside their differences and focus cooperatively towards one goal: their children’s well-being.

[21] The Mother desperately wants to return home to Nova Scotia. I understand her reasonings for doing so and sympathize with her desire to be close to her family and friends. But, when assessing the totality of the evidence before me, I am simply not able to conclude that a relocation is in the children’s best interests.

[22] The parties will note that I have not summarized or referred to every piece of evidence that was introduced at trial. Some of the evidence presented was not, in my view, relevant to the narrow issue raised in this case, being whether it is in the best interests of the children to relocate to Nova Scotia.

Issues

Issue #1 - Is it in the children’s best interests to relocate from Rockland, Ontario to Halifax, Nova Scotia?

Legal Principles

Statutory Provisions

[23] Section 16(1) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. 3 (2nd Supp.) provides that the best interests of the child is the only consideration in parenting and contact orders. It must be assessed in keeping with the factors set out in s. 16(3) of the Divorce Act.

[24] The factors to consider in s. 16(3) of the Divorce Act are:

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 spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life; c. each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse; 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 cooperate, 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 cooperate 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.

[25] Section 16.9 of the Divorce Act deals with relocation. The additional factors to be considered in the child’s best interests’ analysis are found in s. 16.92(1) of the Divorce Act:

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 a pending application for a parenting order 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 complied with any applicable notice requirement under section 16.9, provincial family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement; e. the existence of an order, arbitral 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 parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new place of residence and the travel expenses; and g. whether each person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility or a pending application for a parenting order has complied with their obligations under family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance.

[26] Because there is no order, arbitral award, or agreement, in accordance with s. 16.93(3) of the Divorce Act, the parties to the proceedings have the burden of proving whether the relocation is in the best interests of the children.

Relevant Caselaw

[27] The leading and long-standing case on mobility issues is the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27. While this case dealt with mobility on a variation application, the recent amendments to the Divorce Act codified some elements of this decision and modified others for all relocation cases.

[28] In every relocation or mobility case, the ultimate question to be asked is what are in the best interests of the child. These types of cases are discretionary decisions, requiring the court to weigh several considerations: Reeves v. Brand, 2018 ONCA 263, at paras. 17 and 23.

[29] The maximum contact principle is important, but it is not an absolute principle. This principle is but one factor in the whole analysis and it is not to be treated as a governing factor: Reeves, at para. 22.

[30] Requiring a parent to remain isolated from their family’s support and in difficult financial circumstances may adversely impact a child. This is a factor for the court’s consideration: Boudreault v. Charles, 2014 ONCJ 273, 45 R.F.L. (7th) 482, at para. 26.

[31] An Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) report that provides extensive investigation with first-hand information deserves serious consideration. Conversely, little or no weight will be given if the OCL report is outdated, is biased, uses poor methodology or improper assumptions, contains limited or incorrect evidence, or reaches conclusions that are inconsistent with objective evidence: Maharaj v. Wilfred-Jacob, 2016 ONSC 7925, at para. 67.

[32] To award joint custody (as it was known then), there must be some evidence that despite the parties’ differences, the parents are able to communicate effectively with one another: Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, (2005), 249 D.L.R. (4th) 620 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 11.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer

[33] Ms. Barbara Mitchell, a clinical investigator with the OCL, provided a report dated January 28, 2021, pursuant to s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43., as re-enacted by Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c.4, Sched. 3, s.14 (“CJA”). Ms. Mitchell was cross-examined by the parties.

[34] Ms. Mitchell has been a clinical investigator with the OCL since 2002. When conducting an investigation under s. 112 of the CJA, the purpose is to evaluate the familial situation and make recommendations that are in the children’s best interests.

[35] Ms. Mitchell’s investigation included interviewing the parents and children on two occasions, observing the children with both parents, and interviewing the children’s teachers, the couple’s counsellor, the maternal aunt, the Mother’s niece, the paternal grandmother, the paternal step-grandmother, and three of the Mother’s friends. Ms. Mitchell also reviewed written reports from the children’s current and past physicians, Valoris for Children and Adults of Prescott-Russell (“Valoris”), the Mother’s psychologist, the Father’s psychologist, and the documents received from the Ontario Provincial Police.

[36] Ms. Mitchell made five recommendations, but two of them are most relevant to the issues in this case.

Recommendation #1

[37] First, Ms. Mitchell believes that the Mother should have sole custody of the children with the following conditions: (a) the Mother must inform the Father about any professionals involved with the children and consult with him prior to making any major decisions. The professionals must be advised that the Father is entitled to the information regarding the children; (b) as long as one of the parents resides within the school territory, the children will continue to attend Rockland Public School; and (c) the Mother will not move out of the Ottawa/Rockland vicinity and she should not be permitted to relocate to Nova Scotia.

[38] Ms. Mitchell recommends granting sole decision-making responsibility to the Mother to reduce the conflict between the parents. The level of conflict was concerning and Valoris had reported that the children had been exposed to the parents’ conflict. Sole decision-making responsibility was also recommended because the Mother was the primary care giver to the children before the separation. Ms. Mitchell acknowledged that after the separation, the Father became more involved with the children.

[39] When Ms. Mitchell was asked whether she believed that a division of decision-making responsibility is possible (i.e. one parent responsible for education and the other parent responsible for health), she testified that as long as the decision-making responsibility avoids or minimizes conflict between the parents, a shared system could work.

[40] Regarding the prohibition to relocate to Nova Scotia, Ms. Mitchell did not ask the children about their views and preferences. She felt that they were too young. B.S. had some recollection of living in Nova Scotia and liking it, but he was unable to provide any specifics. A.S. had no memory of Nova Scotia.

[41] Ms. Mitchell was of the view that, while the Mother has a clear connection to Nova Scotia, the children did not. A.S.’s entire school experience has been in Ontario and a majority of B.S.’s school experience has been in Ontario. Ms. Mitchell testified that she spoke to the children’s teachers and concluded that both A.S. and B.S. were engaged in school. For B.S., an Individual Education Plan (“IEP”) was developed, and a good system has been implemented.

[42] If the Mother relocated to Nova Scotia, Ms. Mitchell was concerned about the negative impact it may have on the relationship between the Father and his children.

[43] Although Ms. Mitchell agreed that financial stability is helpful for a parent, she did not consider the Mother’s financial stability as a factor in her evaluation. Ms. Mitchell was focusing on what was the best plan for the children.

Recommendation #2

[44] Second, Ms. Mitchell recommends that the parents continue with an alternate week arrangement with the following conditions: (a) exchanges for the week will occur Monday morning at school; (b) the parent who does not have the children for the week will have the children from Thursday after school until Friday before school; (c) Christmas holidays will be divided equally with the parents alternating having Christmas day; (d) each parent will have two weeks uninterrupted during the summer should they wish to vacation with the children.

[45] When the children were interviewed, they both believed that one week was too long. A.S. missed her Mother. B.S. thought it was boring because he had no friends close to the Father’s home. The Father was residing in Wendover at the time of the interviews. Since then, the Father has moved in Rockland, close to the children’s school.

[46] Ms. Mitchell testified that equal parenting time was in the children’s best interests. She observed that the children seem to have positive relationships with both parents. Ms. Mitchell noted that both parents are involved in all aspects of the children’s lives. The children are at an age where day-to-day parenting is important and a routine needs to be established for school, homework, and activities. If the children moved to Nova Scotia, the Father-children relationship would be impacted, even with the generous visitation schedule that is proposed by the Mother.

The Children’s Best Interests

[47] Although the Mother has previously been charged with assault against the Father, and the Mother alleges that the Father has been violent towards her, I do not find that family violence is a factor to consider. The evidence before me does not suggest that the children’s safety, security, and well-being is a concern.

[48] The relevant parenting factors mandated by the Divorce Act are individually considered in the text that follows.

16(3)(a) - The child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development

[49] The Mother submits that she has not been working since March 2019, and she was released from the Forces on November 30, 2021. She will be on long-term disability for a minimum of 24 months. This means that she will no longer be traveling or subject to last minute exercises, deployments or courses, and no future postings elsewhere. The Mother’s situation will allow her to be a full-time parent for the children, aiding in creating stability and consistency for the children.

[50] The Mother complains that in June 2020, the Father abruptly imposed a new week on, week off schedule. The Mother said that the parties had agreed to a schedule on March 30, 2020, and the children were familiar with that schedule. This new schedule destabilized the children and they found that one week away from their Mother was too long.

[51] The Mother criticizes the Father’s parenting skills. The children always play video games during the Father’s parenting time. B.A. spends the most time playing games, up to 15 hours or more per week. The Mother says that he is behind with reading and writing at school, blaming it on B.A.’s copious amount of online gaming.

[52] The Father testified that the children have established strong ties to the community and school in Rockland. The children like their teachers and have many friends in the area. B.A. is enrolled in an IEP program that is going well. A relocation to Nova Scotia would disrupt the children’s stability as well as negatively impact the relationship with the Father.

[53] A.S. is eight years old and B.S. is almost 11 years old. As children of parents who work for the Forces, it is usually expected that their lives would be disrupted because of postings in different cities. However, the children’s only disruption resulting from a posting was a move to the Ottawa region in 2018.

[54] The Mother has offered stability to the children since their birth and probably more so since she became a stay-at-home parent in or around March 2019. When the parties were living in Nova Scotia, the Father was a police officer with the Forces. He travelled extensively for work. Evidence was presented at trial showing that between 2014 and 2017, the Father was often away from home, either to investigate cases or attend training. His travels prevented him from caring for the children as much as the Mother.

[55] However, since the separation, I find that the Father has been significantly more present in the children’s lives, and he has become a stable figure. The email correspondences that were filed as exhibits during the trial show that the Father has been progressively more engaged with the children’s school.

[56] Ms. Mitchell testified that the children were comfortable in the Father’s presence. She said that the Father was attentive, engaged, and showed a good ability to have fun and play with the children.

[57] The Father’s work has stabilized. He no longer travels as much as he used to. He currently works in Orleans, Monday to Friday, in a technical analysis laboratory, conducting forensic identification. He is no longer engaged in police work. The Father testified that his chain of command is very supportive of his needs, both from a medical and family perspective. Currently, as a member of the Forces, the Father has mandatory exercise training in September and October of each year, for five weeks.

[58] The Father’s future career plans involve being released from the Forces for medical reasons and continuing to work in the same job but as a public servant. The Mother disputes the Father’s claim on the basis that there is no evidence before the court. I have no reason to disbelieve the Father. If the Father becomes a public servant, he will still be required to attend conferences, but he estimates it to be three to five weeks per year.

[59] The Father started a new relationship with his partner Clementine. She moved from Australia in June 2021, and she has since been living with the Father. With their combined salaries, the Father was able to afford a home in Rockland, close to the school. During the trial, the Father and Clementine moved from Wendover to Rockland. The evidence suggests that the relationship is stable, and the children are comfortable living with Clementine.

[60] The Mother testified that Nova Scotia is like home to the children. I disagree.

[61] As noted by Ms. Mitchell, B.S. has a vague recollection of his time in Nova Scotia and A.S. has no memory of residing in Nova Scotia. The children were quite young when they were living in Nova Scotia. The Mother’s immediate family may reside in Nova Scotia but that does not make Nova Scotia the children’s home. The Mother testified that B.S. still communicates with friends in Nova Scotia.

[62] The evidence does not establish that the children have close ties to Nova Scotia. To the contrary, I find that the strongest ties are those found in Rockland. Both A.S. and B.S. have created friendships in Rockland. B.A.’s best friend lives a few blocks from the Father’s home.

[63] B.A. is enrolled in an IEP program to assist him with reading and writing. The Mother acknowledged in her testimony that B.A. has had some challenges at school since he was a toddler. The Mother said that B.A.’s IEP program can be switched to the new school in Nova Scotia. I have no reason to doubt that schools in Nova Scotia could offer a good education to B.A.

[64] B.A.’s school records reveal that his identified needs are: anxiety, phonological awareness, reading decoding, self-regulation, self-confidence, and written expression. According to Ms. Mitchell, B.A. struggles with emotional regulation and he expresses himself through aggressive means. Some of the email communication from B.A.’s teacher gives examples of these struggles and some behavioural issues, such as banging his head against the desk. With the assistance of his teacher, B.A. can eventually calm down, usually by drawing.

[65] The children, but mostly B.A., require a sense of normalcy and stability in their lives. Relocating to a city that is unfamiliar to the children would, in my view, destabilize the children. The children have an established routine at school and according to Ms. Mitchell’s interviews with their teachers, they are doing well at school. The children have friends in Rockland. The children have adapted to a shared parenting schedule, where they are able to spend an equal amount of time with each parent. Both parents are involved in all aspects of the children’s lives. The Mother may not have liked how the shared parenting schedule was implemented by the Father, but regardless, I find that it is in the best interests of the children that they spend an equal amount of time with both the Father and the Mother. The evidence confirms that the children have a positive relationship with both parents. A relocation to Nova Scotia would disrupt the stability that the children have enjoyed for close to two years and negatively impact the relationship with their Father.

16(3)(b) – the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life

[66] The Mother submits that the children have more of an attachment and parental bond to her, due to the Father’s extensive travelling. The Mother suggests that she is the “psychological parent”.

[67] The Mother says that the children have ongoing contact with her extended family members. The Mother’s plan is to initially move in with her sister and partner, allowing her to save money to eventually buy a house. Members of the Mother’s extended family will provide stability and continuity in the children’s lives.

[68] The Mother argues that she has always maintained a close relationship with the Father’s extended family members, and she intends to continue doing so, even if she was residing in Nova Scotia.

[69] The Father disagrees with the Mother that there is a stronger bond between the children and the Mother. The Father says that he played a role in the children’s lives since birth, but more so after the separation.

[70] The Father’s extended family has been involved with the children, but the pandemic has made it a little more difficult because the extended family needed to adhere to the public health restrictions. The paternal grandfather and his spouse are recently retired and have much more free time to visit. The paternal grandmother works remotely and is more available to visit the children and assist the Father, if necessary.

[71] As mentioned in my introductory remarks, there is no doubt that the Mother and Father love their children. I am not satisfied that the children’s bond with the Mother is stronger. I believe that there is a strong bond with both parents.

[72] The Mother’s suggestion that she is the “psychological parent” has not been proven. I am mindful that the children spent more time with the Mother before the separation, but there have been significant changes since the parties separated in or around March 2020.

[73] Prior to the separation, I find that the Mother played a larger role than the Father in the children’s day-to-day lives, including with caregiving, school, and their daily activities. That is not to say that the Father’s role was non-existent; it was simply less. I accept the Father’s evidence that he supported the Mother as best he could, considering his extensive travel commitments. Post separation, I find that both parents are playing a significant role in each of the children’s lives. The Father may have had some challenges at the beginning. The children were expressing a desire of spending more time with the Mother. Also, he was investigated by Valoris for inappropriate disciplining, but the complaint was not verified. However, overtime, with the Father being more active in the children’s lives, I find that the relationship with the children has strengthened. The children’s desire of spending more time with the Mother has dissipated and they are comfortable with spending an equal amount of time with both parents.

[74] Ms. Mitchell testified that if the Mother relocated to Nova Scotia, it would have devastating consequences on the Father’s relationship with the children. I agree. Both children are now spending 50 percent of their time with the Father. He is actively involved in their lives. He is providing the love and care that is expected of a parent. The children need both parents. Because of the distance and the difficulties that arise in parenting remotely, the Father would not be able to maintain and foster the same type of relationship with his children. He would miss many important milestones in their upbringing. In my view, uprooting the children to Nova Scotia would negatively impact their relationship with their Father, which is contrary to their best interests.

[75] The Mother’s and Father’s extended family members testified: Kaylynn Moorhouse (the Mother’s niece), Kristen Soltesz (the Mother’s sister-in-law), Bonnie Springstead (the Father’s step-mother), and Barbara Pridham (the Father’s mother).

[76] Ms. Moorhouse lived with the Mother and Father in Rockland from June 2019 to March 2020. She described the children as her little sister and brother. She is extremely close to the children. They have always been in her life, having seen them grow up in Nova Scotia. Ms. Moorhouse has moved back to Nova Scotia and lives 30 minutes away from where the Mother intends on living.

[77] Ms. Soltesz lives in Nova Scotia. She married the Mother’s sister in August 2019, having met her spouse in March 2017. She described her relationship with the children as close, having grown stronger over the years. She said that the children are always happy to see her and she is the favorite aunt because she plays with the children. Activities have included renting a bouncy castle, inviting their friends over, taking the children to the beach, swimming, and riding ATVs.

[78] Ms. Springstead lives in Woodstock, Ontario, and she is retired. She is married to the paternal grandfather, who is also retired. She has 14 grand children, which includes A.S. and B.S. While the Mother and Father lived in Halifax, Ms. Springstead and her husband would usually see the children in Halifax once per summer for one or two weeks. When they moved to the Ottawa region, the children would visit them in Woodstock. She has always had a close relationship with the children. Since retirement, they have more time to travel, visit, and take care of the children.

[79] Ms. Springstead testified that, prior to the separation, most of the communication was done with the Mother through Facebook. After the separation, the Mother blocked Ms. Springstead from any communication. Ms. Springstead said that she had a good relationship with the Mother, but after her relationship ended, she “turned against me, she blocked me from her life”. She therefore gets her updates from the Father, and they have been communicating more often, mostly by Facetime.

[80] Ms. Pridham is the paternal grandmother. She is a self-employed programmer analyst and works remotely. She is now very close with the Father, but many years ago, they had a falling out where they did not speak for approximately one year. Ms. Pridham felt that the Father was getting married much too soon. Ms. Pridham’s communication with the family was done by telephone and video chat, and mostly organized through the Mother. She visited the children between two to four times per year.

[81] Ms. Pridham had a very close relationship with the Mother, referring to her as a daughter. However, after the separation, all of that changed. The Mother blocked all communication, making Ms. Pridham very sad. Ms. Pridham tried to reach out to the Mother but there was no response.

[82] I was impressed with the testimonies of the extended family members. It was clear that they all love and care for the children. They are all committed in assisting the Mother and Father, in their own way.

[83] I find that each of the relationships with the extended family members are important and they should be nourished and maintained.

[84] There is no love lost between the Father and Ms. Moorhouse. I was moved by Ms. Moorhouse’s testimony and without going into specifics, I find that the Father did not act kindly towards her. Although his behaviour was not acceptable, it was likely out of character. Ms. Moorhouse was living with the family in a very stressful time for all those involved. Despite the past disagreement with Ms. Moorhouse, I believe that the Father sees the benefits of the children having an ongoing relationship with Ms. Moorhouse.

[85] The Father does not have a close relationship with the Mother’s sister and Ms. Soltesz, but I do not find that the Father would impede an ongoing relationship with them.

[86] Regarding the Father’s extended family, I am satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that, prior to the separation, the Mother had a close relationship with Ms. Springstead and Ms. Pridham. She facilitated the relationship with them and other members of the Father’s family.

[87] Post separation, I find that the Mother’s decision to block communication was misplaced. The Mother argues that it was not entirely blocked but she did confirm that she blocked the Father’s extended family on social media because of the litigation.

[88] The Mother knew that she was the conduit to the Father’s extended family. Yet, she chose to block the communication. This demonstrates a lack of judgment on her part and a failure to consider the children’s best interests. Like the Father, I believe that this type of behaviour is out of character. However, it is concerning to me that the Mother was able to cut ties so easily with the extended family, something that she could do if she was living in Nova Scotia.

16(3)(c) - each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse

[89] The parties both argue that, at times, the other parent did not facilitate parenting time with the children or encourage the relationship with the children.

[90] The Father is worried that if the children are relocated to Nova Scotia, the Mother will restrict the parenting time. This fear exists despite the Mother’s assurances that she will generously agree to the Father’s increased parenting time with the children.

[91] I do not share the Father’s concern. I acknowledge that there are a few examples (on both sides) where accommodations for missed parenting time were not agreed to. That said, I conclude that both parents are supportive of each other’s relationship with the children. The events described at trial by the Father and Mother are few and far between and not representative of a lack of willingness on the part of either parent to support the other’s relationship with the children.

16(3)(d) – the history of care of the child

[92] As mentioned previously, I believe that historically, meaning before the separation, the Mother was the primary care giver. Again, that is not to say that the Father was not involved. I accept his evidence that he participated in decision-making responsibilities and attended at some activities with the children, as well as participate in some parent-teacher meetings. Today, the Mother is no longer the primary care giver.

[93] The Mother suggests that the evidence shows that the Father only increased his participation in the children’s lives after the separation for fear that they were going to be relocated to Nova Scotia. I reject this suggestion. I found the Father’s testimony to be sincere when it comes to his increased role as a parent. He has taken a genuine interest in the children’s lives. He is engaged in their school, activities, and every facet of their lives.

16(3)(d) - the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained

[94] The children are too young to express their views and preferences. This is not a factor to consider.

16(3)(e) - the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious, and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage

[95] The parties share the same views on these issues. This is not a factor to consider.

16(4)(f) – any plans for the child’s care

[96] The Mother’s plan involves moving in with her sister and her partner in Bedford, Nova Scotia. The Mother’s sister and her partner purchased a new home recently. It is the Mother’s intention to purchase a house in the foreseeable future. As a result of the Mother’s medical discharge, the relocation to Nova Scotia will be completely funded.

[97] The Father says that with his current employment, his travel will be limited to some mandatory training. While he travels, the Mother would be able to care for the children. Alternatively, his extended family members are willing and able to assist.

[98] Both of their plans are child-focused and include the children residing in a proper home, attending appropriate schools, participating in extra-curricular activities, and ensuring that B.S. continues in an IEP program.

[99] Because of the Mother’s medical release from the Forces, she undoubtedly has more time, being a stay-at-home mom.

[100] The Father’s full-time work obligations do not impact his ability of implementing his childcare plan. I accept the Father’s evidence that his chain of command is very supportive and they have provided him with the necessary leeway, either for family or medical reasons. Also, I find that his extended family members are available to assist. In my view, despite working full-time, the Father has demonstrated, since the separation, to be an active participant in the children’s lives.

16(3)(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

[101] I have no concerns with either parents’ ability to care for the children. The Mother and Father meet the children’s needs and there is no reason to believe that this will change in the future.

16(3)(i) - the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child

[102] The Mother says that the evidence shows that the parties have a difficulty in communicating. Despite her best efforts, the communication with the Father has been stressful, adversarial, accusatory, and almost completely disengaged.

[103] The Father acknowledges that there are disagreements with the Mother, but they have nonetheless been able to co-parent together. He believes that once the litigation has ended and the dusts settles, the parties should be able to effectively communicate.

[104] It is undeniable that there is some conflict between the parents and the conflict was at its highest in or around March 2020 when the Mother was charged with assault. After the police involvement, the Father lived at the neighbours’ house for approximately four months. The parties then communicated with each other through the neighbour, Alexandru Bejenaru. As time progressed, the parents started to communicate directly with one another. The parties started to use the Family Wizard application to communicate. Several messages were filed as exhibits for the summer 2021 period. The communication that I reviewed was civil and courteous, and I note that during this time, the parties were still involved in litigation. There was compromise on both sides regarding parenting time with the children. This level of communication was a stark contrast to how they communicated with each other during the summer of 2020.

[105] The parents have experienced some difficult and stressful events in their lives, some of which are work related and others pertain to the high levels of conflict in their relationship. For years, the Mother did not feel emotionally supported by the Father, primarily because he was prioritizing his work. Prior to the separation, the Mother was diagnosed with PTSD, depression, and anxiety. The separation was an added stressor for the Mother. When the Mother communicates with the Father, her emotional distress and anxiety increase. She finds that the Father can be emotionally critical in his comments to her.

[106] Similarly, the Father has had his mental health challenges. As a police officer with the Forces, he witnessed many gruesome crimes that haunt him to this day. His stress levels were quite high and he experienced nightmares. He was also diagnosed with depression and has been prescribed medication. Since 2011, the Father says that he has been the victim of abuse by the Mother, both mentally and physically.

[107] The parents are both involved in therapy to work on their respective issues. Despite the ongoing litigation, I find that peace seems to have settled in the parents’ lives and the resentment towards each other has subsided. While not perfect, I find that the Mother and Father have been able to co-parent, and they have demonstrated a willingness to communicate and cooperate with one another, all in their children’s best interests. I believe that the level of mutual respect has increased, the conflict has decreased, and the parents have a mutual desire of improving the communication.

16.92(1)(a) – reasons for the relocation

[108] There are two reasons for the Mother’s request to relocate to Nova Scotia. The first reason is health related. The Mother needs to relocate to Nova Scotia to gain emotional health, physical health, and mental health. She believes that this can be achieved with the support of her family and friends that reside in Nova Scotia.

[109] Because of the Mother’s recent brain hemorrhages, the Mother submits that it is important that she live in a less stressful environment. The Mother’s sister and partner can offer this type of environment to the Mother. In the Ottawa region, the Mother says that she does not have the necessary support. The Mother testified that moving to Nova Scotia to be closer to her support system would be beneficial to the children and in their best interests.

[110] The second reason for relocating to Nova Scotia is due to the finances. The Mother stated that in Nova Scotia, she will receive financial support from her sister and partner by living at their residence rent-free. Furthermore, the Mother argues that the costs of housing in Nova Scotia is lower than the Ottawa region. By accessing the affordable housing market in Nova Scotia, it is argued that the children’s quality of life would be increased, which is in their best interests.

[111] The Father responds that there is insufficient evidence before the court to conclude that a relocation to Nova Scotia will improve the Mother’s mental health. It is argued that the Mother has support in Ontario and her extended family has been able to support her, either remotely or by travelling to Ontario.

[112] Regarding the Mother’s financial reasons to relocate to Nova Scotia, the Father says that there is no direct evidence that it is significantly more expensive to reside in Ottawa, as opposed to Nova Scotia. Also, the Father says that with the Mother’s income, there is no reason that she cannot find suitable accommodation in the Ottawa region.

Health reason for relocation

[113] The Mother’s treating psychologist, Dr. Karen Holowaty, testified at trial. Dr. Holowaty was qualified to give opinion evidence as a clinical psychologist, in the field of psychology and trauma therapy.

[114] The Mother’s therapy with Dr. Holowaty started in December 2018. The Mother has been diligent in her therapy, the last treatment being in October 2021. Her treatment was suspended because of the litigation. Dr. Holowaty testified that when she first saw the Mother, she noted that the Mother had gone through several life stressors that led to increased anxiety and lower mood. She also noted that the Mother was exhibiting some physical health deterioration. Dr. Holowaty diagnosed the Mother with depression, generalized anxiety and panic attacks, and PTSD due to her work in the Forces.

[115] Dr. Holowaty stated that the Mother has made progress in therapy. The Mother exhibits reduced symptoms and she has developed better coping mechanisms for her symptoms, giving her the ability to improve. Dr. Holowaty has seen some pockets of improvement.

[116] Dr. Holowaty opined that she does not believe that the Mother’s health will improve if she resides in Ontario. That said, Dr. Holowaty acknowledged that there is room for slight improvement if she remained in Ontario. The Mother would achieve a better recovery if she lived in Nova Scotia because she would have regular contact with her family, which would be considered a protective factor that would increase resiliency and her ability to cope with the PTSD symptoms.

[117] Dr. Holowaty also opined that the Mother’s mental health has not negatively impacted her ability to care for the children. The Mother has always reported that her children are the main priority. Dr. Holowaty believes that the children have kept her moving forward and they are protective factors that have assisted the Mother. Dr. Holowaty has no concerns of the Mother’s parenting abilities.

[118] Dr. Holowaty agreed that once litigation has been completed, the Mother’s stress can be alleviated to a certain degree.

[119] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the Mother that the Father offers her support because he can care for the children 50 percent of the time. Her response was “I have a different opinion.” She explained that when someone like herself has health challenges, including PTSD, she should not be isolated. She feels isolated in Ottawa. She requires support from her family and friends, who all reside in Nova Scotia.

[120] The Mother initially testified that the Father never provided her support. Upon being pressed, the Mother acknowledged that after her recent brain hemorrhages and hospitalization, the Father cared for the children and supported the Mother. However, she says that upon her release from the hospital, the Father refused to return the children.

[121] The Mother wants to return home. That is understandable. She feels isolated in Ottawa and believes that by relocating to Nova Scotia, with her family by her side, she will be able to gain control over her life and improve her mental health. That is admirable.

[122] The evidence confirms that the Mother and her sister had a falling out. While the Mother testified that she now has a good relationship with her sister, I note that her sister did not testify at trial. It would have been helpful to hear from the sister regarding her relationship with the Mother and the support that she has been providing the Mother since they reconciled.

[123] I accept the premise advanced by the Mother and supported by Dr. Holowaty, that if the Mother is in a good state of mental health, it is beneficial for the children.

[124] Dr. Holowaty and the Mother have worked hard in improving the Mother’s mental health. The Mother’s mental health may not be stabilized, but there has been improvement. Although Dr. Holowaty believes that the Mother will not make as much of a recovery if she continues to reside in Ottawa, I am not satisfied that the Mother will not continue to progress in her treatment, even if she resides in Ottawa.

Financial reasons for relocation

[125] The Mother testified that by moving to Nova Scotia, she will be living rent free with her sister and partner. Ms. Soltesz confirmed in her testimony that the Mother would not be charged rent.

[126] The Mother was approved for a $325,000 mortgage based on her regular income. Once she receives long-term disability benefits, she believes that the mortgage approval may be less because of the decrease in her income. The Mother estimates that her income will be reduced by 25 percent. She testified that according to her research, the housing costs in Nova Scotia are lower than in the Ottawa region. By living rent free, the Mother will be able to save money to purchase an affordable home in Nova Scotia.

[127] The Mother also testified about the rental market in both Ontario and Nova Scotia. Currently, the Mother’s rent is $895 monthly. It is low because she resides on the base. The Mother believes that after being released from the Forces, a comparable unit in the private market will cost her $2,200 per month.

[128] The Mother says that she cannot afford living in Ontario, or more specifically in the Ottawa area. The Father submits that the Mother’s position is unreasonable. He argues that with the Mother earning approximately $67,000 per year, she should be able to find suitable accommodation in the Ottawa region.

[129] Neither party called an expert regarding a comparison in the housing or rental market between Ontario and Nova Scotia. Rather, the parties relied upon newspaper articles or some statistical data in support of their respective positions. The evidence presented at trial is insufficient for me to determine if the housing and rental market in Nova Scotia is currently more affordable than Ottawa or its neighbouring communities.

16.92(1)(b) – the impact of the relocation on the child

[130] The Mother submits that the children have a connection to Nova Scotia. They were born and raised in Nova Scotia. They have maintained friendships in Nova Scotia and they have close family ties. The children’s former pediatrician has agreed to take the children back as patients. Conversely, in the Ottawa region, the children have endured three moves since the sale of the matrimonial home and attended virtual school for almost two years. The Mother argues that the children are not at a level of school or engaged in any extra-curricular activities that the proposed relocation would cause significant disruption to the children. The Mother believes that the children would flourish in Nova Scotia.

[131] The Father testified that the Mother’s plan to relocate to Nova Scotia is heart wrenching and he would miss the children deeply. His relationship with the children has grown immensely and a move to Nova Scotia would negatively impact their bond. The Father submits that the Mother proposes to reduce his parenting time from an equal shared basis to approximately 15 percent of the time (approximately seven to eight weeks per year). The Father testified that he only gets 25 days of annual leave, which would limit the time that he would be able to spend with his children. Also, with the Mother’s proposal, the Father fears that the children would lose contact and a connection with his extended family.

[132] Ms. Mitchell testified that a relocation to Nova Scotia would have “devastating consequences” for the children. Even by implementing a generous parenting time schedule for the Father, it would be less than a shared regime, and this reduction runs a risk of interfering in the Father’s relationship with the children. A relocation would limit and hamper the maintenance of a bond between the Father and the children.

[133] I agree with Ms. Mitchell. Uprooting the children from their community and significantly altering the Father’s role in their day to day lives is contrary to the children’s best interests. I believe that it would materially destabilize the children and harm the bond that the children share with their Father.

16.92(1)(c) - the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or a pending application for a parenting order and the level of involvement in the child’s life of each of those persons

[134] Since June 2020, parenting time with the children is shared equally between the parties.

[135] As noted earlier, the Mother testified that this new schedule was implemented by the Father without her consent.

[136] In addition, the Mother said that because of the Father’s mandatory training, the children stayed with her an additional five weeks in September and October 2021.

[137] Ms. Mitchell testified that, at the beginning, the children thought that the one-week schedule was too long. She said that it was not that the children preferred one parent over the other, but rather it was too long because of their ages.

16.92(1)(d) - whether the person who intends to relocate the child complied with any applicable notice requirement under section 16.9, provincial family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement

[138] The Mother has complied with the required notice.

16.92(1)(e) - the existence of an order, arbitral award, or agreement that specifies the geographic area in which the child is to reside

[139] This section is not applicable.

16.92(1)(f) - the reasonableness of the proposal of the person who intends to relocate the child to vary the exercise of parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new place of residence and the travel expenses

[140] The Mother’s relocation plan to Nova Scotia includes, amongst other things, the following:

a. The Mother shall have sole decision-making responsibility for the children, after first consulting with the Father. b. The Father shall have access to any and all information regarding the children, including information from teachers, school officials, health care providers, and any other person or institution involved with the children. c. The children shall primarily reside with the Mother in Bedford, Nova Scotia, at the residence of her sister and Ms. Soltesz. Eventually, the Mother will purchase a home in the same area. d. The children shall attend school in the school district of the Mother’s residence, as follows: i. Sunnyside Elementary (grades 2-6 French Immersion) ii. Basinview Grades (grades pre-primary-6 Core English) iii. Rocky lake Junior High (grades 7-9) iv. Charles P. Allen High School (grades 10-12) e. Each year, the children shall be under the Father’s care as follows: (i) from the last Saturday in June to the last Saturday in July; (ii) ten days during the Christmas holidays; (iii) ten days during Spring break; (iv) long weekends such as Thanksgiving, Easter, or in the event that the Father has extended leave or a period of time off, as long as it is conducive to the children’s school schedule; and (v) if the Father travels to Nova Scotia on his own accord, with proper notice, the children shall be in the Father’s care. f. The Mother shall be responsible for the costs of travel of the children for parenting time with the Father. g. When the children are in the care of one parent, the children shall have daily telephonic communication with the other parent. h. The children shall have weekly telephonic communication with the paternal grandparents. i. The Mother will send weekly photos of the children to the Father and the paternal grandparents.

[141] The Mother testified that the relationship between the Father and the children could be maintained because she would ensure constant communication between them by way of FaceTime, telephone calls and emails.

[142] The Mother also suggested that the Father could be posted in Nova Scotia. The Father denies that this is possible. He testified that he is no longer engaged in police work and there are no forensic identification positions in Nova Scotia.

[143] The Mother submits that her plan to relocate to Nova Scotia is reasonable and in the best interests of the children because it provides the children stability, maximizes the Father’s contact with the children, and allows for extended family to visit.

16.92(1)(g) - whether each person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility or a pending application for a parenting order has complied with their obligations under family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance

[144] I have no reason to believe that either party would not comply with any court order.

Summary and Disposition – Issue #1

[145] In assessing the best interest factors set out above, I am led to conclude that the factors weigh against the relocation of the children to Nova Scotia. I reach this conclusion for several reasons.

[146] First, while I find that the Mother was the primary care giver of the children before the separation, the Father was nonetheless involved. He was involved to a lesser degree because of his work obligations. Post separation, there have been drastic changes. The Mother is no longer the primary care giver. The Mother and the Father are now both equally involved in the children’s lives. Both parents equally share a very strong bond with the children. The most meaningful people in the children’s lives are their parents. The children should have both parents in their lives as much as possible.

[147] Second, despite the Mother being off work and claiming that she has more time to care for the children, I find that both parents are equally able and willing to meet the children’s needs. The Father’s work schedule is stable and flexible. The Father will no longer be travelling for extended periods of time. Since the separation, the Father has been a constant presence in every aspect of the children’s lives. The Father plays a significant role in their lives, and it is in the children’s best interests that he remains actively involved in their lives.

[148] Third, a relocation to Nova Scotia would cause a significant disruption to the children’s lives. The children have already experienced some disruption because of the separation. The children require stability and not further changes. The children have little or no recollection of Nova Scotia. They are not familiar with Nova Scotia and a relocation to this province would be very destabilizing for the children. The evidence shows that the children are functioning well in their current environment, and they have adapted well to the post-separation changes. They are accustomed to an equal shared parenting time regime. They have close ties to their community. They have developed friendships. School is going well. A relocation to Nova Scotia would represent a significant disruption to the children’s stable lives. I believe that stability for the children is best achieved by having both parents living in proximity to one another.

[149] Fourth, I understand the Mother’s health reasons to relocate and I do not doubt her motives. The Mother feels isolated from her support system. The Mother needs the support of her family and she believes that it would be beneficial for her mental health, which in turn would be beneficial for the children because she would be a better parent. As Dr. Holowaty said in her testimony, when someone is in direct contact with family, it is a near certainty that there will be more improvement.

[150] While I do not disagree with the premise that a healthy parent makes a better parent, the evidence presented in this case convinces me that the Mother is already an excellent parent. Despite the Mother’s isolation, as she puts it, the Mother has nonetheless been able to care for the children. Dr. Holowaty testified that she has had no concerns in the Mother’s ability to parent. On December 8, 2020, Dr. Holowaty wrote a letter to Ms. Mitchell where she stated that the Mother is an excellent parent and because of her hard work with psychological treatment, she has become a better parent. Dr. Holowaty further wrote in that letter that parenting is an area in which the Mother seemed to be keeping up very well. Ms. Mitchell echoes Dr. Holowaty’s views, saying that the Mother is a conscientious parent: she ensures that the children are followed medically, she actively engages with the children, she gives the children positive feedback, and she has the capacity to care for the children.

[151] Although isolated in Ottawa, the Mother has shown signs of improvement. Dr. Holowaty testified that the Mother has progressed well in her treatment, making good gains in symptom reduction and she has developed better coping mechanisms in dealing with her symptoms. I am mindful that Dr. Holowaty does not believe that the Mother’s mental health will get much better if she stays in Ontario. With respect, the evidence has clearly shown that the Mother has made significant strides in improving her mental health. In Dr. Holowaty’s letter to Ms. Mitchell, it is stated that the Mother “ …improved consistently of daily self-care (needed for symptom/stress management) and reporting a much more positive mindset. She was reporting reduced PTSD symptoms, reduced depression, and reduced anxiety, as well as increased physical activity (determined to lose the extra weight) and planning more activities with her children .” The Mother has been and continues to be a loving, high-functioning, and competent parent, despite her mental health challenges. With the Mother’s demonstrated hard work and determination in getting better, I believe that the Mother will continue to improve her mental health, even if she resides in the Ottawa area. Furthermore, during the past few years, the Mother’s extended family has been present and supportive, having travelled to Ottawa to accompany the Mother through some of her more difficult moments. There is no evidence to suggest that the Mother’s family support will not continue to be available to her, even if she remains in the Ottawa area. I would also add that the Mother has a circle of friends in the Ottawa region that has supported her in the past.

[152] Fifth, it is undeniable that the Mother would save money when living rent free with her family in Nova Scotia. Such a scenario would produce an economic benefit to anyone, regardless of the location. I accept that for the short term, the Mother will receive a financial benefit if she were to relocate in Nova Scotia. However, the Mother’s living arrangements with her family would be temporary because she will have to find suitable accommodations for herself and the children. Regarding the Mother’s argument that the housing and rental market costs in Nova Scotia is much lower than in Ontario, I did not find the evidence presented at trial to be compelling. The evidence consisted of, amongst other things, a CBC news article that compared the average house price across Canada by province, some undated Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation rental market surveys, and the parties’ own personal experiences. On the evidence before me, I cannot conclude that Bedford, Nova Scotia offers more affordable accommodation than the Ottawa area, including Rockland, where the children attend school. In any event, I believe that the Mother has been able to manage her finances. According to the Mother’s Financial Statement sworn on October 13, 2021, her total annual income was approximately $74,000. While I am aware that the Mother will be receiving a slightly lower income because of her disability status and she will need to find a new home outside of the base, given her level of income, I am not convinced that she will be unable to manage financially in the Ottawa area.

[153] Sixth, the children should have a meaningful relationship with both parents. I find that a relocation to Nova Scotia would have a profound negative impact on the children’s relationship with their Father. Regardless of the Mother’s proposal to ensure that the Father has maximum contact with the children, such as frequent electronic communication and approximately seven weeks of in-person parenting time, I find that the children would lose the benefits of having regular and direct contact with the Father. At present, the Father is intimately involved in every aspect of the children’s lives. The children have a continuous and loving contact with their Father. If the children relocate to Nova Scotia, and despite the Mother’s greatest intentions of ensuring maximum contact, I am extremely worried that the children would not be able to maintain and foster the same type of relationship that they currently have with their Father. I believe that the effects of a move to Nova Scotia on the Father’s relationship with his children would be life altering.

[154] Seventh, I believe that a relocation to Nova Scotia would negatively impact the relationship with the Father’s extended family. Although the Mother claims that she blocked contact with Mrs. Springstead and Mrs. Pridham because of the litigation, I am not entirely convinced that this type of behaviour would not occur again in the future. Also, the evidence has shown that the Father’s extended family have much more time to see the children because of a recent retirement or ability to work remotely. If the children reside in Nova Scotia, it would be difficult to maintain a relationship with the Father’s extended family.

[155] Eighth, I accept Ms. Mitchell’s evidence and recommendations that the Mother should not be permitted to relocate to Nova Scotia with the children. Ms. Mitchell is highly qualified to provide her recommendations and I find that they were made in a fair manner, after having thoroughly investigated the issues. I found her testimony to be measured and fair, without exaggeration.

[156] In sum, after considering all the relevant factors, I find that the children’s best interests are best served by refusing the Mother’s request to relocate to Nova Scotia.

Issue #2 – What type of parenting orders should be made when considering the children’s best interests?

Decision-making responsibility

[157] The Mother submits that an order granting her sole decision-making responsibility should be made because the parties have been unable to constructively communicate and parent the children. Another reason to make such an order is that the Mother has always been the parent to make all major decisions for the children, either alone or with the Mother requesting the Father’s input.

[158] The Father proposes that decision-making responsibility should be shared. He believes that once the dust settles from litigation, communication with the Mother will improve. The Father suggests that the Mother make all major decisions related to the children’s medical care and religion and he would be responsible for the children’s education.

[159] Ms. Mitchell finds the decision-making responsibility issue challenging. Ms. Mitchell testified that both parents are capable and they have been appropriately caring for the children. That is not the issue. Rather, it is the level of conflict that concerns her. Ms. Mitchell does not believe that joint decision-making responsibility is achievable. Ms. Mitchell believes that prior to the separation, the Mother played a greater parenting role, and she is more experienced in taking care of major decisions. In her report, she recommended that the Mother be awarded sole decision-making responsibility. This recommendation was made primarily to reduce conflict. During questioning, Ms. Mitchell agreed that the Father’s proposal could work, as long as it is set up in a way that minimizes or avoids conflict.

[160] Even if the Mother may have more experience in making decisions for the children before the separation because she was the parent that was most present, I find that both parents can make decisions for their children.

[161] I agree with Ms. Mitchell that the goal should be to minimize or avoid conflict between the parents.

[162] Although I find that the parents have demonstrated an ability and willingness to cooperate with one another, there exists a certain level of distrust, anger, and resentment. It is far less than before but nonetheless present. As such, joint decision-making responsibility does not appear to be in the children’s best interests.

[163] I prefer the Father’s proposal. It meets the goal of reducing or minimizing conflict, but it also reflects the current reality that the parents are equally involved in the children’s lives. I find that the Father understands the children’s education needs, especially regarding B.S., and he can make those important decisions, in consultation with the Mother, that will be in the children’s best interests.

[164] Similarly, the Mother is well positioned to make those important decisions regarding the children’s health and religion.

[165] The shared decision-making responsibility will nonetheless require the parents to consult one another before making the decision, which I do not foresee to be problematic. Again, it is worth repeating that I believe that the parents have shown great restraint and the ability to put aside any frustrations or ill feeling they may have towards one another, all in the children’s best interests.

Parenting time

[166] Ms. Mitchell recommended that the parents continue with an alternate week arrangement.

[167] I see no compelling reasons to change the current one week on, one week off schedule. The children have adapted to the schedule and it allows both parents to be equally involved in their lives. In my view, the current schedule is in the children’s best interests, with the understanding that daily communication be facilitated between the children and the parent that is not exercising parenting time.

[168] For the holiday schedule and special events, the Father has made a proposal that I find to be reasonable. For the Christmas holidays, I find that the one-week shared schedule provides the necessary time for the parties to travel and visit their respective extended families:

a. The children shall spend the week of Christmas with the Father and the week of New Year’s with the Mother on even numbered years (ex. 2022). The children shall spend the week of Christmas with the Mother and the week of New Year’s with the Father on odd numbered years (ex. 2023). b. The children shall be with the Mother on Mother’s Day every year from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and they shall be with the Father on Father’s Day every year from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. c. The children shall be with each parent for two consecutive weeks for summer vacation in July and August every year. The Father shall have first choice of summer vacation on even numbered years (ex. 2022) and Mother shall have first choice of summer vacation on odd numbered years (ex. 2023).

[169] If there are any other holiday and special occasions that need to be scheduled, the parents are encouraged to agree to a mutually beneficial scheduling accommodation.

[170] If the parties disagree on any parenting time terms, either party may seek an appointment before me for my determination.

Miscellaneous

[171] With the children remaining in Ontario and considering that the children are doing well in school in Rockland, I find that as long as one parent resides in the school territory, the children should continue to attend school in Rockland.

[172] The parties agree that the Mother shall be responsible for the children’s health cards, passports, social insurance number cards, and birth certificates. These documents shall be made available to the Father, upon request.

[173] In terms of ongoing communication, the parties agree to continue using the Our Family Wizard App for any issues regarding the children. The annual costs shall be shared equally between the parents.

[174] The parties agree to maintain health insurance for the children.

[175] Regarding travelling with the children, the Mother proposes the following: if one party plans to travel internationally with the children, the parent traveling with the children will be responsible to prepare a consent letter for signature of the other parent and pay for the costs to have the letter notarized, providing that the children have permission to travel. The other parent will not unreasonably refuse to sign the consent letter. I agree with the Mother’s proposal. The Father did not raise any objections to this proposal.

[176] For future disputes, the Mother proposes the following order: in the event of a future dispute between the parties that cannot be resolved, the parties shall try and resolve the dispute via mediation before seeking to have the issue resolved by the court. I believe that having a dispute resolution in place is wise and reasonable. I agree with the Mother’s proposal.

[177] The parties agree to maintain life insurance. The amount of the life insurance was not addressed at trial. If the parties disagree on the face value of the life insurance, either party may make an appointment before me for my determination.

[178] The parties seek a divorce. The divorce shall be granted upon receipt of a marriage certificate, a clearance certificate, and any other documentation that is required to grant a divorce order.

Issue # 3 - Should the Mother pay her proportionate share of the 2021 summer camp expense at Petrie Island Canoe Club?

[179] The Father claims that he advised the Mother that he wanted to register the children to summer camp at Petrie Island. He provided the Mother with the total costs associated with the summer camp, being $1,687.04. The Father testified that the children had reservations at first about the camp but within three to four days, they would run off as soon as they arrived at camp. The children really enjoyed it.

[180] The Mother acknowledged that she did receive some information from the Father, but she refused to enroll the children during her parenting week. She preferred to have the children in her care and do activities with them, as opposed to sending them to camp. The Mother’s impression is that the children did not want to attend camp. During her parenting time, it would appear that the children only attended on the Monday.

[181] The evidence is clear that the Mother was not agreeable to register the children for camp during her parenting time weeks, yet the Father nonetheless registered the children. In my view, this was improper. The Father should not have registered the children for this camp or at the very least, he should have limited the registration of the camp during his parenting time, rather than imposing it upon the Mother. Under the circumstances, I find the Mother’s refusal was reasonable.

[182] The Father’s request that the summer camp expenses be shared is denied.

Issue # 4- What is the amount to be paid in child support payments and what is the proportionate share of the special and extraordinary expenses for the children?

[183] The Mother’s Financial Statement sworn October 13, 2021, states that her total income is $74,136 per annum.

[184] The Father’s Financial Statement sworn on October 13, 2021, states that his total income is $84,636 per annum.

[185] The Mother testified that after her release from the Forces and upon starting her long-term disability, her income will decrease. There is also a possibility that the Mother’s income will be topped up by Veteran Affairs. The Mother believes that her income will be in the $65,000 range.

[186] Because of the uncertainty in the Mother’s income and the absence of evidence in this regard, I am unable to determine the amount of child support payable by the Father or the proportional share of special and extraordinary expenses for the children.

[187] The Mother needs to provide the Father with the specifics of her current income. Once received, I assume that the parties will be able to reach a consensus on the child support amount and the proportionate share of expenses. If the parties disagree, either party may make an appointment before me for my determination.

Conclusion

[188] For the foregoing reasons, I make the following final orders:

a. The Mother’s request to relocate to Nova Scotia with the children is denied. b. Decision-making responsibility shall be shared as follows: i. The Mother shall make all major decisions related to the children’s religion and medical care. ii. The Father shall make all major decisions related to the children’s education. iii. Both parents may ask for and be given information directly from the children’s teachers, other school officials, health care providers such as doctors, dentists, and any other person or institution involved with the children. iv. Both parents shall ensure that all professionals involved with the children are aware that both parents are entitled to information regarding the children. v. Both parents shall inform the other parent of any professionals involved with the children. vi. Both parents shall consult the other parent prior to making any major decisions for the children. vii. The parent with whom the children are, shall make the day-to-day decisions regarding the children and any decision related to a medical emergency. If a parent makes an emergency medical decision, that parent shall advise the other parent immediately. c. Parenting time shall be shared as follows: i. The children shall reside equally with both parents following a week on, week off schedule. ii. Exchanges shall occur on Mondays at a location mutually agreed upon by the parties. iii. The Father and the Mother shall ensure that the children have daily telephone communication with the other parent. Other modes of communication, such as email, video calls and instant messenger shall also be available as a means to maintain regular contact between the children and the parents. d. Holidays and special occasions shall be shared as follows: i. The children shall spend the week of Christmas with the Father and the week of New Year’s with the Mother on even numbered years (ex. 2022). The children shall spend the week of Christmas with the Mother and the week of New Year’s with the Father on odd numbered years (ex. 2023). ii. The children shall be with the Mother on Mother’s Day every year from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and they shall be with the Father on Father’s Day every year from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. iii. The children shall be with each parent for two consecutive weeks for summer vacation in July and August every year. The Father shall have first choice of summer vacation on even numbered years (ex. 2022) and Mother shall have first choice of summer vacation on odd numbered years (ex. 2023). iv. If there are any other holiday and special occasions that needs to be scheduled, the parents are encouraged to agree to a mutually beneficial scheduling accommodation. v. If the parties disagree on any parenting time terms, either party may seek an appointment before me for my determination. e. The Father shall pay child support to the Mother. The amount shall be determined upon the receipt of updated income information from the Mother. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount, either party may seek an appointment before me for my determination. f. The child support arrears for the period of March 2020 to October 2021 shall be set at $2,020. The Father shall pay this sum to the Mother from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home held in trust. g. The Father shall pay an equalization payment of $9,000 to the Mother. This equalization payment shall be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home held in trust. h. Neither party shall pay the other party expenses related to the matrimonial home following the separation, including unpaid mortgage payments, repairs of the matrimonial home or occupational rent. i. The Father shall make best efforts to refinance the Jeep in his own personal name and have the Mother removed as debtor before November 30, 2021. If he is unable to do so, the Father shall be solely responsible for the payments until the load is paid in full. The Father shall make regular payments when they are due. The vehicle shall be paid in full, and the loan reimbursed in full no later than December 31, 2021. j. The Father’s request that the Mother pay her share of summer 2021 camp expenses in the amount of $1,687.04 is denied. k. The ongoing proportionate shares of special and extraordinary expenses shall be determined upon the receipt of updated income information from the Mother. If the parties are unable to agree on the proportion to be shared, either party may seek an appointment before me for my determination l. If one parent intends to incur special and extraordinary expenses for the children, that parent shall obtain the other parent’s consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. The parent incurring the expense shall provide the receipt to the other parent, who shall reimburse the expense within 30 days. m. Provided that one parent continues to reside in the school territory, the children shall attend Rockland Public School in Rockland, and after elementary school, the children shall attend Rockland District High School. n. The Mother shall be responsible for the children’s health cards, passports, social insurance number cards, and birth certificates. These documents shall be made available to the Father, upon request. o. For ongoing communication, the parties shall continue using the Our Family Wizard App for any issues regarding the children. The annual costs shall be shared equally between the parents. p. The parties shall maintain health insurance for the children. q. The parties shall maintain their life insurance in place as long as it is offered by their employers, and designate the other parent as irrevocable beneficiary, in trust for the children, and do the same for all pensions and benefits. If the parties disagree on the face value of the life insurance, either party may seek an appointment before me for my determination. r. If one party plans to travel internationally with the children, the parent traveling with the children will be responsible to prepare a consent letter for signature of the other parent and pay for the costs to have the letter notarized, providing that the children have permission to travel. The other parent will not unreasonably refuse to sign the consent letter. s. The parties shall file a marriage certificate, a clearance certificate, and any other documentation that is required to grant a divorce order. t. In the event of a future dispute between the parties that cannot be resolved, the parties shall try and resolve the dispute via mediation before seeking to have the issue resolved via court.

[189] If there is a disagreement amongst the parties on any matters arising from this decision, either party may seek an appointment before me through the Trial Coordinator.

Costs

[190] I encourage the parties to agree on the issue of costs. If they are unable to do so, the Father may deliver written submissions (limited to five pages excluding his Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle), within 90 days of the date of these Reasons for Judgment. The Mother may then deliver responding written submissions (limited to five pages excluding her Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle), within 30 days of the receipt of the Father’s submissions. The Father may then deliver any reply submissions (limited to one page in length), if necessary, within 15 days of the receipt of the Mother’s submissions.

M. Smith J

Released: March 28, 2022