S.K. v. D.P., 2022 ONSC 2359

Court File No.: FC-19-351-0000 Date: 2022-04-20

Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: S.K., Applicant And: D.P., Respondent

Before: D.J. Gordon

Counsel: Sean Johnson, for the Applicant Brent Balmer, for the Respondent (on a limited retainer)

Heard: February 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14, 2022 via Zoom

Corrected Reasons: paragraph 105.1 has been corrected to read “The parties shall share decision-making responsibility for K.P.K., born … 2017, in accordance with the provisions hereafter stated.” [D.O.B to be included in order when issued]. Correction May 2, 2022.

The honourable mr. justice d.j. gordon

Reasons for Decision

[1] Negotiations between the parties and counsel on the first day of trial resulted in the resolution of property and support issues, the latter subject to the terms of any order granted herein.

[2] In result, the focus on the trial was on decision-making and parenting time regarding K.P.K, born in 2017. The claim for a divorce was also addressed.

Overview

[3] There was conflict in the relationship of the parties prior to and after separation. In result, this litigation was initiated within a difficult environment. Subsequently, circumstances changed, resulting in temporary parenting orders being granted on consent. While there is still some stress in the relationship, the evidence presented suggests a final parenting agreement could have been negotiated. I am not persuaded a trial was required.

Factual Background – Briefly Stated

[4] Both parties are 41 years of age. The applicant father, S.K., resides in the Region of Waterloo. He is self-employed in the construction industry. The respondent mother, D.P., resides in Brant County. She is employed at a hospital in Oakville. The parties have similar incomes of approximately $55,000.00 per annum.

[5] Cohabitation commenced in February 2014 in Mississauga. The parties married in July 2014. They moved to the Region of Waterloo in 2018. Separation occurred in December 2018 although they continued to reside in the matrimonial home until May 2019.

[6] One child was born to the relationship, K.P.K, in 2017. He is now 4 years of age. D.P. has another child, G.P., born in 2020. She is not involved in this case.

[7] In May 2019, D.P. and K.P.K. vacated the matrimonial home. This action was commenced several days later.

Litigation History

[8] The Application was issued on May 29, 2019. S.K. sought a divorce, joint or sole custody, equal parenting time, a determination on child support, sale of the matrimonial home, equalization of net family property and related matters.

[9] The answer is dated July 2, 2019. D.P. also sought a divorce and requested sole custody, parenting time for S.K., child support, unequal division of net family property, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and other matters.

[10] There have been several motions regarding the parenting of K.P.K., between June 5, 2019, and August 10, 2020. All orders granted were on consent. The purpose of those orders was to increase the parenting time of the applicant father on a graduating basis. Since August 10, 2020, K.P.K. has been in the care of his father every Tuesday overnight, alternate Thursdays overnight and alternate weekends from Friday afternoon to Sunday evening. The child has been in the care of his mother at all other times. The parties have followed each order as granted.

Evidence

Background

[11] Both parties were born in Poland, coming to Canada many years ago. Each party has family members in Poland, including the parents of D.P. The Polish language is important to S.K. and D.P. and both speak to K.P.K. in Polish, as well as in English, and encourage him to learn both.

[12] S.K. is Orthodox while D.P. is Catholic. K.P.K. was baptized in the Catholic Church, S.K. signing an agreement as required by that Church for the child to be raised in the Catholic religion.

Relationship

[13] While the evidentiary focus at trial was the parenting of K.P.K, some background information regarding the relationship of the parties was provided.

[14] S.K. was previously married, a divorce being granted on an unknown date. This was the first marriage for D.P.

[15] Cohabitation commenced in 2014 when the parties resided in Mississauga. They moved to the Waterloo Region in 2018. Both parties were working prior to the birth of their son.

[16] As hereafter addressed, conflict in the relationship has existed for some time.

K.P.K.

[17] K.P.K was born in 2017. He arrived prematurely but is said to be a healthy child. D.P. returned to work shortly after birth. While S.K. was involved in providing childcare, most was performed by D.P. She was also breastfeeding.

[18] As a result of work responsibilities and family duties, the parties had a hectic lifestyle.

Grandmother's Assistance

[19] S.P., mother of D.P., came from Poland in November 2018. She resided at the matrimonial home, providing childcare for K.P.K. while the parties were working. She also performed other tasks, including cleaning and meal preparation.

Separation

[20] Given the conflict in the relationship, D.P. informed S.K. of her decision for separation. Such occurred on December 27, 2018. While there was some discussion as to one of the parties moving out, they continued to reside in the matrimonial home. They had an informal arrangement regarding parenting time. S.P. continued to assist with childcare.

Police Involvement

[21] Police officers were dispatched to the residence on February 18, May 16 and May 24, 2019, all as a result of a complaint from D.P. Police reports record verbal arguments only, no safety concerns and no action being required. Warnings and advice to address the separation were provided by attending officers.

[22] S.K. subsequently called the police on August 22, 2019 regarding D.P. attending the home to remove items. Police reports include similar comments as above.

[23] While police have a duty to “keep the peace”, they cannot be expected to assume the role of referee in every dispute. The evidence did not support the need for police involvement. Such was a waste of their time and public expense. The events simply escalated the conflict as the parties were not addressing their separation.

Mother Moves Out

[24] On May 25, 2019, D.P., S.P. and K.P.K left the matrimonial home, thereafter residing at the home of a friend for a period of time. She informed S.K. of the event by text message.

[25] Unfortunately, D.P. also advised S.K. that he would not be seeing K.P.K until a separation agreement was signed. She declined to inform S.K. where the child was living.

Prior Attempt to Resolve

[26] D.P. retained a lawyer at some point. This lawyer delivered a draft separation agreement to S.K. on May 16, 2019. In this document, D.P. was proposing joint custody and decision-making, with principal residence with her and parenting time for S.K.

[27] Before S.K. could respond, D.P. had left the matrimonial home with K.P.K. This action was commenced on May 29, 2019. There was also a motion by S.K., returnable June 5, 2019.

Other Pre-Litigation Matters

Travel

[28] In November 2017, D.P. and K.P.K went to Poland for six weeks to introduce the baby to family members.

[29] In April 2018, a similar trip was made lasting two months. S.K. also attended for two weeks on this occasion.

[30] After moving to the Waterloo Region in July 2018, D.P. and K.P.K travelled to Poland for one month.

[31] The parties agreed to these trips. After this case was commenced, D.P. asked S.K. for consent to travel with K.P.K to Cuba and to Poland. He opposed, quite properly in my view as the litigation was ongoing.

Marijuana Use

[32] Both parties were recreational users of marijuana prior to commencing a relationship and for a period of time after cohabitation started. D.P. would discontinue the use at some point.

[33] There is evidentiary dispute regarding the marijuana use by S.K. D.P. described his use as an addiction while acknowledging she is not qualified to opine. She described S.K. increasing the use of marijuana to five times a day.

[34] S.K. reports smoking two joints daily, at present, only after work and not before K.P.K. is in bed. He acknowledged a higher use in the past, referring to the stress in the family.

[35] S.P. made reference to what she understood to be an odour of marijuana on S.K. D.P., with reference to coming upon a dead skunk when walking with K.P.K., reported her son to say “it smells like daddy”.

Conflict

[36] Conflict in the relationship appears to have commenced prior to the birth of K.P.K, escalating thereafter until D.P. and the child left the matrimonial home in May 2019.

[37] The evidence reveals verbal arguments, some heated, primarily regarding finances. Some complaints were also delivered regarding marijuana use and childcare.

[38] D.P. also reported S.K. calling her and others inappropriate names. S.P. confirmed. S.K. denied.

[39] There is no need to address this evidence in any further detail, given the parenting positions presented. Suffice it to say, the conflict, argument or conduct does not rise to the level for consideration under section 16(3)(j) and (4), Divorce Act.

Parenting Post-Separation

[40] Between November 2018 and the end of May 2019, S.P. provided childcare while the parties were at work. While it appears S.K. had some involvement with K.P.K. when he was home, D.P. attended to the majority of parenting matters as before.

[41] The situation changed once this case was commenced. As a result of the consent temporary orders, K.P.K primarily resided with his mother and spending regular time with his father.

[42] Several topics were raised in evidence.

Parenting Time

[43] Following separation in December 2018, the parties made arrangements for parenting time. While there was little detail provided along with an evidentiary dispute, it appears S.K. had independent parenting time with K.P.K, including some weekends.

[44] After this case commenced, the parties have followed the terms of each order granted. In essence, K.P.K. is primarily in the care of D.P. and spending regular scheduled time with S.K.

[45] There was no independent evidence regarding the child’s view and preferences. However, several neighbour and friends and the sister of S.K. testified as to their observations regarding the parent-child relationship. All of these witnesses spoke positively in terms of interaction between S.K. and K.P.K. and as to the parenting ability of S.K. K.P.K. spends time with extended family members when visiting with his father. He is said to get along well with his cousins.

[46] While S.K. is self-employed, he provides construction services to only one business. The owner of the business indicated S.K. is able to set his own work hours in order to accommodate parenting obligations.

Mother Relocates

[47] D.P. and K.P.K were residing in the same community in the Waterloo Region as S.K. after leaving the matrimonial home. She purchased a residence in Brant County in April 2021, moving with K.P.K in May 2021. D.P. explained the move as being based on affordability. She did not fully inform S.K. of her intention to move out of the community.

School

[48] D.P. registered K.P.K at a French Immersion Catholic School in her community for the school year that commenced in September 2021. There was some discussion in advance between the parties. D.P. reported presenting S.K. with information about the school and other options but received no response. S.K. indicated there was no consultation. Regardless, S.K. is content K.P.K continues at this school.

[49] S.K. made contact with the school and obtained some information. It appears he has not registered to receive regular communications, which is resolvable. D.P. had been more involved, including scheduling for a dental screening program at the school and communicating with the child’s teacher. She did provide the school with contact information for S.K.

[50] The teacher informed D.P. that K.P.K had a motor skills problem pretraining to his hand. She works with her son following an exercise program, to resolve the issue. D.P. did not inform S.K. of the report from the teacher, saying it was up to him to get the information from the school.

Medical

[51] After moving to the Waterloo Region in 2018, D.P. arranged for a family doctor in the community for herself and K.P.K. S.K., she said, was not interested. S.K. reported being unaware of a local doctor for K.P.K. He did attend one prior appointment with the child’s pediatrician in Mississauga; otherwise, he says when he made inquiry about medical appointments, D.P. would tell him he was not needed.

[52] The child appears to be healthy. On one of the father’s scheduled weekends, the child was ill. He agreed K.P.K. ought stay with D.P.

[53] D.P. complained about the failure of S.K. in seeking medical care for K.P.K. on another weekend, despite their conversation regarding the child being in pain and her request to take him to a doctor. Unfortunately, this event was not raised when S.K. previously testified.

[54] Both parties support the use of natural medication. D.P. appears to be more inclined to pursue care from a medical doctor, likely due to the nature of her education and employment. The parties disagree on vaccination for COVID-19. K.P.K. will soon be eligible at 5 years of age. D.P. wants him to be vaccinated. S.K. wants to wait for more clinical trials regarding the vaccine being used before he will commit to having the child vaccinated.

Divorce

[55] Both parties seek a divorce. The evidence tendered met the statutory requirements. A divorce order is granted.

Issues

[56] The only issues requiring determination are decision-making and parenting time regarding K.P.K. The resolution on child support addresses various scenarios and will follow the order herein granted as to parenting time.

Positions

Father's Position

[57] S.K. seeks joint decision-making and equal parenting time. He wants to be fully involved in his son’s life and does not want his parental role minimized by unilateral decisions being made by D.P. Equal time is said to be a modest increase from the current regime.

Mother's Position

[58] D.P. is prepared to consult S.K. on major decisions but wants to have the ultimate authority in the event of non-agreement. She seeks to continue the existing parenting time schedule as it works for K.P.K. and there is no need to change.

Analysis

Legislation

[59] As the parenting issues arise within a divorce proceeding, the applicable legislation is the Divorce Act. Amendments to the Act that came into force on March 1, 2021, change the terminology, expand on the matters to be considered and otherwise condifies the legal principles developed over time in the caselaw.

[60] The relevant provisions are as follows:

DEFINITIONS s. 2(1)

decision-making responsibility means the responsibility for making significant decisions about a child’s well-being, including in respect of (e) health; (f) education; (g) culture, language, religion and spirituality; and (h) significant extra-curricular activities;

parenting time means the time that a child of the marriage spends in the care of a person referred to in subsection 16.1(1), whether or not the child is physically with that person during that entire time;

relocation means a change in the place of residence of a child of the marriage or a person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility – or who has a pending application for a parenting order – that is likely to have a significant impact on the child’s relationship with (a) a person who has parenting time, decision-making responsibility or an application for a parenting order in respect of that child pending; or (b) a person who has contact with the child under a contact order;

Best interests of a child

16(1) The court shall take into consideration only the best interest of the child of the marriage in making a parenting order or a contact order.

Primary consideration

(2) When considering the factors referred to in subsection (3), the court shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

Factors to be considered

(3) In determining the best interest of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including,

(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.

Factors relating to family violence

(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j), the court shall take the following 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 their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and (h) any other relevant factor.

Past conduct

(5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order.

Maximum parenting time

(6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

Parenting order and contact order

(7) In this section, a parenting order includes an interim parenting order and a variation order in respect of a parenting order, and a contact order includes an interim contact order and a variation order in respect of a contact order.

Parenting Orders

Parenting order

16.1 (1) A court of competent jurisdiction may make an order providing for the exercise of parenting time or decision-making responsibility in respect of any child of the marriage, on application by

(a) either or both spouses; or (b) a person, other than a spouse, who is a parent of the child, stands in the place of a parent or intends to stand in the place of a parent.

Interim order

(2) The court may, on application by a person described in subsection (1), make an interim parenting order in respect of the child, pending the determination of an application made under that subsection.

Application by person other than spouse

(3) A person described in paragraph (1)(b) may make an application under subsection (1) or (2) only with leave of the court.

Contents of parenting order

(4) The court may, in the order,

(a) allocate parenting time in accordance with section 16.2; (b) allocate decision-making responsibility in accordance with section 16.3; (c) include requirements with respect to any means of communication, that is to occur during the parenting time allocated to a person, between a child and another person to whom parenting time or decision-making responsibility is allocated; and (d) provide for any other matter that the court considers appropriate.

Terms and conditions

(5) The court may make an order for a definite or indefinite period or until a specified event occurs, and may impose any terms, conditions and restrictions that it considers appropriate.

Family dispute resolution process

(6) Subject to provincial law, the order may direct the parties to attend a family dispute resolution process.

Relocation

(7) The order may authorize or prohibit the relocation of the child.

Supervision

(8) The order may require that parenting time or the transfer of the child from one person to another be supervised.

Prohibition on removal of child

(9) The order may prohibit the removal of a child from a specified geographic area without the written consent of any specified person or without a court order authorizing the removal.

Parenting time — schedule

16.2 (1) Parenting time may be allocated by way of a schedule.

Day-to-day decisions

(2) Unless the court orders otherwise, a person to whom parenting time is allocated under paragraph 16.1(4)(a) has exclusive authority to make, during that time, day-to-day decisions affecting the child.

Allocation of decision-making responsibility

16.3 Decision-making responsibility in respect of a child, or any aspect of that responsibility, may be allocated to either spouse, to both spouses, to a person described in paragraph 16.1(1)(b), or to any combination of those persons.

Entitlement to information

16.4 Unless the court orders otherwise, any person to whom parenting time or decision-making responsibility has been allocated is entitled to request from another person to whom parenting time or decision-making responsibility has been allocated information about the child’s well-being, including in respect of their health and education, or from any other person who is likely to have such information, and to be given such information by those persons subject to any applicable laws.

Change in Place of Residence

Non-application

16.7 Section 16.8 does not apply to a change in the place of residence that is a relocation.

Notice

16.8 (1) A person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility in respect of a child of the marriage and who intends to change their place of residence or that of the child shall notify any other person who has parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact under a contact order in respect of that child of their intention.

Form and content of notice

(2) The notice shall be given in writing and shall set out

(a) the date on which the change is expected to occur; and (b) the address of the new place of residence and contact information of the person or child, as the case may be.

Exception

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the court may, on application, provide that the requirements in those subsections do not apply or may modify them, including where there is a risk of family violence.

Application without notice

(4) An application referred to in subsection (3) may be made without notice to any other party.

Relocation

Notice

16.9 (1) A person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility in respect of a child of the marriage and who intends to undertake a relocation shall notify, at least 60 days before the expected date of the proposed relocation and in the form prescribed by the regulations, any other person who has parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact under a contact order in respect of that child of their intention.

Content of notice

(2) The notice must set out

(a) the expected date of the relocation; (b) the address of the new place of residence and contact information of the person or child, as the case may be; (c) a proposal as to how parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact, as the case may be, could be exercised; and (d) any other information prescribed by the regulations.

Exception

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the court may, on application, provide that the requirements in those subsections, or in the regulations made for the purposes of those subsections, do not apply or may modify them, including where there is a risk of family violence.

Application without notice

(4) An application referred to in subsection (3) may be made without notice to any other party.

Legal Principles

[61] The starting point in determining parenting issues is to recognize that the focus is on the child, not the parent. The best interests of the child it the only test to consider. See: Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; and Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27. Section 16 provides a non-exhaustive list of human goods required for the well-being of any child. See: Ojeikere v. Ojeikere, 2018 ONCA 372.

[62] Past conduct and family violence, specifically addressed in section 16 as pertaining to the best interests of the child primarily focus on the child. Parental conduct, however meritorious or reprehensible, does not enter into the analysis unless it relates to the ability of the parent to meet the needs of the child. See: Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, supra, at p.47. Misconduct, however, that results in the parents having a negative view or attitude towards each other may necessitate consideration when it affects the emotional well-being of the child. See: Van de Perre v. Edwards, 2001 SCC 60, at para. 23. Family violence may be a relevant consideration, particularly when considering a shared parenting regime, as the victim might be unable to co-parent due to the trauma and ongoing fear of the perpetrator. See, for example, Bell v. Reinhardt, 2021 ONSC 3352, at para. 15.

[63] Maximum conduct, is a principle long part of the Divorce Act. Spending time with each parent is the right of the child, not the parent. See: MacGyver v. Richards (1995), 11 R.F.L. (4th) 432 (Ont. C.A.). The goal of maximum contact will only be overtaken to the extent that contact with a parent conflicts with the child’s best interests. See: Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, supra; and Rigallo v. Rigillo, 2019 ONCA 548. An order granting parenting time on alternate weekends, one week night per week, three in the summer and shared holidays represented “minimal” time that fails to respect the “maximum contact principle” in the absence of any compelling reason to limit parenting time. See: Vamos v. Vamos, 2012 ONCA 262.

[64] For joint decision-making, there must be some historical evidence that, despite their differences, the parents are able to communicate effectively with each other. The fact one parent professes an inability to communicate with the other parent does not mean joint decision-making cannot be considered. The hope communication will improve is not sufficient. The standard of communication is not one of perfection. Rather, there must be a reasonable measure of communication and co-operation. See: Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 ONCA 1625; Lawson v. Lawson, 2006 ONCA 26573; May-Iannizzi v. Iannizzi, 2010 ONCA 519; and Lambert v. Peachman, 2016 ONSC 7443.

[65] Joint decision-making incorporating a parallel parenting regime is a relatively recent development, used to reduce or avoid parental conflict. This regime envisages that the parents have equal status and exercise the rights and responsibilities associated with decision-making independently of the other. See: Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 ONCA 1625, supra.

[66] In Jackson v. Jackson, 2017 ONSC 1566, at para. 72, Chappel J. provided a helpful list of factors to be considered, as developed in the caselaw. Briefly stated, those factors include:

(a) Have both parents consistently played a significant role in the child’s life on all levels? (b) Are the parenting abilities of each parent and the quality of their decision-making relatively the same? (c) Should there be an equality of influence between the parties? (d) Is there a power imbalance between the parents resulting from domestic violence? (e) Is one parent seeking this arrangement solely as a means of controlling the other parent? (f) Can each parent place the needs of the child above their own needs and interests? (g) Will it de-escalate the conflict between the parties or inflame it? (h) Will the conflict between the parents result in an inability to navigate basic issues, such as scheduling or interpretation of the court order where the dividing lines of responsibility are not clear? (i) Is one parent the major cause of the discord? (j) Will the parents ever be able to disengage from combat? (k) Will the parties be able to respect the crafted terms of the order, having regard to compliance with prior orders? (l) Is one parent interfering with the contact between the child and the other parent or alienating the child from the other parent? (m) Does the geographic distance between the residences of the parents’ problematic in implementing decisions?

[67] The child’s views and preferences are a factor in the best interests analysis. Their views, particularly those of older children deserve significant weight as, in part, the decision requires the co-operation of the child. See: Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 ONCA 1625, supra; and Maltina v. Maltina, 2018 ONCA 641. Children have the right to be heard in all cases affecting them. See United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12.

Parenting – Preliminary Comments

[68] The parties attempted to focus on their son and the parenting issues in their evidence at trial. Unfortunately, at the trial management conference, counsel agreed to file affidavits as part of the evidence in chief. Rather than prepare fresh affidavits, the original affidavits relied on in the motions in June 2019 were presented in evidence. These affidavits contain certain editorial comment and inadmissible hearsay. Affidavits are prepared by lawyers. While helpful on a motion, I have long been of the view affidavits are of little assistance at trial. Here, it made evidentiary review more difficult.

[69] The right of K.P.K. to be heard on the issues affecting him was denied by the parties, contrary to Article 12, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This Convention has been entrenched in the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. The right to be heard is also recognized in section 64, Children’s Law Reform Act. The child’s views and preferences, one of the factors in the best interests test in s. 16(3)(i), Divorce Act is consistent with the Convention. See: Cote v. Parsons, 2021 ONSC 3719.

[70] K.P.K. was only one year of age when his parents separated, almost two when this litigation commenced. He will soon be five.

[71] While the involvement of the Children’s Lawyer in the early stages of this case would likely have been premature, the delay in scheduling the trial ought to have lead the parties to consider this resource. In all likelihood, a section 112, Courts of Justice Act, investigation and report would have assisted the parties in achieving a resolution of their dispute. At the very least, a social worker would have been able to address the issues and provide the child’s comments and views.

Findings

[72] The evidence presented reveals conflict in the relationship of the parties, prior to the birth of K.P.K. The arguments increased over time, resulting in the separation. Consent orders granted in 2019 and 2020 eliminated much, but not all, of the difficulties facing the parties.

[73] The verbal arguments primarily focused on financial matters, hardly problematic in their circumstances but likely revealing different priorities. There were other areas of contention. The arguments not only increase over time, they became heated. Despite his denial, I do find that S.K. resorted to using inappropriate language when referring to D.P. during these events. In terms of parenting, there were different views. D.P. was more rigid while S.K. took a relaxed approached in matters pertaining to K.P.K. Nevertheless, the arguments do not lead to finding of abuse. Rather, past events need to be recognized to avoid repetition and ensure the parties focus on the best interests of their son.

[74] In this regard, the parties have been able to communicate, at least in some extent, about K.P.K. There have been problems in the past, for example, D.P. making unilateral decisions to relocate and to register the child in school after only providing some information to S.K. Full disclosure is always required. Her relocation did not comply with the statutory requirement. S.K. has not been consistently diligent either in communicating with S.D. or in following through with matters required, such as medical care or school contact.

[75] Communication needs to improve. Matters pertaining to the child should be addressed in writing or electronic means so that the information is accurate and complete and also to provide a record in the event of a future dispute.

[76] I strongly recommend the parties to subscribe to the Our Family Wizard service for such communication. Such has been most successful for other parents and is an effective communication tool at a modest expense. Other service providers can use the service to provide information for both parents.

[77] I am satisfied each party sincerely loves K.P.K. and seeks what is best for him. The child has a strong bond with each parent and appears to enjoy time with extended family members and his sister.

[78] K.P.K. was only one when his parents separated, almost two when the parenting schedule involved different homes. No doubt, the child would have been confused and also upset. He was also exposed to his parents’ conflict but would not have understood. Exchanges were said to be difficult for the child, hardly surprising. It appears K.P.K. has adjusted overtime. I am satisfied he will be able to move back and forth between his parents without difficulty.

[79] Each party is able to parent independently. Regardless of the order being granted, they must commit to parenting together. Their priority for years to come will be K.P.K.

[80] Having regard to the factors pertaining to the circumstances of K.P.K. as set out in section 16(3) above, the evidence reveals the following:

(a) Since separation, particularly after the temporary orders, the parenting regime established stability. No unique needs were identified. The child requires involvement of both his parents, including emotional support; (b) K.P.K. has a close bond with each parent, as well as with his sister and grandparents. He also enjoys time with extended family members; (c) Each party can do better in supporting the child’s relationship with the other parent; however, I am satisfied both understand the importance of the other parent in their son’s life; (d) D.P. has provided the majority of childcare since K.P.K was born. S.K. has been more involved since the initial order and as provided appropriate care, save for one incident regarding the child’s fever; (e) There was no evidence as to the child’s views and preferences. Based upon the evidence of other witnesses, I am satisfied K.P.K. enjoys spending time with his father and his extended family; (f) Both parties support K.P.K. in learning the Polish language and culture. There does not appear to be any dispute regarding religion, there being no evidence tendered regarding the child’s participation, other than his baptism and with school; (g) D.P. anticipates having the support of one of her parents in the future. S.K. does not have that benefit, but does have siblings. It is expected the parties will continue to use before and after school services provided by the School Board or other care providers, for employment reasons; (h) Each party is able and willing to care for and meet the needs of K.P.K.; (i) Communication between the parties has been limited, but will improve. Despite the historical conflict, I am satisfied they will cooperate on matters pertaining to their son.

Decision-Making

[81] Having regard to the significant decisions required for K.P.K., the following preliminary comments are warranted:

(a) Health – there is some concern as to decision-making, given different views on medical treatment; (b) Education – S.K. is supportive of the child continuing to attend the Catholic School in Brant County; (c) Culture, Language, Religion and Spirituality – Both parties support the child in learning Polish culture and language and no dispute was raised as to religion. S.K. had been requesting parenting time for the Orthodox Christmas plus sharing traditional Christmas time but withdrew the claim by way of his lawyer’s final submissions; and (d) Significant Extra Curricular Activities – Both parties support their son’s involvement in extra-curricular activities, more so by D.P., S.K. saying the child may participate in matters in which he has an interest. The test will be in agreeing on activities that occur in both of their parenting tines. It must be arranged for the benefit of K.P.K.

[82] Since separation, D.P. has been the decision-maker, notwithstanding the absence of any term in the temporary orders in this regard. There was some communication prior to decisions being made, but incomplete information regarding re-location. Absent a term in a court order, school registration should have been a joint decision.

[83] S.K. expressed an interest in being involved in the process. It was unclear whether he was ambivalent in the past, dependant on D.P., or reluctant to get into further conflict. He was provided with information as to how to obtain updates from the school, but he did not follow through.

[84] In general terms, joint decision-making would be appropriate. It is essential that K.P.K is aware both of his parents are involved in making decisions on his behalf. D.P. is willing to consult. I conclude more is required.

[85] But there is a concern with respect to health care. Both parties share an interest in natural medicine, not uncommon at present. Only D.P. would regularly pursue medical care. That was made clear when the child developed a fever. The COVID-19 pandemic takes it to another level.

[86] The family was previously exposed to COVID-19 as a result of an outbreak at the child’s daycare facility. D.P. and K.P.K went into quarantine. S.K. did not. The child will soon be eligible for vaccination. While not saying he is opposed, S.K. wants to wait to completion of medical trials.

[87] Counsel for S.K. suggested further evidence by affidavit and written submissions on this issue. I decline to do so. S.K. had the opportunity to present reply evidence. Delaying determination would be an invitation for further disputes.

[88] Vaccination is recommended by Health Canada. Significant medical testing and studies occurred before approval. This type of vaccine has been under consideration for many years, the testing and study program being escalated as a result of the pandemic. Subsequent reports indicate vaccination has enjoyed considerable success. There is no need to delay. The available evidence supports vaccination.

[89] In result, I am of the view D.P. should have sole decision-making regarding health care, subject to consultation in advance. All other major areas are not in dispute and, hence, joint decision-making is appropriate. Additional terms are provided in the summary of these reasons.

Parenting Time

[90] The parties essentially agree on equal parenting time during non-school periods. D.P. requests the current schedule continue during school while S.K. seeks equal time. The different is two overnights every two weeks. Parenting time, and the responsibility it entails, involves more than just overnight visits. It includes responsibility for school related matters and extra curricular activities and other events.

[91] S.K. says the child has been asking for more time with him. D.P. reports the current schedule works well for K.P.K. As previously stated, there was no evidence as to the child’s views. It would appear the child enjoys time with each parent and with other family members. There was no evidence to the contrary.

[92] K.P.K. will be used to the current schedule as children benefit from routine. Children can also adapt to a new schedule, often better than parents.

[93] The sibling relationship is an important consideration. Unfortunately, the father of G.P. is not involved in her life. The only way to accommodate the sibling relationship is by establishing a regular schedule for parenting time of K.P.K. S.K. ought not have less time but he also needs to support K.P.K’s relationship with G.P. For example, both children can be involved, or at least, attend some extra curricular events.

[94] I conclude it would be in the best interests of K.P.K to have equal time with each parent provided the parties reside in the same community. S.K. reports travel between the two residences to be thirty minutes, a low estimate in my view. Regardless, too much time is being spent in a vehicle at present and will be far too excessive on an equal schedule.

[95] S.K. spoke to moving to the same community as D.P. He can afford to do so, particularly with the resolution of the property issues. Travel time ought not to exceed fifteen minutes. There are exchanges and other activities, necessitating living reasonably close, preferably in the same school catchment area, for equal parenting time to be manageable and accommodating the child’s needs.

[96] In result, the current schedule will continue until S.K. moves to Brant County when equal time will be established as set out in the summary of these reasons.

[97] In the event of a move by S.K. as above, I am imposing a 2:2:3 schedule given the age of the child. Young children need to spend time with each parent on a frequent basis. The parties should consider moving to a week-about schedule at some point in the future, perhaps near the end of elementary school.

Child Support

[98] The parties resolved the issue of child support, subject to the terms of the order herein granted on parenting time. Their partial Minutes of Settlement require payment of child support by the applicant in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines if his parenting time is less than forty per cent, section 7 expenses to be equally shared regardless given the comparable incomes.

[99] There is a dispute as to whether the current schedule meets the forty per cent threshold. S.K. relies on Froom v. Froom, 2005 ONCA 3362 for authority to count parenting time in days. D.P. relies on L.L. v. M.C., 2013 ONSC 1801, where parenting time was determined by hours.

[100] Froom v. Froom, 2005 ONCA 3362 is a brief decision. Catzman J.A. and Laskin J.A. upheld the decision of the trial judge who addressed the threshold by counting days, saying “There is no universally accepted method for determining the 40% and we do not think that this appeal is the appropriate case to make that determination”. In dissent, Armstrong J.A. concluded counting hours was more appropriate as “…the hours calculation produces an accurate figure in this case, and the days calculation produces an erroneous figure.”

[101] In L.L. v. M.C., 2013 ONSC 1801, Czutrin J. provides a detailed summary of decisions on this issues throughout Canada as well as the academic literature, concluding calculation by hours is the generally accepted approach.

[102] The current parenting time schedule here is comparable to that in L.L. v. M.C., 2013 ONSC 1801 and, perhaps, in Froom v. Froom, 2005 ONCA 3362. The different methodology leads to different results.

[103] In my view, the analysis by Czutrin J. correctly identifies the approach taken in the vast majority of cases in Canada. While other cases may favour calculation by days, the schedule here is more accurately calculated by hours. S.K. falls short of meeting the forty per cent requirement.

[104] In result, S.K. shall pay guideline child support to D.P. in the monthly amount of $507.00, on his imputed income of $55,000.00, commencing March 1, 2022. Should S.K. move to the same community as D.P., resulting in a shared parenting time schedule, this child support obligation will be automatically terminated. On comparable incomes, there will be no child support obligation by either party, other than for section 7 expenses.

Summary

[105] For these reasons, a divorce order is granted, such to include the following terms:

Decision-Making Responsibility

1. The parties shall share decision-making responsibility for K.P.K., born… 2017, in accordance with the provisions hereafter stated.
2. The Respondent shall have sole decision-making responsibility for the health care of the child, including physical and mental health, non-emergency medical care, vaccinations, counselling and dental, after meaningful consultation with the applicant as follows: (a) She shall notify him of a particular health issue, including disclosure of any relevant documents, and the proposed decision she intends to consider; (b) He will respond within 3 business days as to his views and the decision he supports; (c) If the parties are unable to reach an agreement within 5 business days after the time permitted for his response, she may make the final decision; (d) She will notify him of the decision made; (e) During the consultation process, each party may consult with any third-party service providers pertaining to the decision required to be made.
3. In the event of a medical emergency involving the child, the parent who has care of him may make any necessary decision but shall first notify the other parent, time permitted, and certainly after as to the decision made.
4. The respondent shall keep the applicant informed as to the names and contact information of all third-party service providers, including the child’s family physician, specialist, counsellor and dentist. She will also inform him as to all regularly scheduled appointments in advance and as to the results of same. The applicant may attend on any such appointments.
5. The applicant may consult with any third-party service provider and is entitled to receive information and documentation concerning the child’s wellbeing directly from that service provider.
6. If the child has been prescribed medication, such shall travel with him and each party shall ensure the child takes the medication as directed by the physician.
7. The applicant and respondent shall jointly share decision-making responsibility for all other important matters pertaining to the child, including: (a) education; (b) culture, language, religion and spirituality; and (c) significant extracurricular activities.
8. In making joint decisions, the parties shall consult with each other, in a manner similar to para. 2, failing agreement, and prior to any motion to change or application, they shall attempt to resolve the matter through an alternative dispute resolution process, including negotiations, collaborative family law system, mediation or use of a parenting co-ordinator. Each party shall be responsible for his/her own expenses, but shall equally share the expense for a mediator or parenting co-ordinator.
9. Day-to-day decisions affecting the child shall be made by the parent who has care of him when the decision is required to be made, informing the other parent of any such decision promptly.
10. Each party shall be listed as an emergency contact with the child’s school, or other organization involving the child, and each party shall arrange with the school, or other organization officials to receive copies of the child’s report cards and school communications and to schedule and attend parent-teacher meetings, either together or separate.
11. The respondent shall be the custodian of the child’s documents, including birth certificate, health card and passport. She shall provide notarial copies of the health card and birth certificate to the applicant. The respondent shall be responsible for renewing all of the child’s documents. She shall deliver renewal applications to the applicant at least 30 days prior to expiry. He will return the signed renewal applications to her within 10 days. The respondent shall deliver the child’s passport to the applicant at least 10 days prior to any scheduled trip. The applicant will return the child’s passport to her on the next parenting time exchange following return from the trip.
12. The child’s passport, currently held by the court, shall be released to the respondent.

Regular Parenting Time

13. Until the applicant re-locates, as addressed in para. 14, K.D.K. shall have his primary residence with the respondent, and the applicant shall continue to have regular parenting time as follows: (a) overnight every Tuesday from 3:00 p.m. or after school, whichever is earlier, until Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. or until he delivers the child to school, whichever is earlier; (b) alternate weekends, from Friday at 3:00 p.m. or after school, whichever is earlier, until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.; (c) alternate Thursdays, from 3:00 p.m. or after school, whichever is earlier, until Friday at 9:00 a.m. or until he delivers the child to school, whichever is earlier; and (d) in the event there is a PD Day, or other scheduled school holiday not addressed hereafter, which falls prior to or after the applicant’s weekend parenting time, that time shall commence on the Thursday prior to or be extended to the Monday following the weekend parenting time.
14. If the applicant re-locates to the same community in Brant County where the respondent resides, and within 15 minutes travel time of her residence, the parties shall share equal parenting time with K.P.K. in accordance with the following schedule: (a) the child shall reside with the respondent every Monday from 9:00 a.m. to Wednesday morning at 9:00 a.m. or until she delivers him to school, whichever is earlier; (b) the child shall reside with the applicant every Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. to Friday morning at 9:00 a.m. or until he delivers him to school, whichever is earlier; (c) the child shall reside with each parent on alternating weekends from Friday at 9:00 a.m. to Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. or until her/she delivers him to school, whichever is earlier; (d) such other parenting time as the parties may agree; (e) this schedule shall not commence until the commencement of the school year in 2022, at the earliest.
15. The parties shall make every effort to ensure that family celebrations or special events are scheduled during their respective parenting times.
16. Neither party shall arrange activities for the child during the parenting time of the other party without obtaining the consent of the other party in advance.
17. K.P.K. may bring any personal items, toys, games and clothing between the homes of the parties.
18. The parties shall share the responsibility for cleaning the child’s clothes and the expense of purchasing new clothes or other items for the child.
19. Each party shall be responsible for transporting K.P.K. to/from school or to activities or scheduled appointments during that party’s parenting time. Should K.P.K. need to be picked up early from school due to injury, illness or other reason, the party scheduled to pick him up after school shall be responsible for picking him up.
20. The parties may communicate with K.P.K. by video call, telephone, text or email once each day while he is in care of the other party. K.P.K. may communicate in like manner at any time and the party with K.P.K. in his/her care shall facilitate such communication.
21. The party with whom K.P.K. is residing in accordance with this schedule shall be solely and financially responsible for making childcare arrangements during their parenting time, including making alternate childcare arrangements, such as daycare, family members or the other party, when unable to care for the child as a result of employment, illness or any other reason.
22. Both parties may attend scheduled school events and the child’s extracurricular activities regardless of the parenting time schedule.
23. The parties shall inform each other of all other important events and functions for the child in a timely manner, and with the exception of family or other social events, both parties may attend and participate in these events and functions regardless of the parenting time schedule.

Special and Vacation Parenting Time

24. The regular parenting time schedule shall be suspended for the following holidays, vacations and other special days, during which the parenting time schedule shall be: (a) March School Break K.P.K. shall be with the applicant in odd-numbered years and with the respondent in even-numbered years. (b) Easter Weekend K.P.K. shall be with the applicant from Thursday after school until Saturday at 9:00 a.m. and with the respondent from Saturday at 9:00 a.m. until Monday at 9:00 a.m. (c) Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Birthdays K.P.K. shall be with the respondent on Mother’s Day and the applicant on Father’s Day, both from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., if he is not with that parent for the weekend. The parties shall arrange for K.P.K. to spend time with each parent on their respective birthdays and on his birthday and shall also arrange for the child to spend time with his sister, G.P., on her birthday. (d) Summer School Break: i) commencing on the Monday following the last day of the school year, the parties shall share equal parenting time on a week-about schedule, with exchanges at 9:00 a.m., subject to the following vacation periods; ii) each party shall have 3 consecutive, or non-consecutive, weeks of vacation time with K.P.K. each year. The respondent shall be entitled to first choice as her employment allows and shall notify the applicant of her chosen weeks by May 1. The applicant shall then notify the respondent of his chosen weeks by May 15; iii) in making plans for summer parenting time, the parties shall take into account any camp or scheduled activities of the child; and iv) for the summer of 2022 only, the applicant’s vacation time shall include Saturday, July 30, to Saturday, August 6, due to the previously scheduled family cottage plans. (e) Thanksgiving Weekend K.P.K. will be with the applicant on Thanksgiving Weekend in even-numbered years and with the respondent in odd-numbered years, from the Friday after school until the start of school on Tuesday. (f) Christmas School Break i) the parties shall share equal parenting time during the Christmas School Break, subject to sub-para. (ii), with the exchange occurring in the middle of the break. K.P.K. shall be with the respondent in the first half and with the applicant in the second half in even-numbered years, reversing in odd-numbered years; and, ii) K.P.K. shall be with the respondent from December 24, at 6:00 p.m., to December 25 at 3:00 p.m., and with the applicant from December 25, at 3:00 p.m., to December 26, at 6:00 p.m., every year.

Travel

25. Each party may travel with K.P.K., either in Canada or internationally, during his or her regular or special or vacation parenting time, without the consent of the other party. In addition, either parent may travel with K.P.K. to Poland or any other country, for longer periods of time than permitted in the parenting time schedule, with the consent of the other party, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, provided such does not unduly interrupt the child’s school attendance. Travel with K.P.K. to any country experiencing hostility is prohibited.
26. If a party is travelling with K.P.K., he/she shall provide the other party with a detailed itinerary, at least 30 days prior, including the name(s) of any flight carrier and flight times, accommodation, including addresses and telephone numbers or other means of contact.
27. If travel is outside Canada, the non-travelling party shall provide a notarized travel consent for K.P.K. at the travelling party’s expense.
28. If a party is travelling with K.P.K. for a period in excess of 5 days, the travelling party shall arrange for telephone or facetime contact between K.P.K. and the non-travelling party at a minimum of every 3 days, or more frequently if requested by K.P.K.
29. If either party is travelling without K.P.K., he/she shall provide the other party with a telephone number or other means of contact in the event of an emergency or to arrange contact with K.P.K. in a manner similar to para. 28.

Communication

30. The parties shall communicate with each other on all matters pertaining to the child as they occur and shall respond, as required, promptly. Such communication shall be in writing or by email. The messages shall be informative, focused and brief. The parties are prohibited from making critical or editorial comment and shall not solicit personal information about the other party.
31. The parties may also communicate with each other on other matters, or in the case of an emergency, by telephone, text or email.
32. The parties shall provide the other with their current residential address, email address and telephone numbers, including an emergency contact number, and shall further advise when there are changes to same.

Parenting Protocol

33. The parties shall prefer the interests of K.P.K. to their own and at all times shall act in the best interests of their child. The parties shall encourage K.P.K. to have a good relationship with each party. The parties shall refrain from making disparaging or negative remarks to K.P.K., or in circumstances that he might hear, about the other party or any family members or any new partner of the other party, and they shall ensure that all other persons comply with this direction.
34. Neither party shall introduce new partners to K.P.K. until such time as the relationship has developed to that level and no new partner shall ever be introduced to K.P.K. as a new “mom” or “dad”.
35. Neither party shall disclose personal information about the other party or K.P.K. obtained as a result of this litigation, or the circumstances giving rise to this case, to any person whatsoever, save as to a lawyer consulted as to the issues in this case or to a health care provider.
36. The parties are prohibited from discussing with K.P.K., or with other persons in the presence of the child, past or present legal proceedings, the issues between the parties, the circumstances leading to the separation or any conflict as between the parties. The parties shall also ensure that any information or documentation pertaining to these matters is not accessible to K.P.K.
37. During the COVID-19 pandemic, or any future pandemic, the parties shall abide by all public health regulations and recommendations from Health Canada, Public Health Ontario and the local municipal Public Health Unit. They shall ensure that all other persons having involvement or contact with K.P.K. comply with this direction.

Moving and Re-Location

38. Other than the re-location by the applicant, as contemplated in para. 14, neither party shall move more than 32 kilometers from the residence of the other party, without the consent of the other party or a court order.
39. Any party intending on moving shall comply with the provisions in section 16.8, Divorce Act.
40. Any party intending on a re-location shall comply with the provisions in section 16.9, Divorce Act.
41. Any application to court seeking permission to move or re-locate shall be on notice to the other party.

Child Support

42. Commencing on March 1, 2022, and so long as parenting time is in accordance with para. 13, the applicant shall pay child support to the respondent, in the monthly amount of $507.00, pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines and based on his agreed imputed annual income of $55,000.00.
43. Should the applicant re-locate, as contemplated in para. 14, and an equal parenting time schedule is in place, the obligation of the applicant to pay child support in para. 42 is terminated and neither party shall then pay child support to the other party given their similar incomes.
44. Any payment of child support, otherwise required in para. 42, during the months of July and August only is suspended given the equal parenting time schedule.
45. On consent, there are no arrears of child support owing by either party as at February 28, 2022.
46. On consent, the parties shall equally contribute to the cost of special and extraordinary expenses.
47. The parties shall regularly provide each other with their section 7 invoices and receipts and shall reimburse each other within 10 days.
48. Each party shall designate the child as a beneficiary on any health or dental insurance plan as may be available through employment.
49. For so long as the parenting time schedule is in accordance with para. 13, the respondent shall be solely entitled to any income tax deductions, Canada Child Benefits or any other tax benefits pertaining to the child, as permitted by the Income Tax Act, or any other statute, and allowed by the Canada Revenue Agency. Should the parenting time schedule be in accordance with para. 14, the parties shall be equally entitled to share such benefits based on equal parenting time schedule.
50. Each party may contribute to a joint or separate Registered Education Savings Plan for the child and shall co-operate with each other in order to maximize the benefits available. Any contributions made by a party, and used by the child to fund his education, shall be a credit to that party’s obligation under section 7(1)(e) Federal Child Support Guidelines.
51. The parties shall exchange their income tax returns and notices of assessment and re-assessment, and all other financial disclosure as required by the Federal Child Support Guidelines each year on or before May 15, and shall adjust the amount, if any, of child support or sharing of section 7 expenses, by July 1.
52. Support Deduction Order to issue.

Property

53. On consent, in full satisfaction of equalization and all other property claims, including post-separation adjustments and retroactive child support, the respondent shall, within 60 days, make a global payment to the applicant of $35,000.00.
54. On consent, the applicant shall return to the respondent the following household contents, and other items, from the matrimonial home: (a) lawn mower; (b) power washer; (c) Samsung sound system; (d) four (4) folding party chairs (black); (e) one (1) camping sleeping bag; and (f) red dresser from master bedroom. The respondent may make arrangements to pick these items up at the applicant’s residence at a mutually convenient time for both parties.

Change of Name

55. Neither party shall change the name of K.P.K. without the consent of the other party.

Binding of Estates

56. The terms of this order shall be binding on each party and his/her estate, heirs, estate trustees and assigns.

Other Claims

57. All other claims in the application and answer are dismissed.

[106] By way of explanation, life insurance coverage was not addressed by either party in evidence or submissions, although claimed in the respondent’s answer. I encourage the parties to obtain a suitable life insurance policy, if none exists, so as to assist a surviving party in raising K.P.K. in the event of death. In the absence of any information, para. 56 in the order granted above bind’s each estate. Should the parties agree on an appropriate life insurance term, such may be incorporated into the order when issued.

[107] I expect the parties, assisted by counsel, will resolve the issue of costs; failing which brief written submissions are to be exchanged and delivered to my chambers within 45 days, to be forwarded to my attention by email, care of Kitchener.SCJJA@ontario.ca. If no written submissions are received within the prescribed time period, the issue of costs will be considered settled and the file will be closed.

[108] Released: April 20, 2022 Gordon, J