ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

Date: April 22, 2016

Court File No.: Toronto DFO 12 10506

BETWEEN:

Gerrard Meade Applicant

— AND —

Karen Latouche Respondent

Before: Justice Penny J. Jones

Heard on: July 15-18, 2014; October 6, 7 and 17, 2014; November 13 and 21, 2014; June 2 – 5, 2015; July 28, 2015; November 9 - 10, 2015; January 4, 2016

Reasons for Judgment released on: April 22, 2016

Mr. Gerrard Meade ......................................................................................... on his own behalf

Ms. Davine D. Burton .................................................................... counsel for the respondent

JUDGMENT

Jones, P. J. J.:

[1] Application and Relief Sought

[1] This is my judgment on an application brought by Gerrard Meade (the Applicant father) against Karen Latouche (the Respondent mother) for joint custody of the children G.K. Lameade born October 31, 2009 and K.G. Latouche born August 23, 2011. In the alternative, he seeks specified access from Sunday morning until Wednesday evening and costs. The Respondent mother has counterclaimed for an order for sole custody, guideline child support, section 7 expenses, a restraining order, police enforcement of access terms, annual financial disclosure, and permission to obtain children's passports and to travel without the consent of the Applicant. She also claims for extended benefits, life insurance and costs.

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

[2] This application has been outstanding since June 8, 2012. The following temporary custody, access and support orders are in effect:

1. The Respondent mother has had temporary custody of the children since the temporary custody order made by Justice Paulseth on August 20, 2012.

2. The Applicant father's access rights have varied over time. Currently, there is an access order that provides that he have access to the children each Saturday from 9 am to 4 pm with supervised pick up and drop off at a supervised access centre. There is also an order that he not use corporal punishment on the children and that he not discuss the case with the children during access. Although this access order remains in effect, no access is taking place for reasons described below.

3. The Applicant has been ordered to pay temporary child support in the amount of $397.00 per month commencing September 1, 2012 based on an annual income of $27,000. This order has never been adjusted although his annual income has always exceeded $27,000. This support order is currently in arrears.

4. On August 20, 2012 the Applicant was ordered to pay $5,721.72 as retroactive child support for the period September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012. This order remains unpaid.

BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS OF FACT

[3] The Applicant and the Respondent grew up in the same housing complex and have known each other since they were children. They began their relationship as childhood friends; in their late teens, they became a couple. The Applicant is now 36 years old and the Respondent is now 35 years old. The parties are the parents of two children, G.K. Lameade born October 31, 2009 (known as Prince) and K.G. Latouche, born August 23, 2011 (known as Bhrae).

[4] According to the Applicant, he and the Respondent have been in and out of a relationship for the last twelve (now fourteen) years. He told the court that they constantly argued because they "had different values and goals." His explanation on this point was a bit confusing. He testified that Respondent liked to watch television and gossip with her girlfriends and was materialistic. He testified that he, on the other hand, was interested in helping people and in his career. He told the court that he had two community college diplomas in the social work field and is currently working at the YMCA as a career counsellor. He no doubt meant to distinguish himself as the more serious, goal oriented person. I say that his explanation as to why they argue was confusing because I was also told that the Respondent is interested in a career and is currently attending Ryerson, enrolled in a four year nursing program because of her interest in working with children.

[5] The parties have separated and come back together on a number of occasions. The Applicant told the court that he still loves the Respondent although he would never reconcile with her unless the Respondent were to engage in counselling. It was clear that he blames the Respondent for the failure in their relationship. The Respondent, on the other hand described the Applicant as very controlling and that she testified that she found it difficult to live up to his standards. She told the court that when their relationship was good, it was very good, but most of the time, she felt like she was walking on egg shells when she was around him. She said that the Applicant was very unpredictable in his reactions to any given situation and she was never sure what might trigger an angry or violent reaction from him.

[6] The Applicant and the Respondent have had a very tumultuous and dysfunctional relationship over the years.

Domestic Violence History

[7] The Applicant told the court that he and the Respondent have had five physical fights over the course of their relationship. He indicated that there were many more times when the Respondent slapped and pinched. According to the Applicant, he has only struck the Respondent in self-defence. On those occasions when he fought back in self-defence, he admitted to giving the Respondent at least two black eyes, and to having knocked her unconscious on one occasion. He said that he only struck her when he could no longer tolerate her physical attacks on him. He testified that "she's slapped me many times, kicked me, pinched me, many, many, many times (transcript July 15, p.20 line 23.) He said that although she "has never gouged his eyes out", he was afraid that she would, and there were many times that he was afraid that "she would kill him". He said that he has not struck the Respondent since they have had children, although she has continued to slap and pinch him.

[8] I intend to recount in some detail the evidence I heard about a violent incident that occurred in 2005 in order to illustrate the different ways the parties described the same event. I heard about a number of other violent incidents, but this incident is arguably the most violent.

[9] According to the Applicant, the 2005 incident began when he and the Respondent were having dinner and they began to argue. At that point, he said that both of their plates dropped to the ground. He told the court that he did not recall why their plates dropped to the ground, although he "faintly" recalled that it was done purposefully by both of them. He then said that she backed him up to the wall and began to hit him with her knife and fork, in the hand and in the body. He said that he had scratches all over his hands and was bleeding from his chest. He recalls saying to her that "she was trying to kill him". He said that she was yelling and that he was probably also yelling, but he did not recall doing so. He said that at one point he ran to the bathroom and locked himself in. When he came out of the bathroom, he said that he could not leave because the Respondent had hidden his shoes.

[10] The Applicant stated that he hit her back in self-defence. In fact, he testified that he "hit her many times after she hit me", (transcript July 15, 2014 p. 28 line 14.) He acknowledged that he did punch her once in the face, and he punched her other times in the body. He said that they both had bruises. Apparently a neighbour called the police because of the noise. According to the Applicant, when the police entered the apartment, the fight was over and he and the Respondent were calm and were in each other's arms, sitting on the living room carpet, consoling each other. He said that that was their worst fight ever. He said he was charged with assault, but that the charge was withdrawn because the Respondent never showed up to court.

[11] The Respondent told a different version of this event. According to her, their arguments were always over "small stuff" that would simply escalate. On this occasion, the Applicant became very upset and threw his plate across the room. (She denied throwing her plate on the floor and said, "Why would she do that? She would only have to clean it up".) She said that they continued arguing and he began to "manhandle" her and he grabbed her clothes. She said that she pushed him off and he punched her. At that point she said she began to cry. She said that the Applicant kept getting more upset and demanded that she respond to him. Then, he went to the kitchen and began throwing all the food out of the refrigerator onto the kitchen floor. She denied attacking him with a knife and fork. She said that she would never do that because she would be afraid that he would take those utensils from her and use them against her. She said that he slapped her many times and that she defended herself. When the police arrived, they were quiet because they had just heard the police banging on the door. The Respondent said that when the police came into the apartment she was bruised and crying and there was food all over the floor in the living room and in the kitchen. She denied that they were cuddling, or that they "were in each other's arms, consoling each other" as was suggested by the Applicant. The police charged the Applicant and he was taken out of the apartment. Shortly after this incident occurred, she moved out of the apartment and changed her number. On that occasion the parties had little or no contact with one another for about a year. She said that the Applicant pleaded with her not to attend court.

[12] I found the Respondent's version of this incident the persuasive one. Her explanation regarding the food (why would I throw my plate on the floor I would only have to clean it up) and the supposed use of the knife and the fork as a weapon (I would be afraid he would take the knife and fork and use them against me) made sense. I had the opportunity of seeing the parties--the Applicant is much larger than is the Respondent. His statement that he feared for his safety and even his life is difficult to accept given the difference in their stature, and the fact that the Applicant acknowledged that he fought back using considerable force. Also, I prefer the evidence of the Respondent as to what the police found when they attended at the apartment. She says that they found her bruised, crying and the apartment in disarray and that they then arrested the Applicant and took him away. I found the Applicant's description of the two sitting on the floor, arms around each other, consoling each other, fanciful.

[13] The parties eventually resumed their relationship. For a period of time the relationship went well. Eventually, they began to argue and to fight.

Cohabitation and Parenting Arrangements

[14] The parties were unable to agree on significant matter. For example, when describing their relationship, the parties were unable to agree even on the dates of their cohabitation. According to the Applicant, the parties resided together after Prince was born until April 2012. In contrast, the Respondent testified that they only resided together for the first three months of Prince's life i.e. to approximately January, 2010, and that this period of cohabitation ended abruptly when the Applicant ordered her out of the apartment at 10 p.m. with the new born. On that occasion, she said she locked herself in the bedroom and she called the police to intervene as she had nowhere else to go so late at night with the baby. After the police spoke to the Applicant, he agreed to allow her to stay the night. The next day, the Respondent moved out of the Applicant's apartment and went to stay with her mother. She said shortly thereafter she obtained subsidized housing and moved to her current apartment.

[15] Once again, the parties resumed their relationship. Although the Applicant claimed that he lived with the Respondent until the spring of 2012, I am satisfied that such was not the case. I accept that the Applicant frequently visited the Respondent at her apartment and when they were getting along would stay for days at a time, but I accept the Respondent's statement that he did not live there. Under cross examination, the Applicant acknowledged that that he never kept his clothing at her house, nor did he have any of his furniture there, nor was his mail delivered to that address. He also agreed that he always maintained an alternate residence but said that he would only go to this alternate residence when they argued or when he needed to pick up a change of clothing. When I couple this evidence with the testimony of the Respondent that the Applicant did stay over sometimes but that there were lengthy periods of time when he was absent from her life, I find that the parties were not cohabiting during this time.

[16] The Applicant maintains that the parties shared parenting of the children until they finally separated in the spring of 2012. Although I am satisfied that both parties had meaningful input into the lives of the children until the end of the relationship in the spring of 2012, I am satisfied that the Respondent was the primary caregiver. I say this because I am satisfied that she stayed home with the children for the first three years of Prince's life and the first year of Bhrae's life, and she was the parent who fed the children, cooked and cleaned for them and did their laundry as well as she was the parent who was mainly responsible for arranging for their medical needs and educational needs to be met.

Separation and Access Disputes

[17] The relationship ended in 2012. According to the Respondent, in February, 2012, the Applicant came to her home uninvited, late at night, and they argued. On this occasion, the Applicant called the police and said that the Respondent was suicidal. The Respondent denied being suicidal and told the police that the Applicant was attending at her home at all hours, uninvited, and that as a result, the parties were constantly arguing.

[18] In accordance with the protocol between the police and the Children's Aid Society (CAS), the CAS was called to investigate this situation as young children were involved. The CAS investigated and was satisfied that the mother was not suffering from any mental health problems. In the spring of 2012, the Applicant began to complain to the CAS and to the police that the Respondent was restricting his time with the children. According to the CAS worker Ms. Hilb, before the Society worker could convene a mediation meeting to attempt to resolve the access issues, the Applicant commenced this application.

[19] This trial began on July 15, 2014. Between the time the application commenced in 2012 and the date the trial began on July 15, 2014, the parties frequently called the police to settle access disputes (in total about 15-20 times). Sometimes the Applicant called the police, and sometimes the Respondent called the police. According to the Applicant he called the police because the Respondent was denying him access, was violent, or was not at the apartment when he went to return the children. The Respondent testified that she most often called the police because the Applicant was late returning the children. There was one time she called the police to report a sexual assault by the Applicant. She complained that the Applicant had grabbed her breast at an access exchange. The Applicant denied this and claimed, although he touched her breast, it was accidental and happened when he took his sleeping daughter out of the Respondent's arms. The Respondent said it was not an accidental touching but that she did not want the Applicant charged. She said that she told the police office that she wanted the problems at access exchanges to stop. The police officer suggested that the parties exchange the children at the police station. This suggestion was accepted and access exchanges for a time took place in the police station until the police became fed up with the arguing and complaints and told the parties to exchange the children outside the station.

[20] After the trial commenced, the Applicant arbitrarily changed the drop off spot from the Respondent's home and began texting the Respondent that if she wished to pick up the children she could do so at whatever venue he happened to be at— sometimes at his mother's lobby, or at a particular subway station, or entertainment venue—all without there being any prior agreement as to a change in the drop off location. When this came to my attention, I changed the pick-up and drop off location to the Supervised Access Centre.

[21] Access pick-up and drop off continued at the Supervised Access Centre until the Supervised Access Centre was advised that the CAS had verified a protection concern. (On two prior occasions, Prince had told his mother that his father had struck him, but as the Applicant denied striking the child and there were no witnesses and no bruises, the risk of physical harm was not verified) In April, 2015 Prince told his mother and Ms. Hilb that his father had "boxed" or spanked him on his leg near his "bum" on a recent access visit. When questioned, the Applicant admitted that he had spanked Prince as a form of discipline because Prince had been rude to his grandmother and had refused to do what he or his grandmother told him to do. According to the Applicant, Prince had stood on the coffee table and on the couch and he had refused to listen to his grandmother when he was told to get down. Prince then, apparently, approached his grandmother making rude sucking noises and told her that she could not hit him or he would tell his mother or Christine, the APCO supervisor. Prince told Ms. Hilb that his grandmother hit him about ten times on the hand and then the Applicant spanked him on his leg near his bum. At this point Prince said that Bhrae intervened to stop the Applicant and she bit her father. The grandmother, apparently disgusted with the children's behaviour, told the Applicant to remove the children from her home.

[22] After the investigation concluded, the CAS told the Applicant that they felt that access should be supervised on a few occasions in order to allow them to assess the situation. When the Applicant refused to consider supervised access, the Supervised Access Centre, aware of the concerns of the Society, decided to refuse to facilitate supervised access exchanges between the father and the children at their location. This situation was brought to my attention. Even after I ruled that fully supervised access visits were not necessary, APCO refused to reverse their decision to deny services to this family.

[23] Since April 2015, no access has occurred. Although I told the Applicant to bring a motion to the case management judge to adjust access as it was not appropriate for me to hear such a motion as I was in the middle of the evidence, he did not do so. Rather, he would come to court and demand that I force APCO to provide supervised access exchanges. He would not accept that I was in no position to order APCO to provide services.

THE CHILDREN

[24] Prince and Bhrae are the only children born to both parties. By all accounts, both children are intelligent, and Prince may be a gifted child. Prince is now almost seven years of age and Bhrae is four and one half years old. Prince is currently attending a private French school and Bhrae is attending public school and is enrolled in Junior Kindergarten.

[25] When this trial first began, both children were attending the Higher Vision Learning Centre, a daycare owned and operated by Saren Williams. When Ms. Williams testified in the fall of 2014, she said that she had no concerns about the children's behaviour and was satisfied with their progress at school. Unfortunately, when she returned to court in early 2015 to finish her testimony, her opinion had changed. She told the court that the children's behaviour, especially the behaviour of Prince, had deteriorated. According to Ms. Williams, Prince began to "speak out of turn, use certain disrespectful language, jump on tables, and began to hit other children". He also refused to stay in the daycare area when told to do so. When Prince misbehaved, Bhrae followed her brother's lead. Ms. Williams told the court that she contacted the Respondent to come and pick up the children a few times as such misbehaviour would not be tolerated. When the misbehaviour continued, she decided to expel the children from her daycare as their behaviour was posing a danger to the other children in her charge.

[26] Except for one week of day care at a new location, the Respondent kept the children home with her or with her mother as her school term finished around the same time the children left the Higher Vision Learning Centre. It was her evidence that soon after the children were expelled from day care, access to the Applicant terminated. Coincidentally with the termination of access, the children's behaviour began to improve. When she testified in November 2015, there had been no access since April 2015, and she noted that she no longer had any concerns about the children's behaviour at home or at school. She felt that the improvement in the children's behaviour could be attributed to the fact that the children are no longer in the middle of this high conflict custody/access dispute. As to whether the children were being affected by the high conflict between their parents, it is noteworthy that the Applicant confirmed to the court during cross examination that he discussed the case with the children, and if they were to ask why they were unable to sleep at his house or why they had so little access to him, he said, "he would tell them the truth."

[27] According to the CAS worker's notes the children have said that they miss their father. However, it appears that the time away from their father has put a strain on the relationship between the children and their father as evidenced by the fact that Prince, when he saw his father by chance at the CNE on Labour Day, ran to his mother and not his father and, according to the mother, seemed afraid of his father.

CHILDREN'S LAWYER'S REPORT

[28] A Children's Lawyer's Report was prepared in this matter. That report was prepared in 2013 prior to the father's termination of access and recommended that:

1. Ms. Latouche to have sole custody of GK and KG

2. Supervised transfers to be held at Access for Parents and Children in Ontario (APCO) for a period of 9 months.

3. Access schedule to remain as is until further data is collected through APCO. Any adjustments to this schedule are based on the review of notes from supervised exchanges with assistance of counsel.

4. No face to face contact between Ms. Latouche and Mr. Meade. Communication between Ms. Latouche and Mr. Meade to occur through a communication book.

5. The children to be legally named as Prince and Bhrae.

[29] Ms. Jennifer Shields authored the report and testified in this proceeding. She gave her reasons for her recommendations and recounted the collateral information she had relied upon in reaching her conclusions, including information from the CAS, the police and Ms. Saren Williams, day care provider.

[30] Ms. Shields also testified as to her personal experiences with the parties. She said that she had no difficulties interacting with the mother or with obtaining the mother's cooperation to the assessment process.

[31] Such was not the case with the father. She said that it was difficult obtaining his cooperation in even returning her phone calls or in setting up appointments. When cross examined, she testified that she, at times, experienced the father as belligerent, (but that she did not allow this fact to influence her report). The father made numerous complaints to Ms. Shields about the mother's care of the children that when investigated were not verified.

[32] Ms. Shields indicated that it was the protocol of the Children's Lawyer to visit with the children in both parents' homes in the presence of their parents and then to see the children privately in the office. She testified that she visited the children in both the mother's and father's home. She told the court that she was satisfied with the care the children were receiving in both homes. It was her observation that the children were close and comfortable with both parents. When she attempted to set up a meeting at the office to see the children alone, the mother complied, but the father refused, saying that he was unaware that such was the plan, and that he was not agreeable to allowing his children to be alone with a "stranger" at their age (i.e. he refused to allow the children to be alone with Ms. Shields, the child's lawyer's social worker in the playroom at the Children's Lawyer's offices.) Given that there would not be an observation visit with the children that day, Ms. Shields testified that she asked the father to leave the playroom with the children. He appeared angry and later filed a complaint with her supervisor that she was unprofessional in her handling of the file.

[33] I have reviewed the report prepared by Ms. Shields. She commented upon the fact that the parents were unable to agree on a name for the children, and that the father and the mother were calling the children by different names. For example, the father would refer to his son, as his son, or G.K., and the mother and the school would refer to G.K. as Prince. Ms Shields recommended that the children be named Prince and Bhrae as the children were already identifying themselves by those names and that it was not, in her opinion, in their interests to continue to be referred to by initials.

[34] As well, given the level of conflict between the parties at access exchanges which she characterized as chaotic, she recommended that personal contact between the parties be limited as much as possible by instituting a communications book and supervised access exchanges.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY INVOLVEMENT

[35] The assigned Children's Aid Worker, Ms. Laura Hilb, testified in this proceeding. She described the role of the CAS in this case as a supportive one to assist the family as it proceeded through "custody" court; she noted that there were no protections concerns with respect to the mother or the children so long as the children were in the custody of the mother.

[36] No protection application has ever been brought in this case, although I was advised that the Society had considered bringing such an application in the fall of 2014 when Prince had made a complaint about his father hitting him. As this complaint was not validated, no proceeding was ever brought.

[37] Ms. Hilb testified that she has had difficulty working with the Applicant, and that the Applicant, on many occasions, has refused to meet with her. She testified that the Applicant wrote to the Director of Child Services complaining about her, and the refusal of the Society to reassign the case to another worker.

[38] The Applicant father testified that he found that he was being disrespected and was not receiving any help from the CAS. As such he said that he stopped responding to the Society's numerous letters requesting a meeting with him. He testified that he felt that the CAS worker was being "unprofessional, was biased, was yelling at him, was laughing at him and was being condescending to him."

[39] Meanwhile, the case was not reassigned, and Ms. Hilb continued to work with the mother. After the father admitted that he had hit Prince as a form of discipline for rude behavior to his grandmother in the spring of 2015, Ms. Hilb came to court and recommended to me that the Applicant have supervised access for four to six weeks in order to assess the relationship of the father with the children. She also testified that she had spoken to the father about attending a parenting program to deal with Prince's challenging behaviour. She said that Mr. Meade was not prepared to consider supervised access even for a short period of time nor would he entertain a parenting program.

[40] When the court ordered that access should recommence, APCO refused to facilitate supervised access exchanges. It is not clear exactly why this was the case. When this refusal by APCO to provide services to this family was brought to my attention on the following court date, I explained to the father that if APCO refuses service, I am not in a position to order them to do something they do not wish to do. Although I suggested that he deal with interim access by motion before the case management judge, it is my understanding that he has chosen not to do so and that he has had no access to his children for approximately one year.

[41] This refusal by APCO to provide services was of concern to both parents and apparently to the CAS. The Respondent mother expressed satisfaction with supervised exchanges as many of the problems she had previous encountered with the Applicant were addressed by supervised access exchanges.

[42] The Respondent told the court that she did not wish to have any community contact with the Applicant as she told the court that she fears the Applicant's anger. The Respondent testified that she has concerns about what access would look like if supervised exchanges at APCO were not available in the future. The Respondent told the court that Ms Hilb had told her that she (Ms. Hilb) "shared similar concerns with her, given that Gerry has not been cooperative with the Society, nor has he dealt with some of the child protection concerns present."

THE RESPONDENT

[43] From the evidence I accept, I am satisfied that the respondent mother is managing well with the children on her own with some help from her own mother. I am satisfied that the Respondent is able to put the needs of the children before her own in a very child focused manner.

[44] The various professionals who have dealt with Ms. Latouche testified that she is a good mother who has been cooperative and easy to deal with. Ms. Shields, the Children's Lawyer social worker, found her cooperative and felt the children were comfortable and well cared for in her care. Ms. Williams, the day care provider, had no complaints about her care of the children. Ms. Hilb felt that the children were thriving in her care, and so long as the children were in her care, there were no child protection concerns.

[45] By contrast, the Applicant has provided various opinions on the Respondent's abilities as a parent. At one point in his testimony, he said the Respondent is "….great at almost everything". She was great at reading to the kids and she was great at feeding the kids, she's amazing at everything caring for the kids, she was amazing, even in preparing for the birth…she's an amazing parent in many ways…" (Transcript, July 15, 2014, page 128-129, lines 30-32/1-5). At other points in his testimony, he appears almost to be speaking about someone else. For example, when he met with Ms. Shields, he described a mother who was unable to put the needs of her children first and by denying access to him was hurting the children. He also told Ms. Shields that the Respondent was unable to care for two children by herself. And again, at another point, he described the Respondent as such an angry and dangerous person that he feared for his life and the life of his son. While describing one incident when he called the police, he said, "I was scared out of my mind…afraid that I might not live to the next day…but also scared if I did not go into the apartment she might hurt herself or my son…or both of them." (Transcript, July 16, 2014 p. 43 line….) He then said that this was the first time the CAS came to the home and when she saw the CAS worker, she said to him, "If you ever make those people come back to my house, I will rip your F'ing head off."(Transcript July 16, 2014, page 44 line …..) I found this alternate description by the Applicant of the Respondent's bad character extreme and inconsistent with the evidence I received about the Respondent's character from the professional witnesses called in this case. As such, I did not rely on such comments in reaching my decision.

THE APPLICANT

[46] This trial, originally scheduled to take four days, actually took sixteen days to complete. The Applicant was self-represented and did not comply with the trial management judge's directions to prepare affidavits and to provide financial disclosure. He told me that he has a learning disability and he has found it difficult to proceed without a lawyer. I attempted to accommodate the Applicant with a view to obtaining the necessary information in order to make a decision in the best interests of the children and as such, I excused his failure to comply with the trial management order, and proceeded with the trial.

[47] Over the sixteen days this trial has stretched, it has become increasingly obvious to me that the Applicant is an extremely difficult individual to deal with. His behaviour made it difficult for me to conduct the trial while maintaining a reasonable level of order and decorum in the courtroom. The Applicant regularly and repetitively challenged me on rules, procedure and evidentiary issues arising at the trial. It was a struggle throughout the trial to maintain control of the process. Notwithstanding rulings made by me, the Applicant would refuse to comply with those rulings, would argue with me, would interrupt me, would speak over me, and when he disagreed with me he would tell me that I was, "biased, wrong, unfair, angry, agitated, unethical, and punitive." He also accused me of yelling at him, laughing at him, threatening him, cutting him off, and failing to allow him the necessary time to put his evidence before the court. At about nine days into the trial, I became concerned that if I did not gain control of the situation, the future of the trial was in jeopardy. After considering the matter, I ruled that the Applicant must retire to the remote witness room if he wished to continue to be present at his trial. I ruled:

"Given the persistent accusatory and disrespectful comments made by the applicant and his unwillingness to submit to the discipline of the court, I am concerned that it will be impossible to complete the trial which has already taken nine days. This result would be extremely serious as the issues in this case, namely custody and access are so important to the parties and to the children involved.

In order to fairly consider the merits of the case, a court requires a certain minimum decorum which is sadly lacking in this case. At times, the behaviour of the applicant is so distracting that I find it almost impossible to calmly consider the issues. When I rule in a manner the applicant finds not to his liking, he refuses to accept and move on but argues and accuses the court of unfairness and bias. This cannot continue and if I were to allow this behaviour to continue, I would be denying due process to the respondent.

I have considered the options, and in an attempt to insure that the trial proceed to its proper conclusion, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that certain measures are necessary. Given the availability of new technology which can be utilized in circumstances such as these, I propose that the applicant be escorted to our remote witness room and cross examine from that location. He will be accompanied by security and a duty counsel. In the event the court finds that disrespectful and ungovernable behaviour is occurring, I intent to ask that the audio be turned off but that his comments be recorded. I would then give him an opportunity to collect himself so that he can continue in a respectful fashion."

[48] He agreed to withdraw to the remote witness room so that trial might continue. In the remote witness room he was accompanied by a duty counsel acting as an amicus provided by Legal Aid. At various points in the trial, I would ask the duty counsel to explain my ruling or a procedural matter to the Applicant, and would turn off the system to allow him some privacy. Perhaps this solution was not ideal, but it did allow the court to have some control over its process and to actually complete the trial, while allowing the Applicant to be present at his trial.

[49] I do not doubt that the Applicant father loves his children and wishes to have reasonable and liberal access to them. I accept that the children enjoy their time with their father and, now that they are not seeing him, they miss him. I accept that the Applicant is frustrated and does not understand why his requests for reasonable and liberal access are not being granted.

[50] The Applicant does not seem to recognize that he is responsible in large part for the failure of access. He has not worked with CAS workers and his relationship with the Respondent is very poor at this time. I found that the Applicant is not prepared to compromise and seems constitutionally incapable of seeing an issue from another person's perspective. If he doesn't get what he wants, he attacks that other individual. When dealing with professionals whom he perceives as supporting the Respondent, or at least not supporting him, he complains about their professionalism to their superiors in an attempt to have them removed from the case. He wants to be in control, and is prepared to misrepresent the situation in order to gain control. (The way he described the violent incident in 2005 is a good example of this. His version of the incident lacked credibility.)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

CUSTODY

[51] On the facts as found by me, I grant final sole custody to the Respondent mother. I am satisfied that the Respondent has been the primary care giver of the children since their birth, and there is no reason to make a change at this time. All the independent, professional witnesses called at the trial were satisfied with the quality of the mother's parenting and testified that the children were doing well in her care and were attached to her. I find on a balance of probabilities, that a change to the status quo at this time would not be in the children's best interests.

[52] The father seeks an order for joint custody. I find that an order for joint custody would not be in the best interests of these children. These parties, given their high level of conflict and their inability to communicate with one another, are not suitable candidates for a joint custodial order. I see no proven track record of joint decision making in this file. The father testified that he and the mother do not share goals and values and that is why they separated. The mother testified that they argue about even "small stuff" and she feels like she "walks on egg shells" when she is around the Applicant because the Applicant is very unpredictable and she is never sure what might trigger an angry or violent reaction from him.

[53] Children rely on their parents to make decisions on the myriad of issues that arise in their lives in a time sensitive and child focused way. These parents have clearly shown that they are not capable for making joint decisions. A prime example would be the failure by these parents to make a joint decision about the children's names. This issue is usually a pretty straightforward one and most parents can agree on a child's name shortly after birth. These parents were not able to even do this. They left their children with first name initials, a situation identified by the Children's Lawyer's social worker as a practice not in the children's best interests. See Kaplanis v. Kaplanis (2005), 10 R.R.L. (6th) 373 on the need to make joint decisions.

ACCESS

[54] What, if any, access should be granted to the Applicant is a much more difficult problem to resolve in this case than was the issue of custody. From the evidence, I am satisfied that the Applicant loves the children, and that the children love him.

[55] I agree with the father that the case law supports the proposition that children should have "maximum" contact with their parents, but would add the important proviso that such maximum contact must be consistent with the children's best interests. In the 1993 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Young v. Young, [1993] S.C.J. 112, at para. 204 McLachlin J. (as she then was) commented on the need to understand that the principle of maximum contact is not absolute and that best interests ultimately governs all questions about the frequency of access. She wrote:

"Parliament has expressed its opinion that contact with each parent is valuable, and that the judge should ensure that this contact is maximized. The modifying phrase 'as is consistent with the best interest of the child' means that the goal of maximum contact of each parent with the child is not absolute. To the extent that contact conflicts with the best interests of the child, it may be restricted. But only to that extent. Parliament's decision to maintain maximum contact between the child and both parents is amply supported by the literature."

[56] In this case access in the past has presented difficulties for the parties and the children. In deciding the issue of access I must consider why access has been so problematic and disruptive to this family.

[57] When I consider the evidence I accept, I have come to the conclusion that the personality of the father has contributed to a large extent, to the problems this family experienced with access in the past.

[58] I have identified a number of red flags issues which point to problems that have not been adequately addressed in the evidence. For example:

1. Does the father have a mental health issue? Does he actually believe his rants about the mother or is he intentionally seeking to deceive the court?

2. Does the father, given his personality make up, pose a risk to the health and safety of the mother and the children?

3. Would counselling assist the father in understanding how involving the children in the custody and access dispute is harmful to the children?

[59] An answer to these questions would assist a court in fashioning a child focused access regime.

[60] The Children's Aid Society has played a supportive role in this high conflict dispute. It is clear that the Society has stayed on the sidelines and, will no doubt, continue to do so as long as the mother has custody of the children and the father is exercising no access or supervised access to the children. It is unclear whether the Society would intervene if the father were to begin to exercise unsupervised access to the children.

[61] In June 2015, Ms. Hilb testified that it was her professional opinion that the father should exercise supervised access to the children for four to six weeks to see how the children react to the access and to assess the father's parenting skills. Because the Society did not bring a protection application, this issue of access was not put before a child protection court. If the Society had chosen to intervene in this high conflict custody and access case, it is possible that the questions posed by me earlier in the judgment might have been answered and addressed using the assessment tools available in such proceedings.

[62] The Society's views on supervised access were communicated to APCO and the supervised access centre decided not to facilitate supervised exchanges. Since the father did not bring a temporary motion to vary access, no access has occurred for approximately one year.

[63] Given the passage of time, and the evidence of the mother as to her fear of reprisals from the father, and her evidence that Prince, when he saw his father at the CNE, ran to his mother and not his father, I feel that supervised access for the first six visits, hopefully occurring on a weekly basis, would be beneficial both to the father and to the children. Supervised access would allow for the reintroduction of the children to their father and would allow a time to assess the father's parenting skills going forward. I would ask that access be supervised by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto. I am aware that the Society would have to consent to provide such supervision under section 34(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act (R.S.). 1990, c. C.12, as am. I make this request because of the history the Society has with this family and the expertise the Society possesses in assessing the quality of access, and in determining the need for protection. In the event that the Society does not bring a protection application after six supervised visits, unsupervised access shall occur two out of every three Saturdays 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and one out of every three Sundays 9 am to 4 pm provided that such Sunday access shall not occur on the weekends when no Saturday access is scheduled, as well as such other specified holiday access as set out below in the order section of this decision. Pick up and drop off shall occur at the Supervised Access Centre. If APCO refuses to provide services to this family, I order that pick up and drop off occur at a local police station selected by the Respondent mother.

CHILDREN'S NAMES

[64] The Applicant has requested an order allowing her to apply for a change of name so that the children might officially be known as Prince and Bhrae and no longer as G.K and K.G. Although the evidence at trial would suggest that the parties generally agree that their children should be given a real name to replace their first name of initials, I question whether the parties would be able to cooperate sufficiently to prepare the necessary papers to effect a name change. I say this because G.K.is now almost 7 years old and K.G. is over four and no name change has been registered to date.

[65] G.K. Lameade is known at home and at school as Prince and K.G. Latouche is known at home and at school as Bhrae. The children refer to themselves and to each other as Prince and Bhrae. I am prepared to grant the requested order as I am satisfied that it would be in the best interests of these children to have their names recorded as Prince and Bhrae. I propose to authorize the Respondent to change G.K Lameade's name to Prince Meade Latouche and to change K.G. Latouche's name to Bhrae Meade Latouche without any further notice to the Applicant father and without the requirement to serve a copy of the change of name application on the Applicant father. Once verification of the name change is received from the government, a copy of such verification shall forthwith be sent to the father.

COMMUNICATION

[66] In accordance with the recommendation contained in the children's Lawyer's report, the Respondent requests that I limit face to face contact between herself and the Applicant, so that future communication between the parties be limited to email exchanges and to written logs in a communication journal. Given the historical problems in communication between the parties, it would seem reasonable to limit face to face communication at this time in this fashion.

RESTRAINING ORDER

[67] Given the historical domestic violence admitted to by the Applicant and the more recent verbal abuse between the parties, I am prepared to make a restraining order which will provide that the Applicant not come within 100 meters of the Respondent's home, the Respondent's place of work, the Respondent's school, and that he shall not be within 100 meters of the Respondent except to facilitate access exchanges or to deal with medical or other emergency situations relating to the children.

GUIDELINE SUPPORT

[68] The Applicant shall pay child support pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines in accordance with his annual income as set out in the draft order attached and calculated for Guideline purposes from September 1, 2011 for as long as the children are entitled to support under the Family Law Act.

SECTION 7 EXPENSES

[69] The Respondent is claiming section 7 expenses of $750 per month for the period the children attended Higher Vision Learning Centre for child care expenses, namely from October, 2012 to March 2015 and either $750 per month or $600 per month for the period from September 1, 2015 for Prince's private school fees going forward.

[70] With respect to the Higher Vision Learning Centre it is the Respondent's position that the Applicant agreed that the children would attend this day care and that he would pay one half of the fees going forward. The Applicant denies that he agreed to pay such fees. He noted that at the time the Respondent enrolled the children in the day care, he was unemployed and on Employment Insurance. He also advised the court that he objected to the fact that the Respondent was not applying for subsidized day care as he was not in a position to pay such substantial day care cost given his limited income. The evidence is clear that the Applicant was not involved in the payment negotiation with Ms. Williams, nor did he sign any enrolment documents or any documents agreeing to be responsible for day care fees. It was the Respondent who signed all the necessary documents and she was the one who spoke to Ms. Williams about payment and actually delayed enrollment of the children until she began receiving her student loan and was in a position to pay the $1500 monthly fee herself.

[71] In September 2015 the Respondent enrolled Prince into a private school named La Citadelle International Academy of Arts and Science. The mother enrolled Bhrae in Bowmore Public School as she testified that she could not afford private school fees for both children. She justified her decision to place Prince at a private school on the basis that he is a gifted child, although no educational assessment in this regard was put before the court and there was no evidence that his education needs could not be met in a public school. The annual cost of the school is well in excess of $20,000 when uniform fees, books, camp fees (for weeks the school is closed) are factored in. The Respondent mother paid a substantial down payment in September so that she would be in a position to pay $1,500 per month and is seeking a contribution from the father for section 7 expenses going forward in the amount of $750 or $600 as the court sees fit.

[72] Section 7(1) of the Child Support Guidelines (Ontario)(O. Reg. 391/97 as am.) confers a discretion on the court to provide for payment of all or part of a special or extraordinary expense. Section 7(1) reads as follows:

"7(1) 'In an order for the support of a child, the court may, on the request of either parent or spouse or of an applicant under section 33 of the Act, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child's best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the parents or spouses and those of the child and to the spending pattern of the parents or spouses in respect of the child during cohabitation:

(a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the custodial parent's employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment;…

(d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child's particular needs;"

[73] As to how a section 7 expense is to be apportioned between the parties, Section 7(2) speaks to a proportional sharing as a guiding principle. Section 7(2) reads as follows:

"7(2) Sharing of Expenses—The guiding principle in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1) is that the expense is shared by the parents or spouses in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any, from the child."

[74] Section 7(2) has been interpreted by the courts as a principle that can be deviated from in the discretion of the judge if good reasons exist for such deviation. In other words, the "guiding principle" is simply a guiding principle and is not a fixed rule. See Lockman v. MacNair (1980, 80 A.C.W.S. (3d) 104 (Gen. Div.)) For example, courts have not followed the "guiding principle of proportional sharing" if:

a. Child care fees are found to be excessive; See Tallman v. Tomke [1997] A.J.No. 682 (Q.B.)

b. The non-custodial parent cannot afford the added expense that would flow from a proportional sharing of the section 7 expense; See Kennedy v. Kennedy [1997] N.S.J. no. 450 (Family Ct.)

c. The costs of exercising access are so high as to render a proportional sharing of the section 7 expenses not financially possible or fair. See Keller v. Black, [2000] O.J. No. 79

[75] It is clear that the day care expenses claimed were incurred by the mother during a period of time she was at University training to be a nurse. Without day care, the mother would not have been a position to pursue her education which will in all likelihood lead to gainful employment in the future which will allow her to support her children. It is the mother's position that she needed a reliable and flexible day care arrangement so that she could attend her classes and hospital practical training and that she would not have been able to locate a day care that was subsidized which would be as flexible as the one she found here. I accept her statement and am aware that subsidies are scarce and she was not in a position to wait as she needed day care in the fall of 2012 so that she could begin her nursing course. By all accounts the day care at the Higher Vision Learning Centre was excellent and both the parents were satisfied with the program.

[76] However, before I exercise my discretion to order a contribution towards the expense for which contribution is sought, I must also be satisfied that the expense is reasonable in relation to the means of the parents. The Respondent mother was supporting herself on her student loan, child tax credits and guideline child support from the father. At the time the day care expense was incurred, the father was unemployed and was on employment insurance. It is clear in the case law that this section 7 guideline is about needs and means. Having satisfied myself that there is a need, the question remains, does the Applicant have the means to pay $750 per month in addition to the guideline support he must pay. I have added the following considerations into my deliberations, namely, the father lives in Toronto, which is a very expensive city and he does not live in subsidized housing. The following chart shows the year, the father's income for Guideline purposes and the monthly Guideline support amount. I have set out this chart for the purposes of determining affordability of the requested add on payments to the father.

Year	Income	Monthly Support
2012	$32,805.00	$478 per month
2013	$44,880.00	$662 per month
2014	$33,301.57	$485 per month
2015	$37,900.00	$544 per month
2016 (projected)	$36,995.52	$534 per month

[77] I am satisfied that the Applicant does not have the means to pay a further $750 per month to the Respondent as "add on" support. Since the trial began, the Applicant has struggled to obtain permanent employment and has spent many months on employment insurance with one short term employment contract followed by a second employment contract that may or may not result in a permanent job. However, I am prepared to reduce the amount requested and order a cap on the day care, section 7 expenses at an amount I feel is within the financial capacity of the father to contribute. See Jones-Whyte v. Whyte, 2014 ONCJ 357 I fix the Applicant's section 7 monthly contribution to expenses for the period October, 2012 to March, 2015 at $200.00 per month.

[78] As to the request for section 7 special expenses for private school for Prince, I am not satisfied that this expense is either reasonable or necessary in these circumstances. I say this for the following reasons:

1. Prince is eligible to attend public school at no cost.

2. Prince has no special needs and the public school is adequate to meet his educational needs.

3. The Applicant cannot afford private school fees.

CHILDREN'S PASSPORTS

[79] The parents are unable to communicate in any meaningful way at this time. As the Respondent mother will be the sole custodial parent, I give her the ability to apply for and renew the children's passports without the consent of the father.

TRAVEL WITH THE CHILDREN

[80] The Respondent mother will be the custodial parent. I am satisfied that she will make responsible decisions around vacation plans for the children. Given the inability of the parents to communicate and the recent experience of the father opposing the mother's reasonable travel plans, I am prepared to permit the mother or her designate to travel outside of the country for a maximum of 4 weeks per year with the children. The mother shall give the father 14 days' notice of her plans and provide a travel itinerary to the father and shall make up the missed access within 60 days of the children returning to Canada.

EXTENDED BENEFITS

[81] If extended health and dental benefits become available to the Applicant at no cost or at a reasonable cost, he shall add the children to his benefit plan and provide the details of such plan to the mother and how such claims may be processed along with the benefit booklet and user card.

LIFE INSURANCE

[82] Not prepared to make such an order securing child support given the limitations placed on the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice, see section 34(2) of the Family Law Act, (R.S.O. 1990, c.F.3, as am.)

ANNUAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

[83] I am prepared to make this order. (see order section Schedule A)

POLICE ENFORCEMENT

[84] I am not prepared to make this order at this time. Such orders, in my experience are extremely intrusive and traumatizing to children. If I were of the opinion that the access order required police enforcement on a regular basis, I would be inclined to rethink the type of access ordered.

COSTS

[85] The final issue before me is one of costs. The Respondent seeks an order for costs on a substantial indemnity basis. I invite the parties to forward their submissions concerning costs to me according to the time table set out in the order section Schedule A)

[86] CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT AND COPY OF THIS ORDER

Counsel for the mother to serve a copy of this judgment and a copy of the court order made in this case on the Children's Aid Society and she shall bring to the attention of the Branch director my request that the initial six access visits be supervised by the Society.

Released: April 22, 2016

Signed: Justice Penny J. Jones

SCHEDULE 'A' - DRAFT ORDER

For the reasons set out above, an order shall issue in the following terms:

1. Custody

The Respondent mother Karen Latouche shall have final sole custody of children G.K. Lameade also known as Prince Meade Latouche born October 31, 2009 and K.G. Latouche also known as Bhrae Meade Latouche born August 31, 2011.

2. Name Change - Prince

G.K. Lameade's name shall be legally changed to Prince Meade Latouche, without hyphenation. The Respondent mother may take steps to effect this name change without any further notice to the Applicant father and the requirement to serve the change of name application on the Applicant father is hereby dispensed with. The Respondent mother shall mail to the Applicant father a copy of the verification of the child's change of name forthwith upon her receipt of same from the government.

3. Name Change - Bhrae

K.G. Latouche's name shall be legally changed to Bhrae Meade Latouche, without hyphenation. The Respondent mother may take steps to effect this name change without any further notice to the Applicant father and the requirement to serve the change of name application on the Applicant father is hereby dispensed with. The Respondent mother shall mail to the Applicant father a copy of the verification of the child's change of name forthwith upon her receipt of same from the government.

4. Access Schedule

The Applicant's father's access to the children shall be as follows:

a. Supervised Access (First Six Visits)

For the first six access visits, the access shall be fully supervised and shall take place either at the Children's Aid Society of Toronto's (the Society's) offices, provided the Society consents to act as a supervisor under section 34(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, (R.S.O.) c.C.12 as am. or at Access for Parents and Children of Ontario (APCO) at their offices closest to the mother's home, or at such other APCO location selected by the mother.

b. Regular Saturday Access

Thereafter, he shall have day access to the children two Saturdays out of every three Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (or 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. if such times can be accommodated by APCO) pick up and drop off to take place at the supervised access centre (APCO).

c. Regular Sunday Access

Further, he shall have a further day access one Sunday out of every three Sundays from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., (or 10:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. if such times can be accommodated by APCO) provided that the Sunday access period shall not fall on the weekend in which there is no access to the Applicant on the Saturday. Pick up and drop off shall take place at the supervised access centre (APCO).

d. Alternative Venue

In the event that the supervised access centre is not open or is not prepared to provide supervised exchanges, all access exchanges shall take place at a local police station selected by the Respondent mother, or at such other location agreed to by the parties, in writing.

e. Holiday and Special Occasions Access

Notwithstanding the regular access schedule, the children shall have access to their father:

i. Each Father's Day from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and to their mother each Mother's Day from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ii. Alternate Easter Sunday in odd numbered years commencing 2017 from 10:00 a.m. to 5 p.m.

iii. Alternate Thanksgiving Sunday in even numbered years commencing 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 5 p.m.

iv. Alternate Family Day in odd numbered years commencing 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 5 p.m.

v. Commencing 2016 each December 25th from 10:00 to 5:00 p.m.

vi. Commencing 2017 each January 1st from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

5. Communication Between Parties

There shall be no face to face contact between the parties. The parties shall utilize a communications journal or email to exchange and share information about incidents of access, the children's education, religion and non-emergency health care. If a communications journal is utilized, it shall travel back and forth with the children during access exchanges. The parties shall ensure that the children are not privy to the information contained in the journal or emails and that all communication between the parties are made in a respectful and child focused manner.

6. Emergency Medical Care

If a child needs emergency medical care while with one party, that party shall forthwith notify the other party of the nature of the emergency, the location of the emergency centre to which the child is taken. In cases of emergency involving either child's health or welfare, the parties may communicate by way of text messaging or through a 3rd party via telephone.

7. Communication with Third Parties

In accordance with section 20(5) of the Children's Law Reform Act of Ontario, the Respondent father shall have the right to directly communicate with third parties providing services to or for the children, such as teachers, doctors, counselors, religious leaders, and childcare providers, without the need for the mother's further consent or other Court Orders.

8. Contact Information for Third Parties

The mother shall keep the father informed of the contact information for the said third parties and shall do so via the communication journal or email.

9. Current Contact Information

The parties shall keep the other advised of their current address, email address and telephone number where they may be reached in case of an emergency.

10. Notice of Major Decisions

The mother shall provide to the father a minimum of fourteen (14) days written notice, via the communication journal or email, of major decisions pertaining to the children's education, religion, and non-emergency health care.

11. Children's Passports

The Respondent mother shall be permitted to renew the children's passports and obtain government issued documentation for the children without the written consent of the Applicant father. This provision shall satisfy in full any and all documentation or consent that Canada Border Services Agency, and successor agencies or any other government agency may require from the Applicant as the non-custodial parent of the children.

12. Travel Outside Canada

On an annual basis, the children may travel outside Canada for a maximum of 4 weeks with the mother or the mother's designate without the written consent of the father. The mother shall provide father with a minimum of 14 days' notice of the travel plans and any access visits missed shall be made up within 60 days of the children's return to Canada unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, in advance and in writing. This provision shall satisfy in full any and all documentation or consent that Canada Border Services Agency, and successor agencies, may require from the Applicant as the non-custodial parent of the children.

13. Removal from Greater Toronto Area

The father shall not remove the children from the Greater Toronto area without the mother's express written consent or a Court Order. The mother's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.

14. Extended Health and Dental Benefits

If an extended health and dental benefits plan becomes available to the father at no cost or at reasonable cost at any time while he has support obligations to the children, he shall within 30 days of the plan becoming available to him, add and maintain the children on same for as long as he has support obligation and the benefits are available to him. He shall, within 30 days of the plan becoming available to him, provide to the mother the details of his benefits plan and how claims may be processed, along with copies of the benefit plan manual and benefits user card if applicable. He shall provide to the mother updated benefits plan manuals and benefits user cards as they become available. The father shall forthwith inform the mother, in writing, of any notification he receives regarding changes to the benefits plan, including the termination of same.

15. Child Support - September 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011

The Applicant father shall pay to the Respondent mother for the support of G.K Lameade, also known as Prince Meade Latouche, born October 31, 2009, and K.G. Latouche, also known as Bhrae Meade Latouche, born August 23, 2011, $556 per month commencing September 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Such support is based on the Applicant's 2011 annual income for guideline purposes of $38,632.00 and is in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.

16. Child Support - January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012

The Applicant father shall pay to the Respondent mother for the support of G.K. Lameade, also known as Prince Meade Latouche, born October 31, 2009 and K.G. Latouche, also known as Bhrae Meade Latouche, born August 23, 2011, $478 per month commencing January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Such support is based on the Applicant's 2012 annual income for Guideline purposes of $32,805.00 and is in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.

17. Child Support - January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013

The Applicant father shall pay to the Respondent mother for the support of G.K. Lameade, also known as Prince Meade Latouche, born October 31, 2009, and K.G. Latouche, also known as Bhrae Meade Latouche, born August 23, 2011, $662 per month commencing January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013. Such support is based on the Applicant's 2013 annual income for Guideline purposes of $44,880 and is in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.

18. Child Support - January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014

The Applicant father shall pay to the Respondent mother for the support of G.K. Lameade, also known as Prince Meade Latouche, born October 31, 2009 and K.G. Latouche, also known as Bhrae Meade Latouche, born August 23, 2011, $485 per month commencing January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. Such support is based on the Applicant's 2014 annual income for Guideline purposes of $33,301.57 and is in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.

19. Child Support - January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015

The Applicant father shall pay to the Respondent mother for the support of G.K. Lameade, also known as Prince Meade Latouche born, October 31, 2009 and K.G. Latouche, also known as Bhrae Meade Latouche, born August 23, 2011, $544 per month commencing January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 based on the Applicant's 2015 annual income for Guideline purposes of $36,995 and is in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.

20. Child Support - January 1, 2016 Onwards

The Applicant father shall pay to the Respondent mother for the support of G.K. Lameade, also known as Prince Meade Latouche, born October 31, 2009 and K.G. Latouche, also known as Bhrae Meade Latouche, born August 23, 2011, $534 per month commencing January 1, 2016 based on the Applicant's projected 2016 annual income for Guideline purposes.

21. Section 7 Expenses - Daycare

Commencing October 1, 2012 and continuing to March 1, 2015 the Applicant father shall pay to Respondent mother the sum of $200.00 per month as his contribution to day care expenses.

22. Section 7 Expenses - Private School

The Applicant father shall not be required to contribute towards the private school fees claimed as section 7 expenses by the Respondent mother.

23. Arrears Collection

Arrears owing under this order shall be collected at the rate of $200.00 per month effective May 1, 2016.

24. Annual Financial Disclosure

On or before June 30th of each year, commencing 2016, the Applicant shall provide to the Respondent a copy of his Income Tax Return with all schedules and attachments filed therewith, Notice of Assessment and Re-Assessment (if received) for the most recent taxation year and the three most recent statement of income showing year to date income or his most recent employment contract.

25. Restraining Order

A separate restraining order with additional terms as set out in my judgment relating to this family was also made this date on the court mandated form.

26. Standard FRO Clause

Standard FRO clause.

27. Standard Interest Clause

Standard interest clause.

28. Costs Submissions

The issue of costs remains outstanding. The Respondent shall have 30 days from the release of my decision to serve on the Applicant and to send to me her written submissions including any offers to settle she may have made.

The Applicant shall have 30 days to serve on the Respondent and to send to me his written submission on costs including any offers to settle which may have been made.

The Respondent shall then have 14 days to serve on the Applicant a reply if so advised.

Each party shall be limited to ten pages for their written submissions not including a bill of cost. The reply, if any, shall be limited to five pages.

29. Support Deduction Order

Support Deduction order to issue.

30. Service on Children's Aid Society

Counsel for the Respondent mother shall serve the Children's Aid Society of Toronto with a copy of judgment and the order once signed and entered.