Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2023 06 05 Court File No.: FO-21-00042179-0000

Between:

E.V. Applicant

— AND —

M.T. Respondent

Before: Justice Szandtner

Heard on: May 8, 9 and 10, 2023 Reasons for Judgment released on: June 5, 2023

Counsel: Theodora J. Oprea, for the applicant M.T., on his own behalf

SZANDTNER J.:

Part One – Introduction

[1] This was a trial about the parenting time and child support arrangements for the parties’ five year old daughter G.T. (the child). The child presently lives primarily with the applicant E.V. (the mother) and has supervised visits with the respondent M.T. (the father).

[2] The mother seeks a final order that the father’s parenting time with the child be at the discretion of the mother and remain supervised until the father demonstrates that he is addressing his mental health by meeting with a psychiatrist specializing in schizoaffective disorder, following any treatment plan and the psychiatrist provides a recommendation that unsupervised parenting time is safe.

[3] The mother also seeks an order pursuant to section 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (the Act) that the father shall not have contact or communicate directly or indirectly with her without her consent or court order, except to facilitate the parenting time as set out above. Any breach of this order automatically constitutes a material change in circumstances, and that she has leave to bring this matter to court and request a restraining order.

[4] The mother further seeks an order that commencing October 1, 2018, the father shall pay her child support for the child, based on an imputed income of $90,000.00, in the amount of $834.00 per month in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines). The father shall receive a credit for $16,826.75 for child support paid as of April 1, 2023. She asks that the parties share section 7 expenses for the child proportionate to their income with the mother paying 38% and the father paying 62% of these expenses.

[5] The father seeks a final order for parenting time as follows:

(a) Supervised visits until a psychiatrist gives a recommendation or opinion in a report that he can have unsupervised parenting time with supervised exchanges. He asks that the visits occur one each week on Sunday for three hours at a supervision centre within Toronto. He asks that costs be shared proportionate to incomes.

(b) Subject to the recommendation of his psychiatrist he shall for six months have every other Saturday and Sunday, five hours of unsupervised visits each day. Additionally, he shall have one visit during the week for a minimum of three hours unsupervised with supervised exchanges. Costs of supervised exchanges to be shared proportionately.

(c) Following the six months, he shall have unsupervised parenting time for a period of 7 months, every other weekend with overnight stay, picking the child up at 10:00 am on Saturdays and dropping her off on Sunday at 4:00 pm. Additionally he shall have one visit during the week for a minimum of 3 hours. Exchanges to occur in public locations.

(d) Any other parenting time as agreed upon by the parties.

[6] The father seeks a final order pursuant to section 28 of the Act that the parties shall not contact or communicate directly or indirectly with each other, without the other party’s written consent or a court order, except for reasons related to the child. He asks that any breach of this order by either party constitute a material change in circumstances, and the parties have leave to bring the matter to court and request a restraining order.

[7] The father seeks an order that commencing September 1, 2020, he shall pay child support in the amount of $605.00 per month based on an income of $65,000.00 in accordance with the Guidelines. He would owe child support arrears of $8,415.00 which would be paid off in a $3,000.00 lump sum and a further $150.42 per month. The father seeks to pay section 7 expenses proportionate to income with him paying 54% and the mother paying 46%.

[8] The parties each filed affidavits and financial statements as their direct evidence. They both were cross-examined. The father also called his partner A.D., Brayden Supervision Services (Brayden) access supervisor Robin Souliere and his family physician Dr. H. They were cross-examined by the mother’s counsel.

[9] The issues for this court to determine are:

(a) What parenting time is in the child’s best interests?

(b) When should the child support order start?

(d) How much child support should be paid? What contributions should be made to section 7 expenses?

(e) If the court finds that support arrears are owing, how should they be paid?

Part Two – Background Facts

[10] The mother is 35 years of age. The father is 44 years of age and was born in Italy.

[11] The parties met in May 2012 in Toronto. They began living together in 2013. They were married on June 21, 2014. They separated on October 1, 2018.

[12] The parties had the one child together.

[13] The father was employed as a police officer in Italy before he came to Canada. During the parties’ marriage, the mother was working at an English as a Second Language Centre in Toronto and the father worked in an Italian restaurant in a variety of roles.

[14] In August of 2015, the mother began her undergraduate studies at Ryerson University towards a Bachelor of Commerce in Global Management. The father commenced his joint Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Chartered Financial Accountant (CFA) degree at Concordia University’s Toronto campus. The father graduated from his MBA program in June of 2020.

[15] The mother is currently employed as an assistant at a law firm earning $51,600.00 annually. The father worked as a pizza chef at an Italian restaurant from June 2020 to May 2022. He has been unemployed since May 2022.

[16] The mother commenced the within Application by way of a without notice motion in December 2021. This followed the father being hospitalized under a Form 2 pursuant to the Mental Health Act due to a mental health episode.

[17] On December 17, 2021, Justice Curtis made a temporary order that the father shall have supervised parenting time, virtual parenting time, made a non-removal order and a restraining order. The motion was returnable January 13, 2022. The date was adjourned on consent through counsel to April 19, 2022.

[18] The father did not serve and file responding materials in accordance with the rules. On March 21, 2022, Justice Curtis made an order approving irregular service on the father as of December 17, 2021 and noted him in default.

[19] On April 4, 2022, the father served his responding materials by email. On April 19, 2022, Justice Curtis made an order permitting the father to file his responding materials. His Answer/Claim was not to include claims regarding decision-making or primary residence. He was also ordered to pay costs of $1500.00.

[20] The father served an Answer/Claim dated July 13, 2022. The father proceeded to serve and file a 14B motion seeking substantive relief including the termination of the restraining order, decision-making responsibility, unsupervised parenting time and restriction on mother’s travel. This motion was dismissed by Justice Zisman on August 17, 2022. He was ordered to pay $250.00 in costs.

[21] The father also commenced on August 18, 2022, a proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice seeking a divorce and equalization of net family property. The father served a 14B seeking to have the matter traversed to the Superior Court of Justice. This motion was dismissed and he was ordered to pay $250.00 in costs.

[22] The mother brought a motion to allow her to travel with the child during the Christmas holidays. On November 9, 2022, the father’s consent for travel and documents was dispensed with, his request to transfer the case to the Superior Court of Justice was dismissed and he was ordered to pay costs of $3,000.00.

[23] The mother served and filed a 23C seeking final orders regarding decision-making responsibility, travel and documents as these claims were unopposed. These final orders were granted on April 18, 2023. The father was ordered to pay costs of $1,130.00. This final costs order remains unpaid.

[24] The following orders are currently in place:

Final order – April 18, 2023

(a) The mother shall have sole decision-making responsibility regarding the child;

(b) The child’s primary residence is with the mother;

(d) The mother may obtain and renew documents for the child without the consent of the father.

Temporary order – April 19, 2022

(e) The father shall pay child support in the amount of $350.00 per month based on an acknowledged income of $39,000.00 commencing May 1, 2022.

Temporary order – December 17, 2021

(f) The father’s parenting time with the child shall be supervised by a supervised access program for one hour once per week;

(g) The parties may also arrange parenting time supervised by a private service to be paid by the father;

(h) The father shall have other parenting time as the parents can agree (e.g. virtual parenting time);

(i) The father shall not remove the child from Toronto without the mother’s prior written consent or court order;

(j) The father shall not contact or communicate directly or indirectly with the mother or the child except to permit access to the child in accordance with the access order.

Part Three – Parenting Time

3.1 The mother’s position and evidence

[25] The child has resided in the primary care of the mother since the parties’ separation in 2018. The mother is seeking a continuation of father’s supervised parenting time pending the father’s engagement in psychiatric care to address his mental health.

[26] The mother stated that there was verbal abuse and attempts to isolate her from her family in their relationship. The mother described the father’s resistance to her family’s offer to contribute financially to her monthly expenses. She testified that the father constantly criticized and denigrated her for prioritizing her undergraduate studies over working. She also described an incident prior to the child’s birth in which she was verbally abused by the father for accepting her extended family’s gift of a baby shower. Shortly after the child’s difficult birth, the father told the mother that he did not want her family around and that they did not love her.

[27] The mother described an incident in April of 2019 when the father pushed her in front of people at a park while she was holding the child in her arms. She states that in September of 2020 the father was visiting the child at the mother’s home. She was about to enter a room where he had placed his bag. The father picked her up physically and carried her to the second bedroom to prevent her from entering the room. He refused to let her out of the room for 30 to 40 minutes. He eventually let her out and left her apartment when she threatened to call the police.

[28] The mother stated that she has serious concerns regarding the father’s mental health.

[29] The mother’s evidence is that the father previously worked as a police officer in Italy. In or around 2015, the father had a mental health assessment in Rome, Italy. A translated Italian document reflecting his termination from his police duties due to his mental health and shoulder issue was entered as an exhibit at trial. It reflects the following with respect to diagnostic judgment: “Attached Disorder Adaptment with Pronounced Phobic Panic Aspects.” It also stipulates as follows: “The subject is temporarily not eligible to the service of the institution for days 70 as from today. The infirmity is incompatible with weapons usage.”

[30] The mother stated that in or around September 2021, following his return from a trip to Italy, the father told her that someone was trying to kill him. He believed that someone had fired a silent gun at him in Italy but missed him. He also told her that some people forced him into a car and brought him to a house where he was forced to have intercourse with another man.

[31] On or around October 2021 the father told her that someone tried to run him over while he went for a run and he was sure that he was being targeted.

[32] The mother stated that on or around November 6, 2021 the father attempted to move back into her home without previous agreement. He appeared agitated and told her that he was moving in and wanted his family back. She replied that they had been separated for many years and that this was a bizarre plan.

[33] The mother stated that the father confessed that he was extremely fearful for his life. He told her that someone was after him trying to kill him or get him to kill himself. He told her that he suddenly found a rope hanging from the roof and that “they” wanted him to kill himself. The father reported that he could not trust anyone including his own mother as she would beat him until he bled when he was a child and attempted to kill him by forcing him to stand on a chair on the balcony. He also stated that she failed to protect him as he was having flashbacks and memories of him being 5 years old in his grandmother’s home and being sexually abused by his uncle.

[34] The mother stated that the father directed her to erase all social media accounts for their own protection and prohibited her from seeking help as he thought they would kill him, her or their daughter. The father asked the mother to flee with him and the child and leave their respective families.

[35] The mother was extremely worried about this behaviour. She asked the father to go home and stop visiting their daughter until he talked to a medical professional and/or reported everything to the police. She asked him to video call the child.

[36] On or around November 10, 2021, the father informed the mother that for the second time, someone tried to run him over and this time he would file a report with the police. He asked her for help to find the police contact information which she sent to him. The father informed her that his family was involved with the Mafia and that the Toronto police were infiltrated. The father also claimed that his family had come to her home and installed video recording devices behind the walls. The father told her that their phones were hacked and that his cousins were listening and recording their conversations.

[37] The mother told the father to seek help with the police/authorities and convinced him to call victim services.

[38] On November 21, 2021, the father attended the mother’s home for parenting time with the child and while visiting he asked to video call his mother. While on the call, the father told the mother that the woman on the phone was extremely ugly and was not his mother. The father told his mother he would call her back with his phone and hung up. He proceeded to take a few steps back and screamed at the mother to stay where she was and commanded her to show her hands, pull her sweater up and take everything off. He stated that he needed to make sure that the mother was not holding a weapon to kill him.

[39] The mother followed his instructions. She was terrified. After ensuring that she did not have any weapons the father told her that he is going through brutally horrifying thoughts and memories from his past and that he was not in control of them anymore. The father started to ramble about his past. The father started to cry and speak to his mother and proceeded to state that the woman on the video call was not his real mother and that he had not saved his real mother from his uncles and aunts.

[40] The mother attempted to calm the father down. She told him that she was sorry he was in so much pain. The father screamed at her, pointed a finger at her and told her to stay in her place and to not let the child close to him. The mother remained where she was as the child was playing in the living room with her toys. The father started to walk back and forth from the kitchen to the hallway and told her that he wanted to take the child to the park. The mother felt very scared and told him that the child was sick and could not go. The mother quickly intercepted the child who was moving towards the door with the father. The father assumed a fighting stance. He yelled at the mother” What the f**k are you doing?” The mother ran to the bedroom and locked herself and the child inside the bathroom. The father banged on the door and sang “I am not going anywhere.” The mother called security for her building and asked them to stay on the phone with her and to come upstairs to ask the father to leave the unit. Building security were unable to enter the unit as it was locked. The mother proceeded to call the police. The police attended the unit and did not find the father on the premises.

[41] The following day, November 22, 2021, the mother attended 1000 Finch Court and obtained a Form 2 from a Justice of the Peace. The police advised the mother that evening that they had taken the father in the police vehicle to Southlake Regional Health Centre (Southlake). The same night, a nurse from the hospital contacted the mother to ask her to describe the incident.

[42] The Southlake hospital records were made an exhibit at trial. The father was admitted at Southlake Regional Health Centre on November 22, 2021. The records reflect that his admitting diagnoses was paranoid schizophrenia. He was admitted on a Form 2 and subsequently placed under a Form 1. He was prescribed 2 mg of risperidone, a medication used to treat schizophrenia.

[43] The hospital records reflect that the father reported to the admitting psychiatrist Dr. Gannage that he had been under stress due to his CFA exams. He described having vivid distressing dreams as follows: “The content of these dreams range from memories of physical abuse by his mother in childhood which he confirms did happen. His dreams have also included physical abuse from his cousins and family members, and an episode of sexual abuse from a cousin when he was 5-6 years of age. He is not sure if the latter abuse truly occurred or not.”

[44] Dr. Gannage’s consultation note also reflects that the father denied any previous psychiatric history or psychiatric hospital admission. The father did not disclose the 2015 Italian diagnosis to Dr. Gannage.

[45] The father was discharged from the hospital on November 29, 2021. He was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. He was prescribed medication and psychological therapy. It was strongly recommended that he continue with the medication risperidone.

3.2 The father’s position and evidence

[46] The father’s affidavit evidence describes the mother from the beginning of their relationship as emotional, quick to anger, possessive and jealous. He describes her as childish and manipulative. She threw objects on the ground and fought with others when they went out in public. She also expressed suicidal ideation.

[47] The father describes an entire year, 2015, during which the mother cried, screamed and swore every day for reasons related to her family. He describes her family as overly intrusive in their lives.

[48] The father describes the mother as showing signs of mental instability, specifically when he returned to Italy at the end of 2017. He stated that her behaviour became more aggressive and this aggression extended to their daughter as well. He gave an example when the mother hit him on the head during a hug and destroyed his phone by throwing it off the balcony.

[49] The father’s evidence is that the mother pushed him during the park incident she describes. He stated that during the last year of their relationship he started to notice that their daughter had bruises on her legs. He believed that it was because the mother was treating the child in an aggressive manner.

[50] The father states that in November of 2021, he started sharing with the mother his vivid dreams and memories from his past. He explained that he still considered her a person he could trust. He stated that the mother became concerned with his comments and encouraged him to call victim services.

[51] The father stated that he advised the mother that he was dating his current partner in mid-November 2021 and that she cried in response.

[52] On November 21, 2021 the father stated that he went to visit his daughter at the mother’s house. The father confirmed that they had video called his mother in Italy. He reported that he started describing his dreams again to the mother and the mother expressed her concerns about his mental health. The mother started to act weird and walk back and forth moving her hands aggressively.

[53] The father describes himself as “very calm” and that he “started joking in an effort to create a lightness to the mood by asking her to take her pants off.” He stated that the situation was not tense at all. However, he did not like the mother’s manipulative and aggressive behaviour and offered to take the child to the park. The father’s evidence is that the mother prevented the child from joining him to go to the park and she went into the bedroom with the child. The mother asked him to leave which he did immediately.

[54] The father confirms his hospitalization at Southlake. He stated that he tried to cooperate as much as possible with the mental health facility to prove that he didn’t have any mental health issues. He claimed that the only source of information for the staff was the mother’s information in arriving at the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder.

[55] The Southlake hospital records reflect two follow-up telephone calls for the father with Dr. Stokl on December 24, 2021 and January 21, 2022. The records also reflect that the father was referred to but failed to follow up with the Brief Therapy Clinic. As a result, the file was closed.

[56] The father confirmed that he is only under the care of his family doctor and has not seen a psychiatrist or counsellor since the discharge. Further, he confirmed that he did not continue with the risperidone medication prescribed by the hospital staff.

[57] The father called his family doctor, Dr. H. as a witness. He has been practising as a family doctor for 10 years. He is a general family practitioner with no speciality in psychotherapy or otherwise. The father has been his patient for 7 years. He has seen the father on seven occasions in person during that time. He has also had telephone consults with the father. The in-person interactions lasted for approximately 15 – 20 minutes for each visit.

[58] Dr. H. testified that he not directly observe any mental health concerns in his interactions with the father. He has not prescribed any medication to the father to address mental health issues. He was provided with only the discharge summary from Southlake hospital and reviewed same. At the request of the father, he referred him to a psychiatrist in February of 2023. This referral did not result in a consultation prior to trial.

[59] The father exercised supervised access to the child at the Access for Parents and Children in Ontario centre (APCO) from April 2022 to August 2022. His contact then became virtual as he chose to travel to Italy for five months. His supervised access resumed in February of 2023 upon his return to Canada.

[60] The father called Robin Souliere, a supervisor from Brayden as a witness. She supervised father’s three-hour visits with the child in February, March and April of 2023. She supervised seven visits. They took place at a child friendly restaurant which had arcade games and at a library. The supervisor reported positive interactions between the child and father. She did not note any concerns.

[61] The father called his current partner A.D. as a witness. She works full time for a school board as an Assistant Manager of Construction, Maintenance. She has three adult children from a prior relationship. She testified that she first met the father in person on November 1, 2021. They are currently in a relationship and have been living together since September of 2022 when they travelled to Italy together. She did not observe any unusual behaviour by the father at any time during her interactions with him. She has never experienced any anger or aggression in her interactions with the father.

[62] Under cross-examination, A.D. confirmed that she was aware of father’s diagnosis from Southlake and his mental health diagnosis in Italy in 2015. While she reports that she was initially concerned, she has not observed any behaviour directly that causes her concern. She prefers to rely on her direct observations rather than the diagnoses from medical professionals.

3.3 Legal Considerations

[63] Any proceeding with respect to children is determined with respect to the best interests of the particular child before the court in accordance with the considerations set out in section 24 of the Act. The court has considered these factors, where relevant.

[64] Subsection 24(2) of the Act provides that the court must give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being in determining best interests.

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

Factors

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

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

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

(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;

(d) the history of care of the child;

(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

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

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

(i) The ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and to 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.

[66] In determining parenting time, the court must consider the relevant best interests considerations contained in subsections 24(2) to (7) of the Act.

[67] Subsection 24(4) of the Act relates to family violence:

24(4) Factors relating to family violence – In considering the impact of any family violence under clause (3)(j) the court shall take into account;

a) The nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

b) Whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

c) Whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

d) The physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;

e) Any compromise to the safety of the child or any other family member;

f) Whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

g) Any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve the person’s ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

h) Any other relevant factor.

[68] Subsection 24(6) of the Act states that in allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that the child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

[69] Suspicion of risk concerns, without evidence, is not a proper basis for ordering supervised access. See: Tzaras, 2007 CarswellOnt 8327 (Sup.Ct.).

[70] Supervised access is beneficial for children who require gradual reintroduction to a parent, or whose safety requires it until such time as the parent is sufficiently rehabilitated and a child is no longer in danger of physical or emotional harm. See: Najjardizaji v. Mehrjerdi, 2004 ONCJ 374, [2004] O.J. No. 5472 (OCJ).

[71] The person seeking supervised access bears the burden of establishing that supervision is necessary. See: Klymenko v. Klymenko, 2020 ONSC 5451.

3.4 Analysis

[72] The court has to determine what parenting time order for the father would be in the child’s best interests. The two risk factors that have been raised on the evidence at trial by the parents are family violence and father’s mental health.

[73] The mother’s evidence with respect to family violence focuses on specific instances of verbal abuse and efforts made by the father to isolate her from her family. I find this evidence credible as it is detailed and dovetails with father’s evidence that he found her parents to be too intrusive.

[74] The father’s evidence in response to these claims consistently maligns the mother and attacks her character. His describes the mother as possessive, jealous, angry, childish and manipulative. He further states that she “used to scream easily and beat herself in the face.” He states that she threw objects on the ground violently and at him directly. He also indicated that they could not go anywhere because “she always fought with someone.” He described the mother hitting him on the head when he tried to hug her. He testified that she expressed suicidal ideation. He further describes bruises on the child’s legs that he blames on the mother’s rough handling.

[75] I make the following findings of fact with respect to family violence based on the evidence:

(1) The father’s consistently negative testimony about the mother is not credible. It strains credulity that if the above were the case, that the father would have agreed to the child’s residence with the mother when the parties separated. Furthermore, if this was the case, that he did not seek the involvement of the Children’s Aid Society to investigate his suspicions of child abuse. It does not make sense that if the mother were behaving as he describes, that he would freely choose to leave the child in her sole care from September 2022 to February 2023 while he visited Italy with his new partner.

(2) The parties’ dynamic as a couple was volatile and unhappy. Their financial challenges and their concurrent attempts to balance their educational goals with earning were very stressful on their relationship. The mother had a difficult pregnancy and birth that were complicated by a gall bladder condition. The father’s solo trips to Italy during their relationship and early parenthood were very stressful for the mother.

(3) The parties’ separation appears to have improved their communication and rapport. Mother’s evidence is that after the separation, the father had “open parenting” with the child. He would visit her approximately four times a week at her home when he was in Canada. In the fall of 2021, the father was exercising parenting time with his daughter at the mother’s home and sought to confide in her about his distressing vivid dreams.

[76] I find that the child can be insulated by the family violence in this case through a no-contact order between the parents with exceptions provided for the facilitation of parenting time.

[77] The father and the mother have conflicting accounts of the events leading up to the father’s November 2021 hospitalization.

[78] I find that the mother’s description of the events leading up to the father’s November hospitalization are more credible than the father’s account for the following reasons:

a) The November 2021 incident occurred three full years after the parties’ separation. It occurred during a period in which the mother had been facilitating the father’s parenting time with the child and welcoming him into her home. It was not a volatile period between the couple, rather an amicable one. There was no reason for her to suddenly seek a Form 2 in the absence of serious safety concerns.

b) The mother’s account describes a credible gradual escalation of concerning behaviour by the father during the fall of 2021 culminating in the November 2021 incident.

c) The father’s explanation accords with key elements of mother’s account: He admits that he was stressed by his exams at that time. He confirms that he wanted to discuss his distressing vivid dreams with her. He admits that he contacted victim services at the behest of the mother that fall. On November 21, 2021, he confirms that there was a video call with his mother. He confirms that he asked the mother to remove her pants.

d) The Southlake hospital records reflect that the staff spoke to both the father’s brother and the mother as collateral sources of information. The mother was not the sole collateral source of information that informed the hospital diagnosis.

e) The Southlake hospital records reflect that the father was kept in hospital for a one-week period. This reflects a level of professional concern that is not negligible.

f) The Southlake hospital records reflect that the father made disclosures to the psychiatrist that mirrored the account of the mother such as his physical abuse by his mother and the sexual abuse as a child by a relative. The father denies making these disclosures but has no explanation for their inclusion in the consultation report.

g) The admitting diagnosis was paranoid schizophrenia. The discharge diagnosis following a full week of professional psychiatric attention was schizoaffective disorder with a recommendation of medication and therapy as a follow-up. This professional assessment is in keeping with the observations of the mother.

[79] It is undisputed that the father also had a documented mental health diagnosis in 2015 in Italy. This diagnosis is brief but relates to paranoia and mental health. It also led to the removal of the father’s firearms.

[80] The father fully denies and minimizes both the 2015 diagnosis and the 2021 diagnosis. He did not seek out any mental health care following either diagnosis. He testified that there is a legal proceeding in Italy to challenge the 2015 diagnosis but did not provide any evidence of same. He further claimed that Southlake was negligent in making its diagnosis of him.

[81] In keeping with this position, the father failed to comply with the medication prescribed by Southlake and failed to follow up with the referral Southlake made for therapy and counselling.

[82] On the first day of trial, the father signed a consent as follows:

(a) The father agrees to be evaluated by a psychiatrist for as long as the psychiatrist deems necessary to address any concerns related to his mental health as raised by the diagnosis issued by the Southlake hospital.

(b) In the event a psychiatrist issues a diagnosis confirming the mental health disorder reported by the Southlake hospital the father agrees to follow any treatment plan prescribed by a professional psychiatrist specialized in the treatment of mental health disorders.

[83] The parenting time order must safeguard the child from the risk of harm created by the father’s mental health issues. The consent to be evaluated and to follow through with the treatment plan is a necessary first step.

[84] The father waited 1.5 years to agree to the above follow-up to the hospitalization at Southlake. He chose to deny the diagnoses as opposed to deal with them directly through professional assistance. Had he done so, the court would have a much more fulsome evidentiary basis on which to rely.

[85] As it stands the court can only made a parenting order based on the evidence before it. The court will make a final order for the father’s parenting time as follows:

a) Supervised visits for three hours once per week with a professional supervisor until the father has been evaluated by a psychiatrist, has been compliant with his or her recommendations and the psychiatrist gives a recommendation that the father can have unsupervised parenting with supervised exchanges. The cost of the supervised visits to be paid by the father.

b) Father to progress to unsupervised parenting in the community with supervised exchanges for up to four hours on Saturday or Sunday each week for three months. Child is to have a scheduled check in with the mother by video call during the visits.

c) If no concerns are noted after three months, father to progress to unsupervised parenting with supervised exchanges for up to four hours on Saturday or Sunday each week in his home or community for three months. Child is to have a scheduled check in with the mother by video call during the visits.

d) If no concerns are noted after three months, father to progress to unsupervised parenting with supervised exchanges for six hours on Saturday or Sunday each week in his home or community for three months. Child is to have a scheduled check in with the mother by video call during the visits.

e) If the parties agree, the father can proceed to overnight visits every other weekend picking the child up on 10:00 am on Saturdays and dropping her off on Sunday at 4 pm.

f) If the parties do not agree to the expansion of time to overnights at this juncture, either party has leave to seek a review of the parenting time order with the court. The court will consider the psychiatric evidence, the father’s compliance with any psychiatric medications and the evidence with respect to the visits to date.

g) The parties will use best efforts to schedule father’s time to include visits with the child to recognize Christmas and other special holidays.

Part Four – Child Support

4.1 The father’s position and evidence

[86] The father seeks an order that commencing September 1, 2020, he shall pay child support in the amount of $605.00 per month based on an income of $65,000.00 in accordance with the Guidelines. The father seeks an order that he pay s. 7 expenses proportionate to income with him paying 54% and the mother paying 46%.

[87] The father’s evidence is that he earned a degree in Italy in Economics and Law in 2011. He enrolled in the integrated MBA and CFA program at Concordia University in Toronto in the fall of 2015. He graduated from the MBA program on June 1, 2020. During the course of the degree he took a leave from September 2017 to June 2019 to work. He also testified that he was selected for an internship over the course of the program that was for the best MBA students. He was unable to complete the internship due to his leave from the program.

[88] The father stated that he has passed two of the three examinations that are required for the CFA designation to date. The father is continuing to work towards passing the final CFA examination. He is currently pursuing a Masters degree in Law in Italy.

[89] The father’s employment in Italy was as a police officer. He was active in this role from 1998 to 2012. The father arrived in Canada in April of 2012. He was on a leave from his employment as a police officer. His employment as a police officer formally ended in 2015. He has been in receipt of a modest monthly pension from the Italian police department from 2018 to date.

[90] From April 2012 to approximately 2014 the father worked for an Italian restaurant (P.P). He worked as a server and eventually performed some management functions. He also invested approximately $30,000 with the owner. He reported that the investment venture was not successful.

[91] In 2017, the father worked a second restaurant. (G.F.) It was part of a chain that also had a production facility. He earned $1700 every two weeks from the production facility and minimum wage from the restaurant.

[92] The father also worked as an accounting assistant for two to three months.

[93] In 2019, the father worked as a pizza chef for a third Italian restaurant (V.). He earned approximately $25.00 per hour worked.

[94] The father has been unemployed since May of 2022. He quit his chef job at that time in order to seek a job in finance. He has been unsuccessful in securing employment of any kind since that date.

[95] The father chose to travel to Italy with his new partner for a five-month trip commencing in September of 2022. When asked about this trip under cross-examination, his partner A.D. confirmed that she had joined him in Italy as she pursued her online degree and that they had enjoyed visiting her family in different parts of Italy. She confirmed that they did not reside with his family. They resided together for the first time as a couple.

[96] When asked about this lengthy trip under cross-examination, the father explained that it was undertaken in order to reconnect with his mother who was ill. He also sold his Italian apartment at the end of this long trip abroad.

[97] The father filed multiple sworn financial statements for the within proceeding; June 28, 2022, December 13, 2022 and April 20, 2023. He also filed a sworn financial statement dated August 17, 2022 for the Superior Court Application he commenced which was dismissed.

[98] These financial statements were all sworn within the course of a year and they are inconsistent. The father’s affidavit clearly identified an “Italian Bank Account” that existed in 2015. However, it appears that the father did not see fit to properly disclose his Italian assets. It is relevant to note that the father has the benefit of the financial literacy gained as part of his MBA education and had the benefit of counsel when he swore his first financial statement.

[99] Some examples of this obfuscation are as follows:

(a) His Italian police pension of $1168.57 per month is not disclosed on his June 28, 2022 statement. It was disclosed at $903.50 per month in the August 2022 statement.

(b) His Italian bank account (Fineco) is not disclosed on financial statements sworn prior to August 17, 2022.

(c) His Italian Unicredit bank account does not appear on his June 28, 2022 statement, appears on his August 17, 2022 statement and then does not appear on his April 20, 2022 statement.

(d) His corporation Origini Italiane is described as “never active” on his June 28, 2022 financial statement. However, in August 17, 2022 it is valued at $32,000.00 and on April 29, 2023 its “business shares” are valued at $12,000.00. No disclosure was provided to substantiate these fluctuating figures.

[100] Under cross-examination about these inconsistencies the father offered inadequate explanations and evasive answers. He suggested that further disclosure was available to support the financial statements which had not been disclosed to date. He did not provide such disclosure before or during the trial.

[101] He was also unable to explain how he was able to afford a five-month trip to Italy during his year of unemployment.

4.2 The mother’s position and evidence

[102] The mother seeks an order that commencing October 1, 2018, the father shall pay child support for the child based on an imputed income of $90,000.00 in the amount of $834.00 per month in accordance with the Guidelines. The father shall receive a credit for $16,826.75 for child support paid as of April 1, 2023. The parties shall share section 7 expenses for the child proportionate to their incomes with the mother paying 38% and the father paying 62%.

[103] The child has been primarily residing with the mother since the parties’ separation. The mother has been responsible for meeting the child’s financial needs.

[104] The mother has required significant support from her parents. She and the child moved in with her parents from 2018 to 2022.

[105] The mother’s evidence is that following the separation, she received child support inconsistently. She received the first payment in May 26, 2018 of $300.00. She asked that the father pay consistently which was not always the case.

[106] The mother states that the father has paid her $16,826.75 in child support in the approximately four years since their separation in October of 2018. This is approximately $4206.00 per year.

[107] The mother filed three financial statements. They reflect an income of $12,506.00 (2021), $55,046.88 (2022) and $51,600.00 (2023).

[108] The mother is currently employed as an assistant at a law firm earning $51,600.00 annually. She is proposing a proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses that sets her annual income at $56,000.00.

Part Five – The start date for child support

5.1 Positions of the parties

[109] The mother seeks an order that child support be ordered retroactive to the date of separation of October 1, 2018. She filed her application on December 16, 2021. The retroactive period sought is therefore almost three years.

[110] The father seeks an order that child support should be paid commencing September 1, 2020. He is seeking a retroactive period of 15 months.

5.2 Legal Considerations

[111] The court’s authority to make retroactive support orders is contained in clause 34 (1)(f) of the Family Law Act. This clause reads as follows:

34 (1) In an application under section 22, the court may make an interim or final order,

……..(f) requiring that support be paid in respect of any period before the date of the order.

[112] In Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, the court set out the framework that should be applied for applications to retroactively increase support in paragraph 114 as follows:

(a) The recipient must meet the threshold of establishing a past material change in circumstances. While the onus is on the recipient to show a material increase in income, any failure by the payor to disclose relevant financial information allows the court to impute income, strike pleadings, draw adverse inferences, and award costs. There is no need for the recipient to make multiple court applications for disclosure before a court has these powers.

(b) Once a material change in circumstances is established, a presumption arises in favour of retroactively increasing child support to the date the recipient gave the payor effective notice of the request for an increase, up to three years before formal notice of the application to vary. In the increase context, because of informational asymmetry, effective notice requires only that the recipient broached the subject of an increase with the payor.

(c) Where no effective notice is given by the recipient parent, child support should generally be increased back to the date of formal notice.

(d) The court retains the discretion to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity where the result would otherwise be unfair. The D.B.S. factors continue to guide this exercise of discretion, as described in Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 25. If the payor has failed to disclose a material increase in income, that failure qualifies as blameworthy conduct and the date of retroactivity will generally be the date of the increase in income.

(e) Once the court has determined that support should be retroactively increased to a particular date, the increase must be quantified. The proper amount of support for each year since the date of retroactivity must be calculated in accordance with the guidelines.

[113] This framework in Colucci addresses a request to retroactively increase the support contained in an order or an agreement. Courts have found that this framework should also be applied, with necessary modifications, for an original request for retroactive support. See: M.A. v. M.E., 2021 ONCJ 555; A.E. v. A.E., 2021 ONSC 8189.

[114] In an original application for retroactive support, there will be no need to meet the threshold requirement of establishing a material change in circumstances, as required in Colucci.

[115] The first step will be to determine the presumptive date of retroactivity as described in Colucci. The second step will be to determine if the court should depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity where the result would otherwise be unfair. The D.B.S. factors will guide the exercise of that discretion, as described in Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 25. The third step will be to quantify the proper amount of support for each year since the date of retroactivity, calculated in accordance with the guidelines.

[116] The Supreme Court of Canada in Colucci set out the factors the court must consider when deciding whether to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity as established by D.B.S. They are as follows:

Reason for the delay in bringing the claim;
Conduct of the payor parent;
Circumstances of the child; and,
Hardship that may be caused by a retroactive award.

5.3 Analysis

[117] In the circumstances of this case, there is evidence that the mother was seeking child support from the father from May of 2018 onwards. There is also evidence that she asked that it be consistent.

[118] This constitutes adequate evidence that she provided the father with effective notice that she was seeking appropriate child support in 2018. The presumptive date of retroactivity can reasonably be set at October 1, 2018.

[119] The next step is to determine whether or not the court should depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity as the result would otherwise be unfair given that the mother’s application was not commenced until December 2021. This is the date of formal notice.

[120] The mother did not provide any direct evidence to explain the reason for delay in bringing a claim. However, the father was not disclosing to the mother his income or property interests from the date of separation to the commencement of the application. Moreover, his significant assets were located abroad which made them even more difficult for the mother to discern.

[121] For example, the father had the financial means to travel to Italy from May 24, 2020 to July 27, 2020. It is not disputed that he owned an apartment in Italy during this period of time. Given that he resided primarily in Toronto, the apartment had the potential to generate rental income. His financial disclosure also lists Italian bank accounts.

[122] The conduct of the father is also pertinent to this analysis. The father failed to provide the financial disclosure that would have enabled the mother to determine whether or not the very modest level of child support he was providing on an inconsistent basis was appropriate.

[123] In this case, the mother and her child were forced to return to her parents’ apartment following the separation. They were subsisting on a very low income. Their circumstances were disadvantaged.

[124] The father successfully completed his MBA degree during this period of time. The earning power generated by this degree can mitigate any hardship that may be caused by a retroactive award.

[125] Accordingly, the presumptive date for the commencement of child support in the circumstances of this case are not unfair in the circumstances. The start date for child support will be set at October 1, 2018.

Part Six – Amount of child support

6.1 Positions of the parties

[126] The mother’s position is that the father has failed to provide adequate financial disclosure throughout this litigation. She is seeking an order that the father shall pay child support based on an imputed income of $90,000.00.

[127] The father’s position is that his income should be set at $65,000.00 per annum.

6.2 Legal considerations for Imputing Income

[128] Section 19 of the Guidelines reads as follows:

Imputing income. – (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a parent or spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include:

(a) The parent or spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the parent or spouse;

(b) the parent or spouse is exempt from paying federal or provincial income tax;

c) the parent or spouse lives in a country that has effective rates of income tax that are significantly lower than those in Canada;

(d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these guidelines;

e) the parent’s or spouse’s property is not reasonably utilized to generate income;

f) the parent or spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;

g) the parent or spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income;

h) the parent or spouse derives a significant portion of income from dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a lower rate than employment or business income or that are exempt from tax; and

i) the parent or spouse is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in receipt of income or benefits from the trust.

Reasonableness of expenses. – for the purpose of clause (1)(g), the reasonableness of an expense deduction is not solely governed by whether the deduction is permitted under the Income Tax Act (Canada).

[129] The jurisprudence for imputation of income sets out the following:

(a) Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to be intentionally under-employed. See: Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 ONCA 41868, [2002] O.J. No. 3731(Ont. C.A.).

(b) The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income:

(i) Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?

(ii) If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs?

(iii) If not, what income is appropriately imputed?

(c) The onus is on the party seeking to impute income to the other party to establish that the other party is intentionally unemployed or under-employed. The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made. See: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, [2009] O.J. No. 1552 (Ont. C.A.).

(d) Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position they are taking. See: Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663; Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719.

(e) As a general rule, separated parents have an obligation to financially support their children and they cannot avoid that obligation by a self-induced reduction of income. See: Thompson v. Gilchrist, 2012 ONSC 4137; DePace v. Michienzi, 2000 ON SC 22560, [2000] O.J. No. 453, (Ont. Fam. Ct.).

(f) Where a party fails to provide full financial disclosure relating to their income, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and to impute income to them. See: Szitas v. Szitas, 2012 ONSC 1548; Woofenden v. Woofenden, 2018 ONSC 4583.

(g) The court must have regard to the payor’s capacity to earn income in light of such factors as employment history, age, education, skills, health, available employment opportunities and the standard of living enjoyed during the parties’ relationship. The court looks at the amount of income the party could earn if he or she worked to capacity. See: Lawson v. Lawson, 2006 ONCA 26573.

6.3 Analysis

[130] I make the following findings of fact that are relevant to the determination of father’s income in this case:

(a) The father is a highly educated man. He has earned undergraduate degrees in Economics and Law from Italy. He pursued and obtained an MBA from Concordia University from 2015 to 2020. During that period of time he took a leave and worked full time from September 2017 to June 2019.

(b) In 2017 the father worked for a restaurant chain. This was a restaurant chain with a production facility. He earned $1700.00 every two weeks from the production facility and minimum wage from the restaurant.

(d) From June 2019 to June 2020 he completed his MBA. He continued to work as a pizza chef until he quit in May of 2022 to pursue a finance job.

(e) The father has been unemployed since he chose to leave his restaurant job in May 2022 to date. He has yet to pass the final CFA examination.

[131] In his testimony before the court, the father was very focused on the fact that he had only completed two of the three examinations towards his CFA designation. He testified that his lack of a CFA designation would render him ineligible for jobs that required this qualification.

[132] The father graduated from a Canadian MBA program in May of 2020. I find that even without the concurrent CFA designation this is an advanced degree that qualifies an individual for remunerative employment. In fact, the father disclosed documents reflecting his multiple applications for investment and accounting analyst positions in April of 2023.

[133] I find as a fact that the father successfully completed this degree and then made three intentional choices following his graduation which negatively affected his income.

[134] First, he continued to work as a pizza chef following his graduation as opposed to seeking a position that would develop appropriate work experience. He explained this decision as permitting him to study towards his CFA examination. Three years later he has yet to pass this exam.

[135] Secondly, in 2022, he chose to leave the pizza chef position before securing another position. Thus started his period of total unemployment that has persisted to date.

[136] Thirdly, and perhaps most glaring is his decision, while unemployed, to visit Italy with his new partner from September 2022 to February 2023. He explained this decision by indicating that he needed to visit his mother who had been ill. He did not explain why a five-month trip was required for this purpose, how he could afford this trip and why he didn’t use the time to prepare for his CFA exam. It defies all logic to have chosen to take this extended trip abroad in light of his unemployment and alleged deficit in Canadian work experience.

[137] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income:

(i) Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?

(ii) If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs?

(iii) If not, what income is appropriately imputed?

October 1, 2018 – June 2019

[138] During this period the father was employed full time. He was on leave from his MBA program to permit him to earn income.

[139] The father’s police pension paid him $14,022.84 per year. He was able to earn $25.00 per hour at his restaurant work for a total of $52,000.00 per year. Child support is set at $615.00 per month based on a total income of $66,022.00 per year for this time period. No additional income needs to be imputed. He was working to his capacity.

June 2019 – May of 2020

[140] During this period of time the father was enrolled again at his MBA program on a full-time basis. Full time income will not imputed for this period as his level of employment was limited by his reasonable educational needs. He completed the program at the end of May 2020.

[141] The father’s police pension paid him $14,022.84 per year. The father could reasonably be expected to work for 20 hours a week at $25.00 per hour. Child support is set at $359.00 per month based on a total imputed income of $40,022.00 for this time period.

May 2020 – May 2022

[142] During the period following the father’s graduation from his MBA program he chose to not seek employment in his field, rather to keep his employment as pizza chef and to take the time to study for his third CFA examination. This under-employment is found to be reasonable for one of these two years, by virtue of his reasonable educational needs as the restaurant work schedule allowed him to focus on an educational/professional qualification.

[143] From May 2020 to May 2021, the father’s police pension paid him $14,022.84 per year. He was able to earn $25.00 per hour at his restaurant work for a total of $52,000.00 per year. It is reasonable that he kept this employment for one year to work towards his CFA designation. Child support is set at $615.00 per month based on a total income of $66,022.00 per year for this time period.

[144] However, when he failed the examination after a year of study in May of 2021, it was no longer reasonable for him to continue to be under-employed and to not earn according to his post-MBA capacity. It was reasonable for him to have sought appropriate full-time employment as an MBA graduate as of May 2021.

[145] From May 2021 to May 22, the father’s police pension pays him $14,022.84 per year. Investment analyst positions which do not require the CFA on average pay $37.00 per hour in the median range. These are the positions father testified that he was applying for in April of 2023. Accordingly, the father’s imputed income for the period from May 2021 to May 2022 is a total income of $90,000.00. Child support is set at $834.00 per month.

May 2022 – May 2023

[146] The father has been intentionally unemployed without reasonable excuse since May of 2022. He quit his job at the restaurant without a new job lined up. He failed to secure any gainful employment in the summer of 2022 and decided to abandon his job search and visit Italy with his new partner from September 2022 until February 2023. This intentional unemployment was not required by his educational needs, the needs of the child or his reasonable health needs.

[147] The father’s police pension pays him $14,022.84 per year. The investment analyst positions pay $37.00 per hour in the median range. Accordingly, the father’s imputed income for the period from May 2021 to May 2022 is a total income of $90,000.00. Child support is set at $834.00 per month for this period on an ongoing basis.

[148] The child support based on the Guidelines for the months for which it is payable is as follows:

	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023
January		$615.00	$359.00	$615.00	$834.00	$834.00
February		$615.00	$359.00	$615.00	$834.00	$834.00
March		$615.00	$359.00	$615.00	$834.00	$834.00
April		$615.00	$359.00	$615.00	$834.00	$834.00
May		$615.00	$359.00	$615.00	$834.00	$834.00
June			$359.00	$615.00	$834.00	$834.00
July			$359.00	$615.00	$834.00	$834.00
August			$359.00	$615.00	$834.00	$834.00
September			$359.00	$615.00	$834.00	$834.00
October	$615.00	$359.00	$615.00	$834.00	$834.00	$834.00
November	$615.00	$359.00	$615.00	$834.00	$834.00	$834.00
December	$615.00	$359.00	$615.00	$834.00	$834.00	$834.00

Part Seven – Conclusion

[149] A final order to go according to the Consents filed by the parties at the outset of trial as follows:

(a) Neither party shall speak negatively or make derogatory comments about the other parent to the child or in the child’s presence.

(b) The father shall ensure that he has an appropriate car seat for the child and shall not drive or put the child in a vehicle without an appropriate car seat.

(c) The parties shall allow the child to video call the other party at the child’s request. The parties shall not communicate with each other during the video call with the child unless there is an emergency.

(d) The father shall not attend at the child’s school without the mother’s written consent.

(e) Neither party shall speak negatively or make derogatory comments about the other parent to the child G.T. or in the child’s presence. Both parties agree to remove the child from any negative environment if others engage in such discussions, whether these people speak in English or in any other language.

(f) The father shall not remove the child, G.T. from the Toronto Area without the mother’s written consent.

(g) The father agrees to the name change of the child, G.T. to a hyphenated last name of G.T.-V. V. is the mother’s last name. The father agrees to send the mother all documents including the Change of Name Certificate and a copy of the new Birth Certificate, indicating the change in the child’s name.

(h) The parties shall communicate in writing via a parenting communication app such as App Close or Our Family Wizard.

(i) Both parties shall keep the other parent updated about their address, telephone number and email address.

(j) The father agrees to be evaluated by a psychiatrist for as long as the psychiatrist deems necessary to address any concerns related to his mental health as raised by the diagnosis issued by the Southlake Hospital.

(k) In the event a psychiatrist issues a diagnosis confirming the mental health disorder reported by the Southlake Hospital, the father agrees to follow any treatment plan prescribed by a professional psychiatrist specialized in treatment of mental health disorders.

(l) The father shall provide at least 24 hours notice if he is unable to exercise parenting time or if he is not able to pick up the child, unless extraordinary circumstances occur which impede the father to provide notice within 24 hours from the parenting time visit.

(m) Any parenting time lost because of the mother’s or father’s cancellation for reasons of the child’s health, the father’s health, child extra-curricular activities, child’s school events, or any other extraordinary circumstances, will be made up within a 30 day period from the cancellation of parenting time.

[150] A final order for parenting time shall go as follows:

a) Supervised visits for three hours once per week with a professional supervisor until the father has been evaluated by a psychiatrist, has been compliant with their recommendations and the psychiatrist gives a recommendation that the father can have unsupervised parenting with supervised exchanges. The cost of the supervised visits to be paid by the father.

c) If no concerns are noted, father to progress to unsupervised parenting with supervised exchanges for up to four hours on Saturday or Sunday each week in his home or community for three months. Child is to have a scheduled check in with the mother by video call during the visits.

d) If no concerns are noted, father to progress to unsupervised parenting with supervised exchanges for six hours on Saturday or Sunday each week in his home or community for three months. Child is to have a scheduled check in with the mother by video call during the visits.

e) If the parties agree, the father can proceed to overnight visits every other weekend picking the child up on 10:00 am on Saturdays and dropping her off on Sunday at 4 pm.

g) The parties will try to schedule father’s time to include visits with the child to recognize Christmas and other special holidays.

[151] A final order shall go as follows:

a) Pursuant to section 28 of the CLRA, the father shall not have contact or communicate directly or indirectly with the mother without the mother’s express written consent or a Court order, except to facilitate the parenting time as set out above. Any breach of this order by the father will automatically constitute a material change in circumstances, and the mother has leave to bring this matter to court and request a restraining order.

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

a) Based on an annual imputed income of $90,000.00 the father shall pay child support to the mother of $834.00 per month commencing July 1, 2023. This is the guidelines table amount for one child.

b) The parties shall share section 7 expenses for the child proportionate to their income with the father paying 62% and the mother paying 38% based on the mother’s income of $56,000.00 and the father’s imputed income of $90,000.00.

c) The father shall pay $556.93 towards s.7 expenses incurred to date.

d) The father’s child support arrears are fixed at $37,458.00 to date, as calculated in this decision.

e) The parties agree that the father has paid an amount to date towards child support through the Family Responsibility Office. He will be given credit for these payments.

f) The father may pay the arrears at $250.00 each month, starting July 1, 2023. However, if he is more than 30 days late in making any ongoing or arrears payment, the full amount of arrears then owing shall immediately become due and payable.

g) Nothing in this order precludes the Family Responsibility Office from enforcing arrears from any government source such as income tax or GST/HST refunds, or from any lottery or prize winnings.

h) Support Deduction Order to issue.

i) The father shall provide the mother with complete copies of his income tax returns, including all attachments and schedules, as well as the complete corporate returns of any business he operates, and his Notices of Assessment by June 30th each year, starting in 2023.

j) The balance of the claims of the parties are dismissed.

[153] If either party seeks costs of this trial they shall serve and file written submissions by June 23, 2023. The other party will then have until June 30, 2023 to serve and file their written response (not to make their own costs submissions). The submissions shall not exceed 3 pages, not including any offer to settle or bill of costs. The costs submissions should be delivered to the trial coordinator’s office.

Released: June 5, 2023 Signed: Justice D. Szandtner

E.V. v. M.T., 2023 ONCJ 340

Case Summary