V.R. v. E.R., 2023 ONCJ 486

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: V.R. v. E.R., 2023 ONCJ 486

DATE: October 31, 2023

COURT FILE No.: Brampton 771-21

BETWEEN:

V.R.

Applicant

— AND —

E.R.

Respondent

Before Justice A.W.J. Sullivan

Heard on August 23-25, 2023

Reasons for Judgment released on October 31, 2023

Mr. R. Toor.................................................................................. counsel for the applicant(s)

Mr. E.R. …………………………………………………………………… On his own behalf

SULLIVAN, J

[1] This is a decision from a 3-day trial held on August 23, 2023, to August 25, 2023.

[2] The applicant is Ms. V.R. age 45 and works in dental administration earning $66,703 in 2022.

[3] The respondent Mr. E.R. age 45 works for a manufacturing company in the Peel region earning $75,883.00 in 2022.

[4] The parties are parents to 3 children:

a) S.R. age 17 born September 2006.

b) M.R. age 15 born December 2007.

c) S.R. age 7 born December 2015.

[5] These parties married in September 2005. The date of separation is a contentious issue in this trial. Ms. V.R. sets the date of July 15, 2019, when she and the children moved from the matrimonial home to live with her parents.

[6] Mr. E.R. claims this is news to him and argues that it is when he was served with court documents in November 2021.

[7] The significance of this date is that Ms. V.R. seeks child support from the date of separation based on Mr. E.R. earnings.

[8] There is agreement that Mr. E.R. has paid money over the years since 2019 to Ms. V.R. Mr. E.R. felt he was doing that within a united family although they lived in different places, he claims they regularly did things together as a family.

[9] Since February 17, 2022, based on a temporary order Mr. E.R. was making weekly child support payments of $314.29 e-transfers based on a salary of $62,962.00 This increased on August 13, 2022, to $1,583.00 per month based on income of $80,000.00 per an order of J. Clay payable via FRO.

[10] The issues at trial are:

a) Decision making and residence for the children.

b) Parenting time.

c) Collateral orders re international travel and children’s documents.

d) Child support retroactive depending on the resolution of the date of separation and ongoing based on actually income.

e) Section 7 costs.

[11] Ms. V.R. discontinued her claim for spousal support before the trial commenced.

[12] There has been some parenting time between the youngest child and her father based on a Temp without prejudice order or August 13, 2022. There is a dispute re the quality of this parenting time and the older children’s connection with their father.

Applicant’s principal evidence relevant to the issues to be decided:

[13] Ms. V.R. testified about her historical role in caring for the children’s main needs despite her work history outside the house while the children grew.

[14] She stated that she was the parent that arranged the children’s schools, attended events for them, parent-teacher nights and their extracurricular activities and medical appointments all while juggling a full-time job over the years.

[15] She testified in detail regarding her work history and income Exhibits 1 through 7 for the years 2018 to 2022.

[16] She stated that Mr. E.R. did stay home from 2012 to 2018 and help assist with the children in the morning's bringing them to school and picking them up but that he was not an involved father regarding their activities, health, or education.

[17] Ms. V.R. stated that leading up to their separation in July 2019 Mr. E.R. had an affair and was routinely sleeping out of the home on weekends at family or friends.

[18] Ms. V.R. also underlined her concern for her husband’s drinking during the marriage and currently. This she states led to arguments during family gatherings and has placed her youngest daughter in situations which are not the best for her during visits.

[19] Since separation, which she states is July 2019 the children have lived with her at her parent’s home in Brampton. I heard that it was in July 2019 that the parties sold the matrimonial home and began living in two different spots, each with their parents. Mr. E.R. testified that from his point of view they were not separated as a couple. In any case it was agreed that the children’s residence since 2019 has been with their mother.

[20] I heard the older 2 children attend high school in Mississauga, this despite living out of their school catchment area and the youngest goes to grade school in Brampton. I heard that this arrangement was agreed to by all but has caused some conflict between the children and their father.

[21] Ms. E.R. testified that she has been the parent since 2019 to look after all the children’s needs driving them to school, and events and meetings with school officials as required and doctors and dentists.

[22] She stated that overall, the children are healthy and doing well at school. Her son M, however, has had some challenges with math and took a summer program to gain a math credit he required. All 3 children attend or did attend Mathnasiam a tutoring program.

[23] I heard the eldest daughter actually now works part-time with this tutoring service and their son busses at the Keg.

[24] Ms. V.S. testified that given the children’s ages they recently have played a role in deciding their community activities and she gets them to and from these events with no interest from Mr. E.R.

[25] During the marriage she stated the children were involved in Swimming, gymnastics, dance, soccer and basketball.

[26] Presently her son is enjoying boxing and her youngest is enrolled in.

[27] She explained that she has a healthy and close connection/ relationship with all 3 of her children. She explained that they spend time together and she talks with them as an emotional support to them. She approaches mistakes they have made with a degree of support rather than blame.

[28] She and the children do family functions with her extended family and have gone on weekend trips with her extended family.

[29] Before separation all 3 children were close to their father’s extended family. This has cooled off with the 2 older children now disconnected with their father although they do attend events around Christmas and have a connection to a cousin who is a bit older than they are.

[30] I heard conflicting reasons as to why the oldest children are not visiting with their father. Ms. V.R. suggested that she has encouraged them to do so.

[31] Ms. V.R. explained that often she has driven the children to visit their father and does so now with the youngest who visits every other weekend. Mr. E.R. does not drive. I heard from him when he testified how he on occasion has paid for an uber-to pick up his youngest how the elder children don’t attend and on occasion neither does his youngest.

[32] Ms. V.R. testified that Mr. E.R. was often anger with her during the marriage and now Mr. E.R. is directing his anger toward the children.

[33] Apparently, Mr. E.R. has threatened the eldest children via text messages that he’ll pull them out of tier schools in Mississauga and that he was going to call the mother of his eldest daughter's best friend about some issues he had with her.

[34] Ms. V.R. stated that the majority of Mr. E.R. text messages with the children are about her and asking questions about what she is doing or arguing with them. He has stated to the children in these messages that she “... has betrayed his trust…” She provided examples of such messages entered as exhibit 9 to this trial.

[35] She stated that recently this type of text stared with their youngest and she called him out on this.

[36] Ms. V.R. testified that it is how Mr. E.R. has attempted to control and direct the 2 older children rather than show concern or interest in what they are doing that has driven a wedge between them and him.

[37] Ms. E.R. testified that Mr. E.R. is not receptive to her attempt to talk with him about the children. She stated that he often turns words around and is insulting to her in his messages.

[38] Ms. V.R. stated that Mr. E.R. in texts has stated to the children that he is ill, that he has no reason to live. When he is angry with them all, he will block them leaving her to process this behaviour with the children.

[39] Ms. V.R. stated that Mr. E.R. has argued with the older children telling their son that he is going to end up in jail as he did when he was young, or their eldest daughter will end up pregnant. The latter statement was his response to their daughter when it was discovered that she had posted suggestive photos of herself in revealing clothes on Tic Tok. Ms. V.R. stated that she had done that based on social pressure that teens experience today. Both have talked about this, and this has ceased, and it was a one off.

[40] In comparison, Ms. V.R. noted that Mr. E.R. has an old-school heavy-handed approach to the children when they have had the odd difficulties. He has often threatened them with negative messages when the older two don’t wish to visit with him or attend family functions. This is based on his threats to them when they asked to change their schedule with him that he suggested was Ms. E.R. doing rather than a natural development given the older ages of two of them.

[41] Despite this Ms. V.R. stated that she insists that the children connect/call their father on his birthday / Father’s Day and the like. They have attended family functions for Christmas dinner and have a connection with a few of their cousins.

[42] Ms. V.R. testified to an event in which their son M was jumped by someone after school while on the way to a mall that he goes to with other kids before returning home. Mr. E.R. has focused on this suggesting M is going down the wrong road and can be aggressive. Ms. V.R. has a different take on her son and the other children than Mr. E.R. She stated they are great kids and need to be approached each differently given their different interests and ages.

[43] Ms. V.R. testified that the father and his family always drink and argue at family gatherings. On one occasion their son M step in the middle being protective of his paternal grandfather with whom he is particularly close.

[44] She stated this is not new for her as Mr. E.R. has often been absent as a father, not present for them and a poor communicator – often the message revolves around him and his needs and not others. She is the one standing for the children and their emotional needs in addition to their physical needs.

[45] She stated that Mr. E.R. can be vindictive to the family and gave examples of this as he has removed her from his benefits accusing her of insurance fraud and refused to pay for a knee brace that she required in April 2022. Ms. V.R. testified that Mr. E.R. removed her from his insurance and that the brace was pre-authorized by her family doctor. Given the cancelled insurance after it was ordered it cost $1050.00 which most if not all would have been covered by Mr. E.R.’s company insurance. Exhibit 10 was entered as the invoice for this item.

[46] Ms. V.R. also provided the court with e-mails between the parties as exhibit 11. Several were Ms. V.R. requests to Mr. E.R. for assistance from him to cover items needed by the children. She recalled one item was the rental fee for a saxophone which he refused. Ms. V.R. testified that often Mr. E.R. not only refused but proceeded to insult her or stated he had no money as he was assisting his parents with their mortgage and was often off topic with his responses to her specific request for assistance for the children.

Bristol Bar and Parenting time.

[47] Ms. V.R. testified that Mr. E.R. drinks daily and this past June 23 she had to go to a local bar / pub near his home to retrieve her youngest daughter. Ms. V.R. testified that Mr. E.R. had picked up his daughter from her place one Friday and went to the Bristol pub with her. She then later that night received a text from her daughter stating that she had been at the pub some 3.5 hours and was tired. When she asked her dad to leave, he keeps telling her later and that he is talking to a lady there. Ms. V.R. testified that she waited until 930 p.m. to see if Mr. E.R. had yet left and when she learned from her daughter that she was still at the pub she went to the pub along with their son. When she arrived, she approached Mr. E.R. who was drinking a Heineken beer and she asked to speak to Mr. E.R. outside. She recalls telling him that their daughter had been at the pub with him going on 4 hours and if he does not leave, she is taking her home. She testified that she eventually drove them both to Mr. E.R. father’s home where he resides. Ms. V.R. testified that later that night her daughter texted her that she was hungry and that her father was asleep and that if she asked for something from her grandmother, she would redirect her to wake up her father. Apparently, the grandfather had left when her daughter arrived indicating he was stepping out to buy some food.

Respondent’s principal evidence relevant to the issues to be decided:

[48] Mr. E.R. testified that he has known the Applicant for some 30 years.

[49] He noted that he feels that from the start of this litigation he has been wrongly accused of things.

[50] For the past 4 years he has been living with his parents which has been a stress for them. He noted he has been feeling stress and his friends have shown concern for him.

[51] He testified that he has always had a great relationship with his children and remembers going to the park, movies, to his son’s T- ball the kids swimming, dance, and gymnastic programs.

[52] He testified he was an involved father. He testified that between 2012 and 2018 for the most part he stayed home caring for the children and that he was the parent who prepared the children in the morning for school and brought them to and from school as Ms. V.R. worked outside the home advancing her career at this time, he was unemployed and taking a millwright apprenticeship program. He noted that although he completed the Millwright program, he never wrote the exam to obtain his credentials as a millwright.

[53] Mr. E.R. recalled how he met his son’s teacher from grade 1 and how his son had some troubles at school staying awake and got into fights in grade 6. He noted how his older daughter was great in math and from an early age read to the others.

[54] When questioned about his recent interaction with the children’s school he testified he agreed that when they were in grade school, he went to parent teacher nights and recalled conversations with a VP at the grade school, but this VP has not been there for years. He stated that he recently spoke to his son’s school regarding some absences and progress reports. He has asked his older children for their progress reports.

[55] He testified that he spent time when the children were younger bring them to community events and to local parks.

[56] He believes Ms. E.R. has reneged on their agreement when they sold their home in 2019 and moved to separate places. He testified that the plan was that the kids would attend school in Mississauga and Brampton and after school go to his parents' home before returning to their mother’s home. This he stated has not happened and is a cause friction between him and the older children.

[57] He recalled during the marriage how he and Ms. V.R. would argue over money as Ms. V.R. insisted on the children attending daycare although he and others in his family could care for them. This he suggested it was a waste of money.

[58] When questioned he testified that Ms. V.R. ran up their household debts due to gambling. He agreed that he would on occasion go to the casino as entertainment and would bring his mother at times. He denied that he had difficulties with gambling.

[59] He admitted that directly after the home was sold his interaction with the children was not as frequent and part of this, he felt that they did not attend his parent’s home as agreed to as noted above. When questioned he testified that Ms. V.R. made a unilateral decision to change his son’s high school without consulting him.

[60] Mr. E.R. felt his son is getting into difficulties the same way he did as a youth and that his son can get into arguments and fights as he did as a teenager and that he is concerned for his son’s future.

[61] Mr. E.R. testified that because of their family debts they had no choice but to sell their family home in 2019 and move to their respective parents’ homes. However, he testified from his perspective they remained as a couple and a family. He stated they had vacationed together on 3 occasions, and he provided money to Ms. V.R. each month and they have had sex on a few occasions. He stated they vacationed twice as a family going to Niagara Falls and once to Ottawa.

[62] He also stated that he had placed all the family belongings in storage as he believed this was important to all to maintain memories and that they remained a couple.

[63] When explaining his income, he testified that he is employed for a manufacturing company in Mississauga, Ontario from 2020 through today. Here he has gained steady employment which he did not experience during the marriage.

[64] He is a T4 employee with dental and medical benefits. In 2019 he earned $29,090.00, in 2020 $73,371.00, in 2021 $104,984.00 and 2022 he earned $75,883.00.

[65] Mr. E.R. did emphasize that there was considerable overtime in 2021 during the pandemic and that is why he made the money that he did in that year which is above his average income. He stated this as he suggested he felt his normal income should be used to set his child support payments rather than the increased amount for that year.

[66] He explained how currently he is in litigation with his employer over a dispute that relates to his union position and that his union UNIFOR is backing him in this arbitration.

[67] This situation and this litigation have caused him great stress and that he is receiving counselling for this through his work benefits. He finds this helpful to him and it has helped him be more flexible with changing situations “Needs to be more adaptive to the changing world.”

[68] He agreed when questioned that he can be overbearing at times but was never physical with any member of the family which through the trial was agreed to by both parties.

[69] When questioned he admitted that he can be old school when it comes to his approach to the children. He recalled how he disagreed with his older daughter leaving a family function to go have a sleep over at a girlfriend's condo and that he did not know this friend’s father. He stated that Ms. V.R. gave permission to his daughter to leave early from the family gathering and this he disagreed with. He stated he does not let them do as they please and felt Ms. V.R. should be more concerned about such things.

[70] He confirmed when questioning that he recently sent a long text message to the children apologizing to them about his parenting style, and entered the text into evidence Exhibit 24.

[71] He agreed when questioning that he owes the section 7 costs provided as Exhibit 13 by Ms. V.R. Braces for his son, his 50% of $1,5975.50 owing after each of their benefits paid a portion and children's activities such as boxing for his son, swimming classes, youngest daughter’s summer camp and dance program. The 50% owed by Mr. E.R. for these activities dating back to 2019 is $4,521.92.

[72] He agreed that Ms. V.R. was a good mother but that she can be hash with her words when communicating with him and when she drinks.

[73] He did not agree that he has a drinking problem or that argument ensued at family gatherings caused by drinking.

[74] He conceded that at times there are arguments like many families but not to the degree claimed by Ms. V.R.

[75] Regarding the Bristol bar Mr. E.R. testified that he felt Ms. V.R. was spying on him for this litigation when she showed up as described above. He presented a photo of his younger daughter enjoying her favourite dessert at this pub, chocolate mousse, Exhibit 22. He agrees he goes there but described this a restaurant / bar that serve full meals. He noted he has been going there as well as his family for years as it’s down the street from his parent’s home. His son M has attended with him at the Bristol for Super bowel games.

[76] He testified that he has been going there for years and never has he been asked to leave for bad behaviour. He did admit to having a DUI conviction from 2014 and an earlier one from 2000, and now does not drive and uses Uber to pick up his youngest daughter for his parenting time.

[77] He felt it was insulting to hear that at his parents' home there is a little food. He explained and showed photos of family” feasts”, holiday dinners with formal table settings, exhibit 21. Some of the photos depicted all the children present and a photo had his son with his grandfather and a cousin at the Bristol Pub during a recent Super Bowel game exhibit 23. Which he said was a family tradition and they are not there to drink but agreed that they would have a few beers.

[78] Mr. E.R. explained the activities that he does when he has parenting time with his youngest daughter which includes assisting with some school work and generally entertaining activities both at his home and in the community.

Legal considerations for parenting orders:

Statutory considerations:

[79] Subsection 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act (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.

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

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

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

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

c) Each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent.

d) The history of care of the child.

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

f) The child’s cultural, linguistic, religious, and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage.

g) Any plans for the child’s care.

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

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

j) Any family violence and its impact on, among other things.

k) The ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

l) The appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child, and

m) Any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security, and well-being of the child.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

h) Any other relevant factor.

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

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

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

a) Physical abuse, including forced confinement but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or another person.

b) Sexual abuse.

c) Threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person.

d) Harassment, including stalking.

e) The failure to provide the necessaries of life.

f) Psychological abuse.

g) Financial abuse.

h) Threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property; and 6 (i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property.

i) The killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property.

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

[84] Section 28 of the Act sets out the types of parenting orders the court can make. Subsection 33.1(2) of the Act addresses the importance of the parties’ protecting children from conflict. It reads as follows: 33.1 Protection of children from conflict (2) A party to a proceeding under this Part shall, to the best of the party’s ability, protect any child from conflict arising from the proceeding.

Best interests

[85] The list of best interests’ considerations in the Act is not exhaustive. See: White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736. It is also not a checklist to be tabulated with the highest score winning. Rather, it calls for the court to take a holistic look at the child, his or her needs and the persons around the child. See: Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.

[86] An assessment of the best interests of the child must take into account all of the relevant circumstances with respect to the needs of the child and the ability of each parent to meet those needs. See: Mokhov v. Ratayeva, 2021 ONSC 5454 (SCJ).

[87] The court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents. See: Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC). Adult preferences or “rights” do not form part of the analysis except insofar as they are relevant to the determination of the best interests of the child. See: Young v. Young 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC); E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264; Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510.

[88] A party’s failure to protect a child from conflict may be an important consideration in granting primary residence or decision-making responsibility to the other parent. See: Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510.

Joint decision-making responsibility

[89] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 275 sets out the following principles in determining whether a joint decision-making responsibility order (formerly a joint custody order) is appropriate:

1. There must be evidence of historical communication between the parents and appropriate communication between them.

2. It cannot be ordered in the hope that it will improve their communication.

3. Just because both parents are fit does not mean that joint custody should be ordered.

4. The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate does not preclude an order for joint custody.

5. No matter how detailed the custody order there will always be gaps and unexpected situations, and when they arise, they must be able to be addressed on an ongoing basis.

6. The younger the child, the more important communication is.

[90] Mutual trust and respect are basic elements for a joint decision-making responsibility order to work effectively. See: G.T.C. v. S.M.G., 2020 ONCJ 511; T.P. v. A.E., 2021 ONSC 6022; Shokoufimogiman v. Bozorgi, 2022 ONSC 5057; Jacobs and Coulombe v. Blair and Amyotte, 2022 ONSC 3159.

[91] Financially supporting one’s children in a responsible manner is an important part of being a parent. The failure to do so is a factor militating against a joint decision-making responsibility order as it demonstrates poor judgment and an inability to prioritize the child’s interests. See: Jama v. Mohamed, [2015] ONCJ 619; T.P. v. A.E., 2021 ONSC 6022; McBennett v Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610; J.T.v.E.J.,2022 ONSC 4956; Shokoufimogiman v. Bozorgi, 2022 ONSC 5057.

[92] Courts will order joint custody rather than sole custody where such an order is considered necessary to preserve the balance of power between the parties, particularly in cases where both parties are caring and competent parents, but one party has been primarily responsible for the conflict between the parties. See: Roloson v. Clyde, 2017 ONSC 3642, par. 59 for a review of these cases.

[93] Ultimately, the court must determine if a joint decision-making responsibility order, or a 2023 ONCJ 102 9 orders allocating any decision-making responsibility between the parties, is in the children’s best interests. The court also has the option, if it is in the children’s best interests, to leave some or all aspects of decision-making responsibility silent. See: M. v. F., 2015 ONCA 277

Parenting Time

[94] A starting point to assess a child’s best interests when making a parenting order is to ensure that the child will be physically and emotionally safe. It is also in a child's best interests when making a parenting time order that his or her caregiver be physically and emotionally safe. See: I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615; J.N. v. A.S., 2020 ONSC 5292; A.L.M. v. V.L.S., 2020 ONCJ 502; M.R.-J. v. K.J., 2020 ONCJ 305; Abbas v. Downey, 2020 ONCJ 283; N.D. v. R.K., 2020 ONCJ 266.

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

[96] The party who seeks to reduce normal access will usually be required to provide a justification for taking such a position. The greater the restriction sought, the more important it becomes to justify that restriction. See: M.A. v. J.D. 2003 CanLII 52807 (ON CJ), [2003] O.J. No. 2946 (OCJ); Dayboll v. Biyag, 2022 ONSC 6510.

From the above law and facts as provided in this trial I find the following:

[97] At this stage although all 3 children need continued love and affection and support from both parents their needs as reflected in a parenting order are different given their different ages and stages of development.

[98] There is a need to have more structure in a form of a parenting order for the youngest daughter S.S. than the older 2 children.

[99] The older 2 children and their father have to find a way to heal or bridge their divide. Mr. E.R. did admit to being old school in how he has handled differences with them and insisting they follow his direction fearing they might make mistakes that he made when a youth.

[100] At this point they associate with him and his extended family around special holidays and celebrations. I heard that his son had a special relationship with Mr. E.R.’s dad and that this seems to be present still. Mr. E.R. needs to approach his relationship with his children differently in general than he has in the past and specifically towards each.

[101] It is normal for the older two to drift away from wanting to have one on one time with their parents at this stage of their lives. His younger daughter has been somewhat influenced by the older two and by some events she has witnessed during this separation.

[102] I do not find any evidence as stated by Mr. E.R. that Ms. V.R. has attempted to turn the children away from him or his family members, although my concern is the relationship between the children and each parent and not any extended family member.

[103] In questioning Mr. E.R. agreed that overall, the decision taken by Ms. V.R. regarding the children’s health and education have been beneficial to them. The issue appears to be that he has not been included or late to the table regarding the needs of the children which taken as a whole have not been that significant.

[104] Mr. E.R. did state that he had concerns about Ms. V.R. request to travel with the children without the need of his permission. When asked why he noted that in the pleadings that started this litigation it suggested he should not be permitted to travel with the children. In the main evidence of Ms. V.R. during this trial this was not raised as an issue.

[105] The evidence indicates that overall, the children are healthy and doing well in school and in the community. His son M did have an incident after school in which he was a victim of violence from others. Mr. E.R. has expressed his concern that his son’s interest in boxing as an activity might not be the best activity as his son can be at times a handful, although Mr. E.R. did admit he is projecting on his son how he as a youth did hang with the wrong crowd and had some minor difficulties getting into fights and that he is fearful for his son.

[106] Mr. E.R. admitted to benefiting from a counselling that he has been seeing mainly because of employment stress that he has experienced as a shop steward involved in disputes at his work place.

[107] Overall, the evidence supports an order that the children’s primary residence remain as is with Ms. V.R. as this plan is consistent with what the children have experienced and agreed to by the parties when they separated in 2019. See sections of the CLRA.

[108] Any day-to-day decision will remain with Ms. V.R. as the evidence is that she has mainly been making the key practical decisions since 2019. I find that before this date Mr. E.R. also did some major caring of the children but not since separation in 2019. His knowledge of the current teacher and school activities was thin at best, nor did he involve himself in any medical issues or doctor’s appointments and arranging and paying for the children’s extracurricular activities. See section of the CLRA.

[109] The evidence of mis-communication and strained communication does not support joint decision-making as set out in the law above. There should be an independent ability of each parent to communicate with the children’s school and medical service providers. I urge the parents when doing so to consider the age of the older children and include them in this process as best possible. In addition, not many decisions need to be made for the children especially the older two who are completing High school and will move to post-secondary programs with the support of each parent. This will come soon, and the parents should begin to plan for this expense and general discussion.

[110] The older children and their father will need to find a way to heal their relationship. His recent apology to them is a good start. What needs to happen now is for Mr. ER not to insist they visit with him but that they are invited to family events and a dinner from time to time to catch up with him about their school, interests, and whatnot.

[111] The situation for the youngest child S.S. is somewhat different.

[112] In closing submission, it was argued on behalf of the mother that the parenting time order regarding the youngest child to be 8 in December 2023 should be approached with caution. This because of the Mr. E.R. drinking and the September 2023 Bristol Pub incident.

[113] I agree that any drinking by either parent while caring for their children needs to be moderate. I note that Ms. V.R. did raise this issue in her application. It is not a recent issue. Mr. E.R. in his answer stated.

[114] I find that in assessing this issue that it will not stop Mr. E.R. having a fulsome parenting order with his youngest daughter. She has had this time throughout. Yes, the night was too long in September 23 at the Pub and Mr. E.R. will need to limit the time he may spend with S.S. at the pub to 1 and a half hours when they might go there for her to enjoy her favorite dessert, chocolate mousse, a meal and he will need to limit his beer to one.

[115] Apparently, S.S. has a phone, and a safety plan can be considered for her to call her mother when required. However, I did not hear of overall significant issues while in father’s care. The parents need to be careful not to encourage S.S. to call and complain if she is not pleased with something small while in Dad’s care. He might have a different parenting style or not be able to provide the same to her and each side needs to work around this possibility and not consider it to raise to the level grave concern.

[116] International travel with notice to each while arrange any travel is all that is needed. Mr. E.R. will have the ability to renew government documents without Mr. E.R. consent. I make this order as I find no abuse of this process will happen and it is just overall simpler for the family. When doing so she will provide a photocopy of the renewed documents to Mr. E.R. and each will, except in an emergency provide at least 14 days’ notice of an international trip of 7 days or more.

Date of Separation: Applicable law:

[117] The date of separation is the objective determination of the date the parties separated with no reasonable prospect or expectation of resuming cohabitation. See: Warren v. Warren, 2019 ONSC 1751; Zahelova v. Wiley, 2020 ONSC 6990; Mohamoud v. Farah, 2023 ONCJ 103.

In Al-Sajee v. Tawfic, 2019 ONSC 3857, the court reviewed the law as follows:

[26] Ascertaining when spouses begin to live separate and apart requires a careful analysis of the unique realities of their relationship, routines, social and other habits, and practices and living arrangements over time. In deciding how much weight, if any, to give to any particular factor, the court must carefully assess whether there have been any real changes in regard to that factor since the parties were clearly together in a conjugal relationship. In addition, because of the particular dynamics of each relationship, no one factor will be determinative of whether spouses are living separate and apart; a global analysis and weighing of all factors is required. Subject to these caveats, the relevant principles and considerations that emerge from the case-law can be summarized as follows:

1. There are two aspects to spouses living separate and apart. First, they must live apart from each other, and second, there must be an intention on the part of one or both of them to live separate and apart from the other (Oswell; Greaves).

2. To live “apart” requires a physical separation between the parties (Oswell, at para.13). This means that the parties cannot be cohabiting in a conjugal relationship (Greaves). However, the fact that they continue to reside in the same home together does not necessarily mean that they are not living apart. Spouses can be living separate and apart under the same roof. The determination of whether parties who reside in the same home are living separate and apart involves a consideration of all relevant factors, including whether they are occupying separate bedrooms and/or areas of the home and any stated reasons for remaining in the same residence (Oswell, at para. 12; Greaves, at para. 34; Neufeld, at para. 6; S.(K.L.) v. S.(D.R.), 2012 NBCA 16(C.A.), at para. 20).

3. By the same token, the fact that the spouses have two residences and spend significant periods apart in the two homes is not determinative of whether they are living separate and apart. As the Ontario Court of Appeal stated in Lachman v. Lachman, 1970 CarswellOnt 122 (C.A.), at para. 12, spouses in these circumstances will only be considered to be living separate and apart if at least one of them intends to end the marital relationship. Where the parties live primarily in separate residences, the court must examine all of the other circumstances surrounding their relationship to determine whether they were, in fact, living separate and apart. The reasons for maintaining separate residences will be one important consideration (Rosseter v. Rosseter, 2013 CarswellOnt 2013 (S.C.J.), at para. 14). Another circumstance which may be relevant in this situation is whether the parties have kept personal items at each other’s residences (Rosseter). The implications of maintaining more than one residence are discussed in greater detail below in the discussion about “cohabitation.”

4. In order to establish the requisite intent to live separate and apart, there must be a withdrawal by one or both spouses from the matrimonial obligation with the intent of destroying the matrimonial consortium or of repudiating the matrimonial relationship (Oswell, at para. 14; Greaves, at para. 34). The term “consortium” does not have a precise or complete definition, but refers broadly to the companionship, love, affection, comfort, mutual services and support, and sexual relations typically involved in the marital relationship (Kungl v. Schiefer, 1960 CanLII 22 (ON CA), [1961] O.R. 1, (C.A.), at para. 11; Molodowich v. Penttinen, 1980 CarswellOnt 274 (Dist. Ct.), at para. 16).

5. The law does not require a meeting of the minds regarding the intention to separate; a physical separation, coupled with the intention of one party to live separate and apart, is sufficient (Strobele v. Strobele, 2005 CarswellOnt 9201 (S.C.J.), at para. 30; S.(H.S.) v. D.(S.H.), 2016 CarswellBC 1975 (S.C.), at para. 40); Nearing v. Sauer, 2015 BCSC 58 (S.C.), at para. 54). As McDermot J. stated in O’Brien v. O’Brien, 2013 ONSC 5750 (S.C.J.), at para. 50:

Unlike the decision to marry, the decision to separate is not a mutual one. It is a decision which is often made by one party over the objections of the other. Those protestations matter not; once one party has decided to permanently separate and has acted on it, the other party has no ability to stop the process or object to it.

6. A clear statement or unequivocal act by one of the parties of their desire to terminate the relationship will be very relevant to the determination of whether parties are living separate and apart (O’Brien, at para. 52; S.A.H. v. I.B.L., 2018 BCSC 544 (S.C.), at para. 17). However, the intention to separate need not be unambiguously relayed to the other spouse by way of a verbal expression of settled intention. In the context of both common-law relationships and married couples, the courts have held that a relationship has come to an end when either party regards it as being at an end, and that party by their conduct has demonstrated in a convincing manner that their state of mind on this issue is a settled one (Sanderson v. Russell (1979), 1979 CanLII 2048 (ON CA), 24 O.R. (2d) 429 (C.A.), at para. 432; Hodge v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), 2004 SCC 65 (S.C.C.), at para. 42; S.(H.S.), v. D.(S.H.), at para. 43; Naegels v. Robillard, 2019 ONSC 2662 (S.C.J.), at para. 37).

7. In assessing whether there is an intention on the part of one or both parties to live separate and apart from the other, the court must strive to determine their true intent and not simply their stated intent at the time of hearing (Oswell, at para. 18; Greaves, at para. 34; R.(T.) v. K.(A.), 2015 ONSC 7272(S.C.J), at para. 47).

8. A party’s intention to live separate and apart will not necessarily be broken by brief references by that party to the possibility of reconciliation where no serious steps were taken to move towards such a goal (Nearing, at para. 59).

9. The degree to which the parties were intimate with each other is a relevant consideration (Oswell, at para. 15; Rosseter, at para. 38; Anthony v. Anthony, 2019 ONSC 650 (S.C.J.), at para. 42). However, the absence of sexual relations is not a conclusive indicator that the parties are living separate and apart (Newman v. Newman, 1970 CarswellOnt 123 (C.A.); Cooper v. Cooper (1972), 1972 CanLII 1901 (ON SC), 10 R.F.L. 184 (Ont. H.C.); Oswell, at para. 15). Similarly, the fact that the parties have engaged in sexual relations is not determinative of whether they remain separate and apart or have reconciled. Parties who are generally living separate lives in separate homes may be found to be living separate and apart despite occasional incidents of sexual intimacy and discussions of reconciliation (Greaves, at para. 36; S. (K.L.), at para. 23; Wells. v. King, 2015 NSSC 232 (S.C.), at para. 23). However, the presence of sexual relations while the parties are still physically living with each other will be a strong indicator that they continue to cohabit in a conjugal relationship (Tokaji v. Tokaji, 2016 ONSC 7993 (S.C.J.), at para. 26).

10. Whether the parties have been involved romantically with other people (Rosseter, at para. 39). However, the fact that they have had relationships with other people is not determinative either, particularly if the other party was unaware of the other relations (Neufeld, at para. 75)

11. Whether the parties have continued to discuss family issues and problems and communicate about daily issues (Greaves, at para. 34; Cooper, at para. 12; Oswell, at para. 16).

12. Have there have been any changes in expectations regarding their accountability to each other for daily activities? (Oswell, at para. 37).

13. The extent and nature of their contact with each other, including whether they have continued to participate in joint social activities (Cooper at para. 15; Oswell, at para. 16; Greaves, at para. 34; Torosantucci; Rosseter, at para. 26; Anthony, at para. 42). In assessing any contacts, the court should consider whether the events were evidence of an ongoing relationship or reconciliation or simply “rare moments of friendliness or civility” (Torosantucci; Daley v. Gowan, 2015 ONSC 6741 (S.C.J.), at para. 66).

14. Whether the parties spent vacations together (Oswell, at para. 26; Rosseter, at para. 34; Henderson v. Casson, 2014 ONSC 720 (S.C.J); Neufeld, at para. 75; Anthony, at para. 42 ).

15. Attendances by both parties with their children for family events, activities and even family vacations is relevant but not determinative, as these may simply reflect the parties’ efforts to co-parent in the best interests of the children post-separation (Volcko v. Volcko, 2015 NSCA 11, at para. 10-11; Neufeld, at para. 75(j)).

16. Have the parties continued to share and participate in each other’s daily routines as in the past, such as eating meals together and sharing household chores? (Cooper, at paras. 13 and 14; Oswell, at paras. 16 and 17; Rosseter, at para. 20; Henderson; Anthony, at para. 42).

17. Whether they have celebrated special occasions together (Oswell, at para. 37; Rosseter, at para. 29)

18. Whether they have purchased gifts or exchanged other tokens of affection with each other (Oswell, at para. 29; Rosseter, at para. 29; Neufeld, at para. 75).

19. Whether they have supported each other with respect to extended family obligations, through difficult times and with each other’s personal issues (Rosseter, at para. 31; Henderson v. Casson, 2014 ONSC 720 (S.C.J)).

20. How the parties referred to each other and held out their relationship to third parties (Anthony, at para. 42; R.(T.) v. K.(A.), at para. 46).

21. Documentary evidence respecting their relationship status is also relevant. For example, the manner in which the parties described their status in important documents, including Income Tax Returns, and whether they have claimed any benefits that are conditional on their relationship status are important considerations (Czepa v. Czepa (1988), 1988 CanLII 8647 (ON SC), 16 R.F.L. (3d) 191 (Ont. H.C.J.), at para. 13; Oswell, at para. 18; Greaves, at para. 34; Joanis v. Bourque, 2016 ONSC 6505 (S.C.J.), at para 25; Rosseter, at para. 47; Henderson, at para. 35; Tokaji, at para. 25). Once again, however, these considerations are not determinative, and the court should consider any explanations which either party may proffer before determining the weight, if any, to accord to them (Morin v. Morin, 2011 ONSC 1727 (S.C.J.), at para. 27; Anthony, at para. 42).

22. If the parties have retained a counsellor or mediator, the purpose for which the mediator was consulted may also be of assistance in determining whether the parties have separated (Oswell, at para. 28).

23. Whether there have been any changes in the way the parties manage their financial affairs, including whether they have taken steps to separate their financial dealings (Newton v. Newton, 1995 CanLII 17875 (ON SC), 1995 CarswellOnt 84 (S.C.J.); Rosseter, at para. 41; Tokaji, at para. 24; Anthony, at para. 42).

24. Have the parties continued to share the use of assets? (Rosseter, at para. 43).

25. The parties’ behaviors towards each other in the presence of third parties (Rosseter, at para. 44).

26. Whether the parties have taken legal steps to legally terminate their relationship and resolve issues relating to their separation (Oswell, at para. 35; Tesfatsion v. Berhane, 2013 CarswellOnt 213 (S.C.J.), at para. 53; Rosseter, at para. 49). However, this factor is not determinative and may be given little weight if no further steps were taken and other factors point to a separation .

Decision re date of separation:

[118] In this trial I heard of the following evidence that is relevant to when the parties separated:

[119] Ms. V.R. argued that for her it was when they decided to sell their matrimonial home in July 2019 well before she commenced litigation in October 2021.

[120] Mr. E.R. stated he believed they remained as a couple and that he was surprised when he was served with litigation pleadings in November 2021.

[121] Ms. V.R.’s Application was signed October 2021.

[122] I did not receive evidence as to when either party consulted lawyers regarding divorce or separation.

[123] It is agreed at trial that when they sold their home, they paid down their joint debts and each began to live separately. Ms. V.R. and the children at her parents' home, and Mr. E.R. began living with his parents.

[124] The parties have remained living apart and there were no attempts of living together since.

[125] I did not receive evidence that either maintained personal items of clothes or other personal belongings at each other’s homes.

[126] Mr. E.R. testified that the contents of their home and family memories were put in storage and Ms. V.R. was given a key to the storage unit. He argued he did this as he felt they were a family and that it was important to maintain family memories.

[127] Ms. V.R. argued that but for a child’s bike that she retrieved from the storage unit that she had taken everything that meant anything to her and the children when the house was put up for sale and she wanted nothing from the storage unit.

[128] I did hear that they had sex on a few occasions.

[129] I did not hear of any public display or acknowledgement of a reconciliation.

[130] Both agreed that they did have 3 family vacations together.

[131] I did not receive evidence that they exchanged gifts between themselves as a couple or tokens of affection.

[132] I did not receive any evidence of them having joint or integrated finances, bank accounts or debts.

[133] I did hear that Mr. E.R. provided some funds to Ms. V.R. for the family between 2019 and the litigation commencing in 2021 but this was not regular or consistent and was a source of difficulties between them. Emails filed from 2019 attest to this exhibit eleven noted below.

[134] I did not receive evidence that mail was addressed to them jointly or sent to one location.

[135] I heard that Ms. V.R. indicated on her income tax return from 2018/2019 that she was “Divorced” as her marital status.

[136] I did not receive evidence that the parents shared daily chores and responsibilities to assist each other with the children. There was an agreement when they separated that the older two children would continue to attend school in Mississauga and were to spend time at Mr. E.R.’s parents’ home after school, but this did not take hold.

[137] I heard that directly after the sale of the home in 2019 Mr. E.R. spent less time with the children, and I did not receive evidence of the family celebrating special events together. I did hear that the children attended their in-laws for special occasions without Ms. V.R. and that on one occasion Ms. V.R. attended for a while a lunch that Mr. E.R. had with the children on Mother’s Day, but this happened well after the litigation commenced.

[138] Exhibit 11, contained very harsh emails between the parties from August 2019 to December 2019 the contents of which reveal deep differences between the parties accusing each of bad parenting habits and generally being hurtful to each other in the language that they use, including threatening to attend court for support purposes and demands for support for items required by the children. All clear signs of a separation between them based on the above evidence from this trial applied to law above, I find that despite the parties spending time together personally on a few occasions and the vacations noted above that each had repudiated the other as partners with mutual respect and affection and in a common endeavor to work together as a couple and share tasks for their children wellbeing certainly from when they sold their home and lived apart in July 2019 to the present .

[139] I find this is obvious when the above evidence is evaluated, and each party knows that their separation had occurred well before the home sale but is a difficult and sad event to admit to in their relationship.

[140] Based on this Mr. E.R. will owe to Ms. V.R. for 3 children support based on his line 150 income based on filed NOAs ex 25 as set out below and he will be credited with the money that he did pay that was agreed to at trial being $20,762.16.

• 2019 income $29,090.00

• 2020 income $73,371.00

• 2021 income $104,984.00

• 2022 income $75,883.00

[141] This income will apply through to today's date and parties will adjust support in May of each year once income tax is done and NOA’s exchanged for monthly support and section 7 percentages.

[142] The above results in arrears owing of is $53,793.00 based on what Mr. E.R. paid and what Mr. E.R. should have paid according to the Child Support Guidelines.

[143] In addition, the 50% section 7 costs of $4521.92 are owed by Mr. E.R. as agreed to in the trial which makes the total arrears owed to be $58,614.92.

[144] This is a substantial debt owed to the children. The Supreme Court in its significant decision in Colucci v Colucci 2021 SCC 24 reminds parents that child support is owed to the children and is the highest debt that one may have. Importantly the court states that to avoid a large arrears amount owed a paying parent needs to pay based on their ability and pay sooner based on the correct level. In other words, child support once an obligation exists needs to be paid commensurate with one’s income. This is how one avoids this debt which is owed.

[145] I have reviewed Mr. E.R.’s current financial statement exhibit 25 in order to be as balanced as possible regarding how much per month he should pay towards the arrears in addition to the monthly child support owed each month. He notes his total monthly income to be $5,068.74. He lists his monthly expenses as $4,398.75. The number however does not have the child support owed each month of $1,507.00. He lists dental cost at $300.00 per month which is high. His rent to his parents is low $500.00. Entertainment is listed at $400.00 per month including that for the children which is high, and he will need to cut back on the $250.00 per month listed for meals outside the home He has listed as debts $21,038.04.

[146] If he were to trim some of the above budget items and earn 75 to 80 thousand as he has for the past 3 years, he will be able to pay $500.00 per month towards the total arrears owing. At this rate, the arrears would be paid down in 9.7 years. This is a considerable period of time. Mr. E.R. should consider approaching the bank for a line of credit to pay this down faster.

Final Order:

Parenting order:

[147] Ms. V.R. shall have decision-making authority for the children S.R. age 17 born September 2006, M.R. age 15 born December 2007, S.R. age 7 born December 2015 regarding matter of their health, education and general welfare.

[148] The primary residence of the children named above shall be with the Applicant Ms. V.R.

[149] The parents, Ms. V.R. and Mr. E.R. shall make jointly any catastrophic decision or significant decision regarding the children’s health or education that may need to be made.

[150] Both parties shall have the same right to communicate directly with any service providers who provide service to the child (i.e., doctors). The consent of the other parent for such communication or for the service provider to release information, documentation or records to the other parent, shall not be required. This order shall be sufficient authorization for said release.

[151] In the event of an emergency involving the child, the parent who has care of the child shall provide the other with details of the nature of the emergency and the location where the child is. If the child is in hospital the parent who does not have the child in his or her care shall have the right to see the child.

[152] Parenting time, the child S.R. age 7 born December 2015 shall have weekly parenting time with her father Mr. E.R. every other weekend from Friday after school to Sunday return at 7 p.m. or Monday return to the Applicant’s Ms. V.R. home in the a.m. if Monday is a holiday or PE from the child’s school. If Mr. E.R. has the Monday holiday off and can take off a PD Day, then his daughter may stay with her father until Monday return to her mother’s by 6 pm Monday.

a) Given this Mr. E.R. must advise a week in advance Ms. V.R. if he is able to be off work and care directly for his daughter on holiday Mondays or PD days that may fall on his alternate weekend parenting time.

b) To plan for the above each parent is require obtaining from the school board the school calendar for the academic year indicating when the children have holidays and PD days during which there is no school.

c) Mr. E.R. and the two older children S.R. age 17 born September 2006, M.R. age 15 born December 2007 will have parenting time as agreed to and primarily based on the views and preferences of these two children.

d) During Mr. E.R. parenting time with the children he will moderate his consumption alcohol and will only attend along with his children the Bristol Pub or other bar restaurant for a meal/celebration that will be no longer than 2 hours in duration.

Holidays:

[153] Christmas, March break, shall be arranged between the parties.

[154] Summer holidays: Each parent may have with the children 2 uninterrupted weeks or two separate weeks 7 days with the children in either the months of July or August for summer vacation.

a) Ms. V.R. will by April or May advise Mr. E.R. of the weeks she wishes to have and a week later Mr. E.R. will provide his dates to her and plan for this holiday time. During this summer holidays each parent must be present and be the caregiver for the children.

International Travel:

[155] Ms. V.R. and Mr. E.R. may travel with the children internationally without the need to obtain the consent of the other, however, each shall provide to the other at least 14 days’ notice via an email of the dates of travel, location, mode of transportation, address in the destination and a telephone number where the children may be reached.

Documents:

[156] Ms. V.R. may apply for the children’s documents without the need to obtain the consent of Mr. E.R. and this includes renewing or applying for the children’s Canadian Passports.

[157] For current documents pertaining to the children in her care presently and future documents that may be obtained Ms. V.R. shall make copies and provide these to Mr. E.R.

[158] Ms. V.R. shall be the parent to maintain the safe keeping of these documents and if Mr. E.R. requires the children’s passport to arrange travel, he will be provided with the child’s passport and return the same to Ms. V.R. within 5 days or sooner of a return from a trip.

Child support ongoing monthly:

[159] Mr. E.R. shall pay to Ms. V.R. child support on the 1st of each month commencing September 1, 2023, in the amount of $1,507.00 per month for the 3 children S.R. age 17 born September 2006, M.R. age 15 born December 2007, and child S.R. age 7 born December 2015 based on his annual income for 2022 which is $75,883.00.

A SDO shall issue (insert standard enforcement / annual disclosure and interest clauses).

Child support and section 7 arrears owed as of October 1, 2023.

[160] Mr. E.R. owes as of the date of this order arrears in child support and section 7 expenses in the amount of $58,614.92. Commencing December 1, 2023, and on the 1st of each month thereafter Mr. E.R. shall pay to Ms. V.R. $500.00 to pay down the total arrears owed.

Section 7 Special Expenses:

[161] The applicant and the respondent shall pay agreed to section 7 expenses equally 50 percent each.

[162] When arranging any future special expenses from the date of this order the parties need to discuss the expenses and consent to the same with the exchange of emails. Neither party shall unreasonably withhold consent.

[163] The future special or extraordinary expenses may include one activity per season per child (every 4 months) provided the cost is reasonable and agreed to in advance.

[164] The parties and the children need to plan for Post secondary studies which shall be considered a section 7 expenses to be shared between the Applicant and the Respondent. In doing so the parties may consider a reasonable contribution to these expenses expected from the child which may include any scholarship or gifts from relatives. (OHIP loan is not a contribution and is a debt)

[165] Medical and Dental Benefits, the parties will each maintain for the children any medical or extended health care/dental coverage they have available through their employer and is available to them.

The parties will:

a) Provide each other with any available direct payment card or ID number as provided to them by their respective insurer and will sign any documentation authorizing the other to make direct claims for the children to his or her insurer.

b) Promptly submit any receipts given to his or her by the other for payment to their insurer; and

c) Immediately forward the reimbursed amount to the other once received form their insurer.

d) Any medical expenses for the children not covered in part or whole by their respective insurer shall be considered a section 7 expenses for the children and the parties shall each pay 50% of that cost.

Trial costs:

COSTS:

[166] By November 15, 2023, Ms. V.R. if she is seeking cost shall serve and file via a 14-b motion to my attention, 3-page max submission on costs along with a bill of costs and signed offer to settle.

[167] By December 1, 2023, Mr. E.R. may respond in the above manner via a 14- b motion to my attention.

[168] Mr. R. Toor by November 15, 2023, to have this order taken out by sending a draft order to Mr. E.R. for his approval. If Mr. E.R. does approve the draft order submit his approval as set out below or if Mr. E.R. does not respond within 5 days of receiving the same, submit to me via a 14b the draft / any approval or proof of service for issuance along with SDO and FORM 2- FRO detail form fully completed.

Released: October 31, 2023

Signed: Justice Anthony (Bill) J. Sullivan