Court File and Parties

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE DATE: 2024-03-28 COURT FILE No.: Stratford FO22/804

B E T W E E N :

Jason Christopher Reiber Applicant

— AND —

Jessica Marie Pilkington Respondent

Before: Justice K.S. Neill Heard on: February 22, 23 and March 4, 2024 Reasons for Judgment released on: March 28, 2024

Counsel: Catherine McCorquodale, for the applicant, Jason Reiber Leonard Reich, for the respondent, Jessica Pilkington

Neill, J.:

Overview

[1] The applicant (hereinafter “the father”) and the respondent (hereinafter “the mother”) are the parents of one child, Paislee Kennedy Marie Reiber born November 22, 2015. (“P.R.”). P.R. is now 8 years old. The parties began residing together in June, 2013, were married on August 26, 2017 and finally separated in January, 2018.

[2] Since April, 2020, the mother has been residing in Sarnia with her fiancé, Alonzo Thomason (“Alonzo”) and their two children, Emersynn, age 5 and Tidus, who is almost 2. As agreed to by the parties and since September, 2021, P.R. has remained residing in the primary care of her father in Mitchell, Ontario, with alternate weekend parenting time with her mother. Alonzo has two children from a previous relationship, Lyzza, age 11 and Demetrius, age 9 and these children are in Alonzo’s care on a week-about basis. The father resides alone, but has a partner, Kimberley Davis (“Kim”) who stays with the father on weekends with her two children, Lillian, age 8, and Micheline, age 6.

Litigation History

[3] The father commenced this Application on August 16, 2022 only seeking an order for decision-making responsibility. Once he retained counsel, he subsequently amended his Application to also seek primary residence of P.R., parenting time to the mother on alternate weekends with a week-about parenting schedule in the summer and child support.

[4] At the same time that the father brought his initial Application, he brought an urgent motion seeking temporary decision-making and primary residence as he believed that the mother wanted to relocate with P.R. to Sarnia.

[5] When the father’s motion was first before the court on August 25, 2022, an order was made on consent requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”), and a temporary without prejudice order that P.R. shall start school at Upper Thames Elementary School in Mitchell in September, 2022; and that the mother have alternate weekend parenting time with P.R. commencing September 9, 2022. This has been the only substantive order for parenting issues made in this matter.

[6] The mother filed an Answer in October, 2022 essentially seeking the opposite of what the father was seeking: sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence with alternate weekend parenting time to the father; and child support.

[7] From August, 2022 to February, 2024, there were many court appearances but no substantive orders were made. It took until early 2023 for the OCL to agree to become involved and they appointed a clinician, Kelly Schweitzer. During this time, the parties agreed to Christmas parenting time in 2022 and a week-about arrangement in the summer of 2023 without orders having to be made. The parties considered mediation but as the main issue was one of relocation, they did not believe that this issue could be resolved through mediation.

[8] The matter eventually proceeded to a focused hearing in February and March, 2024 where the main issue was P.R.’s primary residence: either in Mitchell with the father where she had resided for her entire life, or in Sarnia with her mother. The distance between the two locations is approximately a 1 ½ hour drive.

[9] At trial, the father’s witnesses included himself and his partner Kim. The mother’s witnesses were herself and her fiancé Alonzo. Affidavits were filed for these witnesses to complement their evidence in chief, with the witnesses being subject to cross-examination. The OCL clinician, Kelly Schweitzer also testified and was subject to cross-examination.

Position of the Parties at Trial

[10] Both parties filed draft orders at the beginning of trial regarding their positions.

[11] The father maintained his position for joint decision-making, primary residence of P.R., with the mother to have parenting time on alternate weekends from Friday at 6:30 p.m. to Sunday at 6:30 p.m., and during the summer to have a week-about parenting schedule. He proposed exchanges at the Tim Horton’s in Strathroy. The father was seeking child support from the mother on an imputed income of $20,000 and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses. The father was not seeking any arrears of child support.

[12] The mother agreed at trial to an order for joint decision-making with the parties to consult with medical and educational service providers and follow their recommendations. She maintained her position for primary residence of P.R. with parenting time to the father on alternate weekends from Friday at 6:30 p.m. to Sunday at 6:30 p.m., with a week-about parenting schedule during the summer. During her testimony, the mother also offered 3 weekends each month to the father to increase his time with P.R., and virtual contact daily. She was willing to be flexible regarding the actual weekends the father would have parenting time to be in accordance with this work schedule. The mother was also requesting child support from the father in accordance with the Guidelines.

Background

[13] The parties met in February, 2013 when they were working together at McDonald’s. They began residing together in June, 2013. At that time, the mother was 18, and the father was 28. P.R. was born in November, 2015. Thereafter the mother stayed at home on maternity leave for one year and was at home during the day caring for P.R. while the father was working full-time. The father generally worked from 7 or 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., but sometimes he worked later until close.

[14] After the mother’s maternity leave, she returned to work at McDonald’s part-time working from 6 a.m. to noon or 1 p.m. P.R. went to daycare while the mother was working. The father would assist in caring for P.R. in the morning and would drop off P.R. at daycare.

[15] The parties married on August 26, 2017. Soon thereafter, the parties began having problems in their relationship and as a result, the mother quit her job. The parties attempted a trial separation in October, 2017. The mother moved to Sarnia where she had resided for a period of time while she was in high school. The mother lived with a friend in Sarnia and the parties cared for P.R. on a week-about basis. In January, 2018, the parties permanently separated, and the mother moved permanently to Sarnia. The parties continued to care for P.R. on a week-about basis. In April, 2018, the mother returned to working at McDonald’s part-time during the weeks that P.R. was not in her care.

[16] In August, 2018, the mother lost her housing in Sarnia and moved back to Mitchell to reside in the father’s home. Although they were not in a relationship, the parties resided in the same home with P.R. from August, 2018 to April, 2020.

[17] In February, 2018, the mother began a romantic relationship with Alonzo. She originally met Alonzo in 2010 when they attended high school together. Alonzo was first introduced to P.R. in November, 2017 when he first reconnected with the mother after she moved to Sarnia. When the mother moved back to Mitchell in August, 2018, while the father was at work during the week, the mother would care for P.R. The parties would still have alternate weekends with P.R. During the father’s weekend, the mother would go to Sarnia to be with Alonzo. During the mother’s weekend, she would take P.R. with her to Sarnia.

[18] On December 13, 2018, the mother gave birth to Emersynn her daughter with Alonzo, but still remained residing primarily in Mitchell with the father.

[19] P.R. started kindergarten at Upper Thames Elementary School in Mitchell in September, 2019.

[20] In or about March, 2020, Alonzo moved into a new residence in Sarnia and in April, 2020, the mother relocated with Emersynn to reside with Alonzo. Around that time, due to the pandemic, P.R.’s school was virtual, so she continued to reside with the parties on a week-about basis between Mitchell and Sarnia. During the summer months the parties continued to parent P.R. on a week-about basis.

[21] After the mother moved to Sarnia, the father hired one of the mother’s friends, Ashley Podann to provide childcare for P.R. while he was at work.

Discussions about school

[22] In-person school for P.R. started in September, 2021. During the summer, 2021, P.R. told both Alonzo and her mother that she wanted to go to school in Sarnia with her siblings who resided with them on alternate weeks. Alonzo suggested that P.R. speak with her father about her wishes. P.R. advised that she had tried but her father told her she could not live with her mother. In August, 2021, the mother advised the father of P.R.’s wishes, and the father agreed to further discuss this issue. A week later, during a parenting exchange, the father presented the mother with a Separation Agreement that he had drafted with the assistance of a lawyer granting him primary residence and that P.R. would continue to attend school in Mitchell. He had already signed the agreement. The mother did not sign the Agreement but arranged for mediation. Through mediation, the parties agreed to all issues except for primary residence of P.R. The mother did not contest this issue at the time, so P.R. started grade 1 in Mitchell in 2019.

[23] The mother advises that in the summer of 2022, P.R. again advised that she wanted to go to school in Sarnia with her siblings and wanted to spend more time with her mother. The mother again advised the father of P.R.’s wishes. In August, 2022, the father brought P.R. to Sarnia for a parenting exchange. They met at the mother’s home and the father wanted to hear directly from P.R. about her views about school. It is not disputed that P.R. stated in front of both parents that she wanted to go to school in Sarnia. However, the father believed that P.R. was lying and had been coached as P.R. had told him that she was excited to start school in Mitchell that fall.

Commencement of the Court Proceedings

[24] The mother had canvassed enrolling P.R. in school in Sarnia for September 2022, but did not actually enroll her. The father was fearful that the mother would not return P.R. to him after a visit at the end of the August so he commenced court proceedings, with an urgent motion seeking primary residence. During a parenting exchange at Shady Pines where the mother was camping with P.R., after he had picked up P.R., the father had his partner, Kim, serve the mother with the court papers. The father wanted to have the court papers served after he left with P.R. out of fear the mother would not let him take P.R.

[25] The mother explains that on that day, a woman tossed court papers at her and stated in an aggressive tone, “You are served… bitch”, and “I am exactly who you think I am, bitch. I am his fucking girlfriend”. The mother did not know who this woman was but later learned it was the father’s new partner, Kim.

[26] Alonzo was also present at Shady Pines and heard Kim call the mother a bitch when she served her.

[27] Kim explained that on the day she served the mother, she borrowed her friend’s car to drive to Shady Pines to serve the mother so that she would not be recognized by P.R. She denies swearing at the mother. Kim did not introduce herself, and just told the mother that she “was served”. This was the first and only time that Kim has met the mother. When questioned at trial if she considered introducing herself to the mother on the day she served her, Kim responded “God no, she was 15 minutes late (returning P.R.) and she had zero consideration for Jason and his time, so why should I be considerate to her in that moment… so I am not going to have a conversation with this woman who is inconsiderate to someone else”. I found this to be an inappropriate reaction by Kim, especially if she wanted to build a relationship with P.R. This was P.R.’s mother and a very important person in her life.

Present Situation

[28] Since 2021, during the school year, P.R. continues to remain primarily residing with her father in Michell, attending Upper Thames Elementary School, and having parenting time with her mother in Sarnia on alternate weekends.

[29] When P.R. is with her mother, Alonzo generally always has his children in his care and the step-siblings are very close.

[30] P.R. asks to call her mother a few times each week either by video or by phone. The mother expressed concerns that during the week, when she calls to speak with P.R. either the father will say that she is busy or does not answer for days. When she does get to speak with P.R., the father is always in the background. The father explains that P.R. is sometimes excited to talk to her mother on the phone. P.R. does not generally talk for a long time and at times the father has to keep her engaged in the conversation. P.R. has talked to her mother on the phone for 45 minutes or an hour.

[31] After the mother moved to Sarnia in April, 2020, the father changed his position at McDonalds from General Manager to Kitchen Manager to have more normal hours. His hours are generally 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. or 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. He does work one evening each month when P.R. is not in his care.

Child Care

[32] The father continues to use Ms. Podann as P.R.’s babysitter. P.R. is friends with Ms. Podann’s children who attend the same school as P.R. Ms. Podann resides a 12-minute drive from the father’s home.

[33] The father generally starts work at 9 a.m. and is able to drop P.R. off at school at 8:45 a.m. However, a few times each month when he starts work at 8 am., he would leave his house with P.R. around 7:35 a.m. and drop P.R. at the babysitter. On these days, P.R. would have to get up at 6:45 a.m. when she generally gets up around 7 a.m.

[34] After school, P.R. takes the bus to the babysitter’s. On week one when the father works until 5 p.m., for 3 days a week, the father generally picks P.R. up by 5:10 p.m. On week two when the father works until 7 p.m. for 4 to 5 days a week, the father picks up P.R. by 7:15 p.m. Ms. Podann indicates that P.R. has dinner at her house approximately 3 times each week.

The father’s new relationship

[35] In February, 2022, the father commenced a relationship with Kim. They met while they were working together at McDonalds. P.R. was introduced to Kim and her daughters, Lillian and Micheline, in or about early May, 2022. Kim has a shared parenting week-about schedule with her daughters. Since March, 2023, the father and Kim have their children in their care on the same weekend so spend time all together.

[36] The father acknowledges that P.R. initially struggled when Lillian and Micheline first spent time at their house as she was not used to sharing her toys and the children did not get along. He acknowledges that the three girls have their disagreements and either the father or Kim have had to intervene and sometimes “raise their voices”.

[37] Kim acknowledged that at times P.R. and her children fight as they have different personalities. Lillian is being assessed for autism and at times she has a “sensory overload”. However, she hopes that the relationship with P.R. and her children will improve.

[38] Kim and her daughters usually spend one night at the father’s home on alternate weekends, and generally a few hours on one night during the week on alternate weeks. Lillian and Micheline have a room in P.R.’s playroom where they keep some of their belongings. P.R. now recognizes this room as Lillian and Micheline’s space.

[39] Both the father and Kim explain that when all of the children are together, they do activities like going to the park, the zoo and plan meals together. As the children are similar in ages, they have similar interests.

[40] Kim states that P.R. is now more comfortable with her and shares information about her day with Kim. At times, P.R. asks Kim to pick her up from school so that she does not have to go to the babysitter’s. Kim has met P.R.’s friends, and has attended her dance practices, school events, and two of P.R.’s birthday parties.

Report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer

[41] The OCL clinical investigator, Kelly Schweitzer completed a s. 112 report dated July 4, 2023, which was filed in evidence.

[42] Ms. Schweitzer testified. Her abbreviated curriculum vitae was filed outlining her experience. Ms. Schweitzer has her Master of Social Work Degree. She has been a clinician with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer since June, 2012, has worked as a child protection worker from 1997 to 2003, and involved in the social work field in several different capacities since that time. As a clinician for the OCL, she has completed over 250 s. 112 reports.

[43] Ms. Schweitzer found that:

• P.R. loves and is loved by both of her parents and that there were no collateral concerns regarding either parent. P.R. has a close bond with both parents.
• The interaction between P.R. and both of her parents was positive.
• P.R. had a strong relationship with her step and half-siblings, and had lived with them on a week-about or alternate weekend schedule for the past 5 years.
• Regarding P.R.’s views, initially she was neutral regarding her living situation between her parents. However, P.R. also shared her worries about the long drives to the babysitter’s house and having dinner there “all of the time”. P.R. liked the fact that if she was residing primarily with her mother, she would not need to have a babysitter.
• P.R. was clear about her concerns with the father’s partner, Kim, and that sometimes she feels “really angry” about Kim; that they do not get along, that Kim yells at her when her father is not there and that she worries if Kim moved in with them. The day before the interview with Ms. Schweitzer, she and Kim fought and they yelled at each other. Her father was not home at the time and P.R. did not tell her father about the conflict with Kim.
• P.R. expressed her concerns about Kim’s daughters always fighting, that they fight “lots and lots,” and she would have to be exposed to this all of the time if they lived with her.
• P.R. would like parenting time with her parents to be equal and finds it difficult to go back to the alternate weekend schedule after she has spent long stretches of time with her mother.
• P.R. presented as being in a “loyalty bind” and believes she should align with one parent. She had a fear of hurting either parent by expressing her true wishes. When asked if she could use a magic wand to express her most-desired situation, she continued to remain neutral by saying “I don’t know”.
• While P.R. has been in the primary care of her father during the school year for the past several years, she spends a lot of time with a babysitter. The school suggested that P.R. had learning issues and would benefit from one-to-one attention from the consistent presence of a parent to help her. The mother is able to be a more focused parent for P.R. as she is at home.
• The parents have shared decision-making responsibility since separation and have demonstrated the ability to co-parent. Both parents are capable of making good decisions for P.R.

[44] In summary, Ms. Schweitzer recommended that:

• The mother should be the primary residence parent.
• Decision-making should be shared between the parents.
• P.R. should have alternate weekend parenting time with the father from Friday to Sunday, and parenting time mid-week in the mother’s community.
• P.R. should have a minimum of twice per week FaceTime or some virtual contact with her father for 30 minutes.
• All holiday time, March Break, and Christmas time should be shared equally between the parents.
• P.R. should continue a week-about schedule with the parents during the summer.
• P.R. should spend Mother’s Day with the mother and Father’s Day with the father.
• The parents should communicate through Our Family Wizard.

[45] Ms. Schweitzer provided more detailed recommendations regarding sharing of information, making appointments for P.R., enrolling P.R. in extracurricular activities, services for P.R. and communication between the parties. However, the parties were consenting to an order for joint decision-making responsibility and did not feel that this detail was necessary in the order.

[46] Although Ms. Schweitzer concluded that the mother could have more focused parenting time in her mother’s care, she acknowledged that at times the mother also has 4 other children in her care, so her attention would not be focused solely on P.R. Ms. Schweitzer explained that P.R.’s school had expressed concerns that P.R. was struggling in reading and oral communication and her lack of attendance at school may be affecting her performance. At times, P.R. was tired and teary at school. Ms. Schweitzer felt that these concerns could be more addressed in the mother’s home, and the mother had contacted the teacher to ask how she could assist P.R. with her reading.

[47] Ms. Schweitzer acknowledged that this is a very difficult situation as P.R. loves both of her parents and both parents have the capacity to parent. However, on balance, Ms. Schweitzer believed that P.R.’s present needs could be met better in her mother’s home.

Response to the OCL Report

[48] Upon learning through the report from the OCL that P.R. did not like spending so much time with her babysitter, the father adjusted his schedule to reduce his hours. However, it was not clear exactly the hours he is working now and at times he still must work until 7 p.m.

[49] In response to P.R. advising Ms. Schweitzer that Kim yells at her, Kim states that at times “voices need to be raised” so the adults can be heard above the children. Kim explained that this is what happened during the incident that Ms. Schweitzer references in her report about Kim yelling at P.R. when the father was not present. During this incident, the father had gone to pick up pizza for the family. The three girls were having a disagreement and Kim acknowledges that she raised her voice to get their attention. She acknowledged that P.R. and her daughter Micheline were most startled by Kim raising her voice. Kim now uses a “light system” to turn on and off lights to get the children’s attention.

[50] Kim stated that Ms. Schweitzer only spoke with her for about 15 minutes and did not view her interactions with P.R. or with P.R. and her children. Ms. Schweitzer did observe P.R. in the mother’s home with Alonzo and all of their children. Ms. Schweitzer explained that when she does an observation visit, she includes all of the people in the household to give her a picture of what their “real life” is. As Kim does not reside with the father at this point, she did not include Kim and her children in her observation visit with the father.

[51] The father advised Ms. Schweitzer that he and Kim plan to reside together within 6 months to a year, which plan could be accelerated if Kim can amend the terms of her parenting plan with her ex-partner. Kim has a Separation Agreement with her ex-partner that prohibits her from moving more than 25 km from her children’s school in St. Marys. The father’s home is approximately 32 km from the school.

[52] The father now indicates that there is no time frame for when Kim and her daughters will move into his home but that it has been discussed. Kim clarified that she may start the process to have her Separation Agreement amended in 6 months to give time for her ex-partner to reconsider the relocation restriction.

[53] The father filed a Notice of Dispute to Ms. Schweitzer’s report dated August 2, 2023. He disputed the fact that:

• Ms. Schweitzer emphasized the impacts of Kim and her children moving in with the father, when this is only a possibility in the future and there is no set timeline when this would occur.
• The father expressed concerns about the impact a change in primary residence would have on P.R., including a change in school and friends.
• Ms. Schweitzer noted that P.R. would have to give up her playroom if Kim’s children moved in. However, P.R. has to share a room with her step-sister at her mother’s home. The father expressed concerns regarding P.R.’s standard of living with her mother on one income with 5 children.
• It was the mother who voluntarily moved to Sarnia.

[54] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer filed a response to the father’s dispute dated September 22, 2023. After a review of the father’s Dispute, it was determined that the report from Ms. Schweitzer contained no factual, omission or process errors and no additional information has been provided to the OCL to change her recommendations.

[55] I am cognizant that a report from Office of the Children's Lawyer conducted under s.112 of the Courts of Justice Act is not an expert report ordered under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act (“CLRA”). It is but one of many factors to be considered in deciding a custody issue. Although the social worker can make recommendations, they are only a starting point. The Report is a useful tool but is merely part of the evidence. The recommendations should be considered and weighed along with the other evidence. They are not determinative. [^1]

The Law

[56] This is a relocation case, so the court should first consider the provisions of the CLRA as they relate to relocation as outlined in s. 39.3 and s. 39.4 of the Act as follows:

Relocation

39.3 (1) A person who has decision-making responsibility or parenting time with respect to a child and who intends a relocation shall, at least 60 days before the expected date of the proposed relocation, notify any other person who has decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact under a contact order with respect to the child of the intention.

Notice requirements

(2) The notice shall be in the form prescribed by the regulations or, if no form is prescribed, shall be in writing and shall set out,

(a) the expected date of the proposed relocation;

(b) the address of the new residence and contact information of the person or child, as the case may be;

(c) a proposal as to how decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact, as the case may be, could be exercised; and

(d) any other information that may be prescribed by the regulations.

Exception

(3) On application, the court may in any circumstance provide that subsections (1) and (2) or anything prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of subsection (2) do not apply, or apply with any changes the court specifies, if the court is of the opinion that it is appropriate to do so, including if there is a risk of family violence.

Same

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

Objection

(5) A person with decision-making responsibility or parenting time who receives notice of the proposed relocation under subsection (1) may, no later than 30 days after receiving the notice, object to the relocation by,

(a) notifying the person who gave the notice of proposed relocation of the objection to the relocation; or

(b) making an application under section 21.

Notice requirements

(6) A notice under clause (5) (a) shall be in writing and shall set out,

(a) a statement that the person objects to the relocation;

(b) the reasons for the objection;

(c) the person’s views on the proposal referred to in clause (2) (c); and

(d) any other information that may be prescribed by the regulations.

Authorization of relocation

39.4 (2) A person who has given notice of a proposed relocation in accordance with section 39.3 and who intends to relocate a child may do so as of the date referred to in the notice if,

(a) the relocation is authorized by a court; or

(b) no objection to the relocation is made in accordance with subsection 39.3 (5) and there is no order prohibiting the relocation.

Best interests of the child

(3) In determining whether to authorize the relocation of a child, the court shall take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with section 24, as well as,

(a) the reasons for the relocation;

(b) the impact of the relocation on the child;

(c) the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or is an applicant for a parenting order with respect to the child, and the level of involvement in the child’s life of each of those persons;

(d) whether the person who intends to relocate the child has complied with any applicable notice requirement under section 39.3 and any applicable Act, regulation, order, family arbitration award and agreement;

(e) the existence of an order, family arbitration award or agreement that specifies the geographic area in which the child is to reside;

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

(g) whether each person who has decision-making responsibility or parenting time or is an applicant for a parenting order with respect to the child has complied with their obligations under any applicable Act, regulation, order, family arbitration award or agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance.

Factor not to be considered

(4) In determining whether to authorize a relocation of the child, the court shall not consider whether, if the child’s relocation were to be prohibited, the person who intends to relocate the child would relocate without the child or not relocate.

Burden of proof

(5) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, family arbitration award or agreement that provides that a child spend substantially equal time in the care of each party, the party who intends to relocate the child has the burden of proving that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child.

(6) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, family arbitration award or agreement that provides that a child spend the vast majority of time in the care of the party who intends to relocate the child, the party opposing the relocation has the burden of proving that the relocation would not be in the best interests of the child.

(7) In any other case, the parties to the proceeding have the burden of proving whether the relocation is in the best interests of the child.

Burden of proof, exception

(8) If an order referred to in subsection (5) or (6) is an interim order, the court may determine that the subsection does not apply.

Costs of relocation

(9) If a court authorizes the relocation of a child, it may provide for the apportionment of costs relating to the exercise of parenting time by a person who is not relocating between that person and the person who is relocating the child.

[57] In making parenting time orders, the court shall also take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with s. 24 of the CLRA which provides as follows:

Best interests of the child

24 (1) In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section.

Primary consideration

(2) In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

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 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 co-operate 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. 2020, c. 25 , Sched. 1, s. 6.

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 behaviour in relation to a family member;

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

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

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

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

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

(h) any other relevant factor.

Past conduct

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

Allocation of parenting time

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

Application to related orders

(7) This section applies with respect to interim parenting orders and contact orders, and to variations of parenting orders and contact orders or interim parenting orders and contact orders.

Joint Decision-Making

[58] The parties have agreed to an order for joint decision-making.

[59] The evidence supports that the parties are generally able to communicate well. The father confirmed with Ms. Schweitzer that he was able to communicate well with the mother and that in-person exchanges were “very good”. The mother agrees that she has always been able to communicate with the father, but that communication has been more challenging since the father started his relationship with Kim, and the frequency and tone of the father’s communications has changed. Both parties agree that communication has been strained during this litigation, which is understandable. However, they are still able to communicate dealing with issues related to their daughter.

[60] There have been issues with the father not informing the mother about P.R.’s extracurricular activities, when she misses school, some parent-teacher interviews and some of P.R.’s medical issues. The father explained the concerns regarding lack of immediate information regarding P.R.’s medical issues. The mother believed that it would be beneficial to use a parenting app, such as Our Family Wizard, as recommended by Ms. Schweitzer.

[61] The parties have generally been able to agree on issues relating to P.R. such as her doctor and dentist. They have not had many disagreements about P.H.’s care and have been able to resolve these issues. The father provided an example of P.R. wanting to dye her hair last summer. The mother contacted him to discuss the issue and sent the father pictures of the different colours of the dye and they decided on the issue together. In fact, P.R. dyed her hair pink. This was a very good example of why joint decision-making will work for these parents.

[62] The parties have generally been able to agree on parenting time issues such as a week-about schedule in the summer and sharing time over holidays and Christmas. The only issue they have not agreed upon is P.R.’s primary residence.

Burden of Proof for Relocation

[63] The parties agree that both parties have the burden of proving whether or not relocation is in P.R.’s best interests in accordance with s. 39.4(7).

[64] The mother would like to relocate with P.R. There is no order or agreement that P.R. spend equal time with the parties, and P.R. does not spend the vast majority of time with the mother who wants to relocate. Therefore, the burdens in s. 39.4(5) and (6) do not apply and the burden of proving whether relocation is in the best interests of P.R. falls on both parties in accordance with s. 39.4(7).

Best Interest Test for Relocation – s. 39.4(3)

[65] With respect to the best interest factors in s. 39.4(3) to determine authorization for a relocation:

The reason for the relocation:

[66] The mother’s fiancé, Alonzo now owns a home in Sarnia and has recently relocated to a larger 5-bedroom home where all of their children can reside. Alonzo is the sole provider for the family, and he has a job at Suncor in Sarnia with a good income. He has a week-about shared parenting arrangement with his two children who also reside in Sarnia. The mother has resided in Sarnia full-time for almost 4 years and P.R. has spent almost half of this time with her mother in Sarnia. P.R. expresses that she wants to spend more time with her mother and go to school with her siblings in Sarnia.

The impact of the relocation on P.R.:

[67] Ms. Schweitzer did not believe having P.R. change primary residence would be a significant change for her, as she has spent the majority of her time after her parents’ separation in a shared parenting arrangement with them. Moving schools would be a change for P.R. but she has stated that she wants to go to school with her siblings. P.R.’s grade 2 teacher advised Ms. Schweitzer that P.R. did not have a significant reaction to change. P.R. did not mention any specific friends to Ms. Schweitzer that she had a relationship with or that she would miss if she moved to Sarnia.

[68] As the mother is offering three out of four weekends each month of parenting time with the father, and continuing equal sharing of time in the summer, the impact on P.R. of the change in primary residence will be minimal.

The amount of time spent with P.R. by each parent and the level of involvement in P.R.’s life:

[69] During the week when the father now has P.R. in his care, he is very involved in her day-to-day life, including school activities, extra-curricular activities, and medical appointments. However, he spends little time with P.R. in the evenings after work and P.R. eats dinner with her babysitter approximately three times each week.

[70] The mother tries to be involved in P.R.’s life through regular contact with the school, attending some parent-teacher interviews and school events and regular phone/video calls.

[71] Both parents have equal parenting time with P.R. during holidays and summer vacation.

Compliance with Notice Requirements:

[72] The formal notice requirements pursuant to s. 39.3 of the CLRA do not apply in this case. The mother has resided in Sarnia for almost four years. There is no order for decision-making responsibility and the only order for parenting time was made on August 25, 2022 that the mother have alternate weekend parenting time. The mother filed an Answer in October, 2022 seeking primary residence of P.R., so there has been ample notice that she would like P.R. to relocate to Sarnia.

Restrictions on relocation:

[73] There is no order or agreement that specifies a geographic area in which P.R. is to reside, other than the August 25, 2022 temporary without prejudice order that P.R. is to attend Upper Thames Elementary School in Mitchell in September, 2022.

The mother’s willingness to vary the father’s existing parenting time if P.R. relocates:

[74] The mother is willing to offer the father three out of four weekends each month with P.R. if P.R. moves to Sarnia. She understands the importance of P.R.’s relationship with her father. Both parties will maintain an equal sharing of holidays and summer vacation. The mother has never denied the father any parenting time.

Whether the parties have complied with their obligations under the CLRA, an order or agreement:

[75] There is no evidence that either party has not complied with their legal obligations with respect to P.R.

Best Interests Test - s. 24(3)

[76] In addition to the best interest factors in s. 39.4(3) specific to relocation, the court must also consider the best interest factors pursuant to s. 24(3) of the CLRA. Not all of the factors were significant in this case. There was no family violence reported in either home and no specific issues regarding P.R.’s religious or cultural background. I found that the parties were able to communicate and cooperate sufficiently so that a joint decision-making order could be made.

P.R.’s needs and need for stability:

[77] P.R. is a healthy child without any special needs, as confirmed by her family doctor, Dr. Thimm. The father describes her as “crazy, hyper and very smart”. The mother describes P.R. as “outgoing, a bubbly child with random ideas”, and a child full of character who does outrageous things that make everyone laugh.

[78] Alonzo describes P.R. as “hyper, happy, very playful, eager to learn, always excited”. Kim describes P.R. as “uniquely herself” and wonderful but that she can be defiant.

[79] P.R. has resided primarily in Mitchell for her entire life. She has a best friend Tiger Lily in Mitchell with whom she has frequent playdates. She is attached to her two cats who live with the father.

[80] P.R. has also attended Upper Thames Elementary School for her entire life. She has friends at the school. She participates in activities at school including the school choir and is involved in community activities such as dance. She has asked about playing outdoor soccer this summer and there is a local house league in Mitchell on Tuesday evenings. The father has confirmed that she can still participate even if she is only in Mitchell on alternate weeks.

[81] However, since April, 2020, P.R. has spent a significant amount of time in Sarnia with her mother, step-father and siblings with whom she is very close to.

[82] The mother was at home with P.R. during the majority of the time when the parties were together as generally she was not working. Although the father has always worked full-time, when he was not working he was a very active parent. When the parties were together, he would often get up with P.R. in the morning and care for her before he went to work and would share in the parenting of P.H. after he came home from work, including feeding and changing her. The father also woke up in the night to feed P.R.

[83] After the parties separated from October, 2017 to August, 2018, the parties equally shared parenting P.R. When the mother moved back in with the father from August, 2018 to April, 2020, she stayed at home with P.R. during the day while the father was a work and took P.R. with her to Sarnia on alternate weekends.

[84] From approximately April or May, 2020 until September, 2021, the parties equally shared parenting time. It was not until September, 2021, that P.R.’s primary residence was with the father, and she spent alternate weekends with the mother during the school year. At all other times, the parties equally shared parenting time with P.R.

The strength of P.R.’s relationship with her parents and siblings

[85] It is clear that P.R. has a strong positive relationship with both of her parents, which was confirmed in Ms. Schweitzer’s report. Ms. Schweitzer observed that P.R. and her father were comfortable with and affectionate towards each other. Ms. Schweitzer observed P.R. with both the mother and Alonzo and all of her siblings. She indicates that everyone appeared comfortable with each other and that the adults coached and guided the children in their activities. Ms. Schweitzer observed smiles, laughter and physical affection between all members of the family.

[86] The father advises that he and P.R. have a “very good” relationship. He has adjusted his life to be focused on P.R. It is clear that P.R. really enjoys her time alone with her father. Kim advises that P.R. is excited to tell her about her day and their relationship is good “most of the time”. P.R. likes the fact that Kim can pick her up from school so that she does not have to always go to the babysitters. However, P.R. does have disagreements with Kim and is not happy about Kim and her daughters moving in with her father.

[87] The mother explains that she and P.R. have a close bond. If P.R. is having a bad day, they cuddle up together. The mother states that P.R. is often upset when she has to return to her father’s on Sundays. Even though the mother resides in Sarnia, she has done her best to be involved in P.R.’s life by attending school open houses, her festival performance, and a Christmas concert. When P.R. has a PA day on the mother’s weekend, the mother plans a day together with just her and P.R.

[88] The mother states that P.R. “loves Alonzo” with whom she has a sweet relationship. Ms. Schweitzer observed good interactions between Alonzo and P.R. and there was no difference in P.R’s interactions with her mother and with Alonzo.

[89] P.R. has a close relationship with her half and step-siblings. P.R. is always trying to help with her youngest brother Tidus and is very affectionate with him. P.R. and Emersynn play dolls together. Both the mother and Alonzo attest to the close relationship that P.R. has with Alonzo’s children, and P.R.’s half-siblings. P.R. spends a lot of time with Lyzza as they have the same interests. They like to do art together. P.R. likes to make forts with Demetrius. The family has a routine on Friday nights when P.R. is with the mother to have movie night and have campouts. When Ms. Schweitzer wanted to interview P.R. privately on one occasion, P.R. got upset as she was missing time playing outside with her siblings.

Each parent’s willingness to support the other parent’s relationship with P.R.:

[90] Both parents testified to the strong relationship that P.R. has with the other parent. The mother acknowledges that P.R. has a really good relationship with her father and that P.R. is “daddy’s girl”. The father believes that P.R. has a good relationship with her mother and her siblings. The father has always offered the mother more parenting time with P.R.

[91] Although both parties would like primary care of P.R. so that P.R. can attend school in their communities, both parties advocate for extensive parenting time with the other parent.

The ability of each parent to care for P.R.:

[92] Both parents were positive about the other to Ms. Schweitzer. The mother described the father as a “good dad” and the father described the mother as a “very good mother” when they were together. Ms. Schweitzer confirmed that there was no concern with either parent’s capacity to parent.

[93] Both parties expressed some concerns about communication between them, including information about extracurricular activities, dental appointments, and medical issues. However, the parties have agreed to a joint decision-making order, and a parenting app may assist to ensure that all issues regarding P.R. are promptly communicated.

[94] P.R.’s report cards from November, 2019 in junior kindergarten to February, 2024 in grade 3 were filed. Although there was a concern regarding her attendance, she did improve in her abilities in each year. At the end of grade 1, her teacher noted that “P.R. has lots of potential and her attitude towards learning has also improved”, but that “regular attendance at school will also help improve her skills”. At the end of grade 2, her attendance had improved. She was still struggling with reading and communication skills. Her February, 2024 report card for grade 3 indicated only 4.5 days absent, and an improvement in her learning habits and communication skills.

[95] Both parents attended the meet-the-teacher and parent-teacher interviews this year. No concerns were expressed by P.R.’s teacher about the parents, and that P.R. seems content in both of her parents’ homes.

[96] Both parents expressed some concerns about the other’s parenting.

[97] The father was concerned that the mother did not change her weeks with P.R. during the pandemic when school was online so that she would not have Alonzo’s children with her at the time she had P.R. to focus on P.R. He also expressed concerns that the mother declined additional parenting time with P.R. at Christmas as it did not align with the time Alonzo had with his children. The mother’s response to both concerns was the P.R. enjoys her time with her step-siblings, which was confirmed in the OCL report.

[98] The mother has some concerns that P.R. was not bathed regularly at her father’s and sometimes comes to the mother’s home with matted hair and smelling of cat urine. However, the father advises that P.R. bathes every second day while in his care and acknowledged that the cats did have accidents in his home and P.R. may have stepped in their urine. One of P.R.’s teachers noticed an odour of cat urine on P.R.’s clothing. However, P.R.’s grade 2 teacher, Ms. Otten indicated that P.R. always arrives at school clean and appropriately dressed but her hair can be dishevelled.

[99] The mother also had a concern that P.R. had to be brought to the hospital as her ears were swollen due to the backing of her earrings being pushed into her ear and the father may not have properly cleaned P.R.’s earrings. However, the father indicated that he takes her earrings out once a week to clean them.

[100] I do not find that any concerns about the other parent were significant, and P.R. is well cared for in each home.

Plans for P.R.’s care:

The mother’s plan:

[101] Should P.R. be placed in the mother’s primary care, her plan is:

• The mother and Alonzo moved to a larger home on January 1, 2024. This is a 5-bedroom home with 2 bathrooms and a finished basement. P.R. will share a room with Lyzza.
• P.R. will attend P.E. McGibbon School where P.R.’s siblings also attend. The mother filed a letter from Melissa Holmes, the vice-principal of P.E. McGibbon School dated February 1, 2024 confirming that P.R. could be enrolled in the school for the 2023/2024 school year. P.E. McGibbon also offers one-on-one tutoring that P.R. could access. The school is only a 3-minute drive from the mother’s home.
• P.R. could be a patient of Dr. Bandle, the same pediatrician for both Tidus and Emersynn.
• Alonzo is employed full-time and earns approximately $71,000. He works from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m., usually 4 to 5 days in a row and then gets 2 days off. The mother will stay at home with the children, and she has no intention at this point of returning to work. The mother will be able to drop off and pick up P.R. from school without the need for P.R. to go to a babysitter.
• The mother has the support of Alonzo’s former partner, Shaye, who is the mother of Lyzza and Demetrius. Shaye and the mother also knew each other from high school, and they communicate well. The mother’s best friend also resides in Sarnia and is a support to her.

The father’s plan:

[102] The father’s plan is essentially to maintain the status quo for P.R. in the home where she has resided since her birth. The father has a good relationship with one of his brothers who lives close to Mitchell in Baden, and who has 2 children close in age to P.R. They get together to do family activities 2 to 3 times per month.

[103] The father plans to continue to use Ms. Podann as P.R.’s babysitter.

[104] The biggest unknown in the father’s plan is when his partner, Kim and her children will move in with him. Although the father and Kim would like to move in together, there is no set timeline for this plan. Both the father and Kim understand that this would be a significant adjustment for both P.R. and Kim’s children, and Kim would like to get her children’s agreement to the move. Kim also must resolve the issue of her move with her ex-partner due to the relocation restrictions in her Separation Agreement. Kim said that her ex-partner was an “asshole” for including relocation restrictions in the Agreement, and he will not consent to her moving.

[105] P.R. will always continue to have her own room at the father’s home even if Kim and her daughters move in.

P.R.’s views and preferences:

[106] P.R. has asked her mother and Alonzo on several occasions in 2021 and 2022 if she could live in Sarnia and attend school with her siblings. She is sad when she has to leave after spending extended periods of time with her mother.

[107] The father indicates that P.R. has never said anything to him about going to school in Sarnia. He states that P.R. likes her present school and is always excited about what will happen in the upcoming year including who her teacher will be. P.R. has become involved in activities at school and the choir. This year she wants to do a solo at the Music Festival.

[108] P.R. indicated to Ms. Schweitzer the following views:

• P.R. initially said that she likes the schedule as it is: residing with her father and seeing her mother on alternate weekends, and that the drive between Mitchell and Sarnia is “okay”.
• P.R. then said she was “in-between” about the drive, and it is okay because she has her iPad with her.
• P.R. said that sometimes she feels “really angry” and sometimes she feels “calm” about her father’s partner Kim.
• She said that Micheline and Lillian visit a lot and “fight a lot” and P.R. does not like it when they fight. Micheline and Lillian sleep over a lot and P.R. is “in-between” about them sleeping over. If they moved in, P.R. indicated that she would hear “lots and lots” of fighting between them.
• P.R. really wants a week-about schedule with her parents so that it is equal. Now it is not equal, and she is sad about that.
• P.R. denied telling anyone that she wants to be at her mom’s house, but she would like to go to the same school as her siblings.
• P.R. has dinner at Ashley’s (the babysitter) “all of the time”, that there is a “lot of driving” to get to Ashley’s home, but it is okay being there. However, she knows that her mother does not work, and she would not have to go to the babysitter if she resided with her mother.
• If she lived with her mother, P.R. would miss her school and miss her cats. She did not talk about missing her friends.
• P.R. did not like the idea of Kim moving in and gets “really mad” about that idea. She felt that if Kim moved in it would not be fair to her and her father as they need time alone together. P.R. says that she does not get along with Kim. P.R. also did not like the idea of Kim’s dog moving in with them as the dog barks all of the time.
• P.R. had no worries at her mother’s house. Her only worry at her father’s house was if Kim moved in as Kim yells at her when her father is not there.

Conclusion on Primary Residence

[109] P.R. is very fortunate to have two parents who love her very much. Her parents are both great parents and there are no concerns in either household. To their credit, the parents have been able to maintain a good relationship which has been very positive for P.R. P.R. told Ms. Schweitzer that “her mom and dad have always been friends, they just do not live together anymore”.

[110] Balancing all of the best interests factors in s. 39.4 (3) and s. 24(3), I find that it is in P.R. best interests to reside in the primary care of her mother during the school year considering the following:

• The father works longer hours. Although P.R. likes her babysitter, she does not like having the extra drives to the babysitters and eating dinner there “all of the time”. At the mother’s home, P.R. likes the idea of her mother being there for her after school so that she does not have to go to the babysitters.
• P.R. struggles with reading and communication and having a parent assist her with these issues would be helpful.
• P.R. is very bonded with her siblings who reside with her mother. She wants to be able to attend school with them. P.R. has a good relationship with Alonzo. There is no evidence that she has said negative things about Alonzo or her siblings. She has no worries at her mother’s home. The mother was P.R.’s primary caregiver until she was almost 5 years old, and then shared parenting with the father for a good portion of the last 3 years.
• P.R. does have worries at her father’s home about Kim and her daughters moving in. P.R. does not appear to have a good relationship with her father’s partner Kim and has negative views of Kim’s children. When asked to describe P.R., Kim indicated that she is “uniquely herself”, and wonderful but that she can be defiant. Kim explained that when she asks P.R. to do chores, she will not do them for Kim, saying “I don’t want to do them with you”, but said she will do them for her dad. There are concerns with P.R.’s relationship with Kim and what will happen if Kim moves into the father’s home.
• P.R. gets “really mad” about the idea of Kim and her daughters moving in with them, and wants alone time with her father. In the spring of 2023 when they asked P.R. about Kim moving in, Kim acknowledged to Ms. Schweizer that P.R. said “no”.

[111] Until 2022, the parties were able to agree upon P.R.’s primary residence. The driving force behind the matter being brought to court was P.R.’s views that she wanted to attend school in Sarnia with her siblings. At the beginning of the OCL investigation, P.R. was neutral regarding her living arrangements. However, P.R. was eventually able to articulate clearly to the OCL that she wanted to attend school in Sarnia with her siblings; that she saw the benefit of being able to be with her mother after school instead of with a babysitter, and that she has worries about her father’s home anticipating that Kim and her daughters may be moving in. I find that even at the age of 8, P.R.’s views and preferences should be given considerable weight, although not determinative. The evidence as a whole supports that it is in P.R.’s best interests to primarily reside with her mother during the school year, particularly given that the primary consideration for the court is P.R.’s “physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.” [^2], which can better be met at this time in the primary care of her mother during the school year.

[112] P.R.’s situation is similar to 12-year-old N.M.’s situation in Imam v. Moonilal, 2023 ONSC 6264 [^3]. In that case, N.M. had resided primarily with his mother for 3 years since the parents separated and lived and attended school in Etobicoke. The father had alternate weekend parenting time. The father wanted N.M. to relocate to Kitchener and attend school there. N.M. articulated to the OCL that wanted to primarily reside with his father and new siblings who were close to his age in Kitchener to attend school with them, seeing his mother in Etobicoke on weekends. In that case, the court permitted the change in N.M.’s primary residence from Etobicoke to Kitchener even on a temporary basis.

[113] I do not find that the change resulting from a move to primarily reside in Sarnia will be difficult for P.R. P.R. has already spent a significant amount of time residing with her mother in Sarnia. She wants to attend school with her siblings. Even the father told Ms. Schweitzer that he saw the benefit for P.R. being able to go to school with her siblings.

[114] Although P.R. said she would miss her school if she moved, she did not mention to Ms. Schweitzer any specific friend who she would miss, and her grade 2 teacher indicated that at school P.R. did not have a “particular” friend.

[115] The mother is willing to give the father three weekends a month of parenting time, which is more quality time with P.R. than he presently has, as he sometimes works later hours during the week. P.R. can still see her friends, her cats and participate in soccer in Mitchell. P.R. can still spend time with Kim and Micheline and Lillian without having the stress of them residing with her full-time.

[116] If P.R.’s primary residence changed, she was willing to have P.R. start school in Sarnia in September, 2024. It makes sense for P.R. to be able to finish her school year in Mitchell.

Child Support and Section 7 expenses

[117] In accordance with the father’s last Financial Statement sworn February 22, 2024 and filed at trial, his annual income is $69,115.56, which is a monthly Guideline amount of $645.00 monthly. Although the court can consider the costs of relocation to a parent, both parties have been sharing the costs for transportation, and will continue to do so. [^4]

[118] The father argued that the mother is able to work, and some income should be imputed to her. Indeed, since P.R.’s birth, the mother has worked part-time at McDonalds for periods of time. The mother was not opposed to the court imputing some income to her for the purposes of sharing s.7 expenses. In this case, imputing an income of $20,000 to the mother for the purpose of proportionate sharing of s. 7 expenses is reasonable.

Order

[119] Therefore, there will be the following FINAL order:

1. The parties (the applicant “father”, and the respondent “mother”) shall share joint decision-making responsibility for the child, Paislee Kennedy Marie Pilkington born November 22, 2015. The parties shall consult with all medical and educational service providers for the Paislee and follow their recommendations.

2. Commencing September 1, 2024, the primary residence of Paislee shall be with the mother. Until that time, the status quo regarding parenting time shall continue with alternate weekend parenting time with the mother and a week-about parenting schedule in the summer holidays.

3. Commencing September 1, 2024, the father shall have parenting time with Paislee as follows:

   (a) Three out of four weekends each month from Friday at 6:30 p.m. to Sunday at 6:30 p.m. The exact weekends shall be agreed upon by the parties. (b) Where the father’s weekend is preceding or followed by a P.A. day, the father’s parenting time shall commence at Thursday at 6:30 p.m. or be extended to Monday at 6:30 p.m.

4. Holiday parenting time shall be as follows:

   (a) The summer school break shall be on a week-about basis from Friday at 6:30 p.m. to Friday at 6:30 p.m. (b) The parties shall share other holidays such as Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving, on an equal basis, with the exact dates and times to be agreed upon. (c) The parties shall equally share the March school break as agreed upon, either splitting the week equally, or alternating March breaks. (d) Despite the parenting schedule, Paislee shall spend Mother’s Day with the mother and Father’s Days with the father.

5. Paislee shall have a minimum of twice weekly FaceTime/phone calls with the father. The days and times of Paislee’s calls with her father shall be consistent to allow for predictability but flexibility taking into consideration the schedules of each family.

Additional Parenting Terms:

6. The parties shall use a parenting app as agreed upon to discuss issues related to Paislee or her schedule. The parties may also communicate by other means such as phone, text or email.

7. Exchanges for parenting time shall occur at the Tim Horton’s in Strathroy, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.

Child Support and S. 7 Expenses:

8. Commencing September 1, 2024, the father shall pay Guideline child support to the mother for the child, Paislee Reiber born November 22, 2015 in the amount of $645/month on the basis of his current salary of $69,115.00.

9. Commencing June 1, 2024, the parties shall proportionately share agreed upon extracurricular activities and net costs of all medical and dental expenses (after applying any health benefits). For the purpose of proportionate shares, the father’s income is $69,115.00 and the mother’s imputed income is $20,000.00.

10. As of May 31, 2024, there are no arrears of s. 7 expenses, and as of August 31, 2024, there are no arrears of child support.

11. Each party shall name Paislee as a beneficiary under any health care plans they may have through their employment.

[120] The parties attempted through mediation to resolve issues and the only issue in dispute was Paislee’s primary residence, which is understandable as each party loves and wanted what was best for Paislee. In this case, I am not inclined to order any costs. However, should either party wish to request costs, written submissions of not more than 3 pages attaching Bill of Costs and any Offers to Settle may be served and filed by April 30, 2024.

Released: March 28, 2024 Signed: Justice K.S. Neill

[^1]: Rice v. Abbott, [2006] O.J. No. 4889 (Ont.S.C.) [^2]: Section 24(2), CLRA [^3]: Imam v. Moonilal, 2023 ONSC 6264 [^4]: Section 39.4(9) CLRA; s 10(2)(b) of the Guidelines.