S.L.F.C.S. v. F.N.C.S., 2025 ONCJ 225

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: April 28, 2025
COURT FILE No.: Toronto FO-24-00045011
Citation: 2025 ONCJ 225

BETWEEN:

S L F C S
Applicant/Mother

— AND —

F N C S
Respondent/Father

Before Justice Debra Paulseth
Heard on April 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on April 22, 2025
Amended April 28, 2025

Camila Motta — counsel for the applicant
Kamla Lewis — counsel for the respondent

Paulseth, J.:

Part 1: Overview

[1] The parties grew up in the same city in Brazil. They married in 2010. In 2015, they emigrated to Canada and their child, B, was born on […], 2019.

[2] On October 7, 2020, the parents separated. They entered mediation and two agreements were executed:

(1) November 7, 2021, a brief summary of which follows:
(a) Property division with monthly spousal support until the end of 2026;
(b) Joint decision making and shared parenting schedule of 2 days per week for each parent and alternate weekends, such that each parent has the child for 12 to 13 overnights per month;
(c) Child support based on the father’s notice of assessment and imputing mother with part time minimum wage work totalling $15,000 annually. The set off was calculated to be $3,470 a month payable by father to mother, commencing December 5, 2021;
(d) Exchange of financial documents by August 1 annually with child support adjusted August 1 based on previous year’s income;
(e) Section 7 expenses to be shared proportionately (estimated at that time as 78% for father and 22% for mother) as agreed upon in advance for such items as daycare, sports and other extra-curricular activities, additional educational expenses, unfunded health and dental, and post-secondary expenses;
(f) Agreement to live in Toronto; 60 days notice of any intention to leave the area; and
(g) Disputes following a material change or review provision to be referred to an agreed upon mediator, the cost of which to be shared equally.

(2) December 7, 2021, a brief summary of which follows:
(a) Father paid child support in 2020 for October, November, and December of $1,021.33 a month for a total of $3,064;
(b) In 2021, father paid child support for January to November, inclusive, of $3,100 a month and $3,549 for the month of December; and
(c) Spousal support amounts paid.

[3] Both parents are well educated. Mother is a dietician with a Master’s degree and two post graduate diplomas. Father is an anesthesiologist with a local hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto. The parents waived independent legal representation for both agreements.

[4] On February 27, 2022, a divorce was granted in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto. There were no corollary terms attached.

[5] In August 2023, mother served her Notice of Relocation to Brazil. Father served his Objection in September 2023 and the parties attempted mediation, unsuccessfully.

[6] In April 2024, mother filed an originating Application with this court seeking permission to relocate to Brazil with sole decision-making responsibility and child support, both adjusted for the relocation and retroactive to the date of separation.

[7] Father filed his Answer in May 2023. He is opposed to the relocation and seeks to rely on the terms of their separation agreement. He defends his child support payments by pointing to the fact that his primary care of the child was for more than 60% during the material times.

Issues to be decided:

1. Is mother authorized to move with the child to Brazil?
2. If she is authorized, what parenting orders are in the child’s best interests?
3. Mother seeks a retroactive adjustment of child support for those years in which she had primary care of the child; specifically from the date of separation until shared parenting began in November of 2021.
4. Father seeks a retroactive adjustment in child support for the period of time when the mother was in Brazil without the child and he was the primary caregiver; specifically, from February 1, 2023 until May 31, 2024.
5. What is the father’s income for ongoing child support purposes? What is the mother’s income?
6. What is the impact of the section 9 Child Support Guideline (CSG) analysis for child support with shared parenting?

Part 2: Relocation and Parenting Orders

Evidence for the mother

[8] Mother gave evidence and called her mother, her sister, her aunt, and a friend as additional witnesses. A summary of this evidence is:

(1) The parties were both born and raised in Campinas, Brazil, which is a city of about 1.5 million people, approximately 90 minutes by car from Sao Paolo. They married in 2010 in Brazil.
(2) Mother knew that father was a Canadian citizen when they began dating. After the marriage, mother knew the father was applying to several out of country jurisdictions to pursue his medical specialization.
(3) Mother has a master’s degree and two post graduate diplomas in sports nutrition. As a licensed dietician, she opened a clinic in Campinas. In 2016, the couple moved to Porto Velho (almost 3,000 km away and about an 8 hour flight) where the father could earn more money and save for a move to another country for post graduate work.
(4) Mother is very close to her family, specifically her mother and aunt who live in Campinas and her sister who lives in Sao Paolo. She was reluctant to leave Brazil but eventually agreed to go with father. They arrived in Toronto in 2017.
(5) Mother tried to write her Canadian equivalent licensing exam to practice as a dietitian here but failed one of the two exams. She also had some medical setbacks before giving birth to B.
(6) Both sets of grandparents came from Campinas to Toronto to support the new parents. The maternal grandmother stayed for 9 months and the maternal aunt also came.
(7) A month after the maternal family left in September 2020, the parents decided to separate. Father told mother he was bi-sexual.
(8) The child has spent significant amounts of time with the mother’s family:
(i) In Toronto with both parents: maternal grandparents and maternal aunt from birth for almost 9 months (at father’s expense)
(ii) In Toronto with mother: maternal grandmother November 1 to December 24, 2020
(iii) In Campinas with mother: December 25, 2020 to January 31, 2021
(iv) In Toronto with mother: maternal aunt: February 5 to August 5, 2021; 5 months;
(v) In Campinas with mother: January 21 to April 4, 2022;
(vi) In Toronto with mother: maternal aunt from February 7 to August 5, 2022 (6 months);
(vii) In Campinas with mother: August 6 to September 21, 2022;
(viii) In Campinas with mother: from December 10, 2022 to February 19, 2023;
(ix) In Campinas with mother from June 18 to July 8, 2023
(x) In Toronto with mother: maternal aunt from October 26 to November 12, 2023
(xi) In Campinas with mother: February 13 to February 25, 2024
(xii) In Toronto with mother: maternal aunt (her new husband joined 3 weeks later) December 3 to February 2, 2025
(9) While family was visiting mother in Toronto, the child was also seeing father.
(10) Mother argues that the child’s tremendous amount of time with her family is the real status quo.
(11) In future, mother will not be able to afford to maintain this level of family contact. Other circumstances will also affect the amount of visiting time for the child: he will be in school, mother began to work part time in July 2024, and maternal aunt has married and moved to Sao Paolo.
(12) Mother considers Campinas both her and the child’s true home.
(13) Mother believes she has been the child’s primary caregiver. She has seen the father try to juggle a demanding career and child care responsibilities. If she is “home”, she will have support from her family.
(14) Mother is currently working part time at a nearby gym but her goal is to return to her profession as a dietician. In Campinas she is already licensed to work in her profession and has her family for support.
(15) In Toronto, she and the father have to rely on professional help: daycares, nannies, and babysitters as their back up.
(16) In Campinas, the maternal grandparents and maternal great aunt and uncle are there to support the mother as well as other extended family members. The father’s parents and his brother are also living there and able to help. The court notes that maternal aunt and her husband now live in Sao Paolo.
(17) The mother testified that it would be easier in Campinas to maintain the child’s religious connections to the same church that both mother and father were raised in. In Toronto, there is only one such church in their denomination and it is not in the downtown area.
(18) Mother is also concerned that the child may lose his Portuguese language. In Campinas, he can be placed in a private school that is bilingual- both Portuguese and English.
(19) Mother’s emotional and psychological well-being would be improved if she could live in Campinas near her family. She was willing to move to Canada with the father as her sole support but since their separation, she has felt isolated and sad. She has regular online therapy with a Brazilian psychologist and also sees a Brazilian psychiatrist.
(20) Mother believes that she can only become self-sufficient if she is in Brazil, where she says her professional qualifications are still valid, even after 10 years, and she has supports.
(21) Mother’s plan is to return to Campinas:
(a) Sub-lease space as needed and begin seeing patients online- about 10 per week, earning about BRL19,500 a month (or Can$4,850)
(b) If this plan does not work out or does not work out fast enough, a family friend has offered her a position with their import business to work remotely and attend in person once a month (a flight and possible overnight away). The salary is BRL 13,500 (about Can$3,300 monthly). In addition to child support, mother could then provide a stable and modest standard of living for the child. The child could see mother succeed.
(c) Extended parenting time for father during school holidays and summer breaks; frequent video calls, flexible parenting time whenever father can visit; and mother will bring the child to Toronto for a visit.
(d) Father could also explore the option of returning to work in Campinas; in particular, father had a consulting business that could be done remotely;
(e) Mother has identified a private international American school in Campinas for the child. The child could start grade one there in September 2025. According to mother, the private schools in Campinas would provide the child with a far better education than the public system he is currently enrolled in. The cost is between $1,000 and $1,500 a month;
(f) The child will have rich extra-curricular activities, such as swimming, music, and sports and social interaction with cousins and friends;
(g) Mother has looked at several condominiums in three different upper middle class neighborhoods. Her budget is about $6,450 monthly, including the cost of private health care insurance, private school, a car, cleaning, gym, vacation, and gifts. The father’s monthly child support (estimated at $5,106) will nearly cover that amount.
(22) Mother breast fed the child until he was about two years of age. Mother estimates the parenting time for father since separation has been:
(a) Initially half of the weekdays from after work until the child went to sleep and during the day both Saturday and Sunday on the weekends;
(b) At about 13 months of age, the child started having overnight visits with father which increased to two nights a week and one night on the weekend; and
(c) In November 2021, the child started daycare. Parenting time increased until a full 2-2-3 schedule began by January of 2022.
(23) In September 2023, the child began Kindergarten at the local alternative public school.
(24) Occasionally, father has relied on others to pick up the child or care for the child due to emergencies or work commitments.
(25) Mother expressed concern that father has prematurely introduced the child to various partners or friends.
(26) Maternal grandmother, maternal great aunt and maternal aunt all gave evidence that indicated their support of the mother, without providing too many details, other than maternal grandmother said they could stay with her until they got their own apartment. Maternal great aunt has a young child who attends the local public school. Maternal aunt is married and living in Sao Paolo now.
(27) Maternal grandmother said that father spoke about Canada when the couple were just dating.
(28) A friend of the mother’s gave evidence of mother’s sincere desire to return to Campinas. This friend is also from Brazil. She met mother through their church here in west Toronto. She has chosen to live here and is happy here. She went to school here to qualify as an early childhood educator and works in a daycare.
(29) All witnesses testified that the father was a great father.

Evidence for the father

[9] The father gave evidence and called a friend, who is also a colleague, as a witness. A summary of their evidence follows:

(1) Both parents are naturalized Canadian citizens and Brazilian nationals. The child is a Canadian citizen and a naturalized Brazilian.
(2) After separation, the parents entered an agreement that provided for joint decision-making responsibility and shared parenting time.
(3) In father’s view, the commitment to the shared parenting arrangement has been an established status quo against which the relocation request should be measured.
(4) The only significant deviation from equal parenting time was between February of 2023 and May of 2024 when the mother spent extended periods of time in Brazil. During this 16 month period, mother travelled to Brazil 7 times and father cared for the child about 60% of the time.
(5) After February of 2024 the parents gradually transitioned to a 2-2-3 parenting schedule which has been firmly in place since June of 2024.
(6) Father maintains that mother actually began preparations to move to Brazil long before serving her relocation notice in August 2023. She purchased a one way ticket for herself in May 2023 and a return ticket for her boyfriend to come and help her move. She told the father she was going to live with her boyfriend and she secured a one year lease on an apartment, effective May 2023. She also gave her Toronto landlord formal notice of terminating her lease. Father understood that he would be the primary caregiver here in Toronto until the mother got settled.
(7) In March 2023, in light of the mother’s stated intention to move back to Brazil, father encouraged mother to obtain legal advice. As a result, on July 17, 2023, mother advised father that she was rescinding her lease termination. Father believes that mother realized she would lose her child support payments if father was caring for the child here in Toronto.
(8) This complete change in plan by the mother significantly impacted the father, who had made nanny and other plans for his full time care of the child.
(9) Father testifies that he has been a hands on father since the child’s birth and committed to the shared parenting plan since separation. He has enrolled the child in daycare and later in school. He has scheduled and attended most of the child’s medical and dental appointments. He also organizes the child’s extra-curricular activities.
(10) In father’s view, the child has two strong primary caregivers. There are no concerns expressed about the father’s care of the child. Mother acknowledges that he is a capable and caring father.
(11) Father agrees that extended family can be a positive influence and support for a child. He points out however that some of the relatives mentioned by the mother are somewhat distantly related.
(12) Father also has close family; his brother and his family and the paternal grandparents live in Campinas. He also has siblings in Vancouver, Ottawa, and New Brunswick. The paternal grandparents and paternal aunt from Moncton attended the trial as support for father.
(13) Father believes that extended family must be secondary to the parents, particularly when both parents are fully engaged.
(14) Father also points out that the contact with mother’s family in Brazil was all agreed upon by him. Father consistently tried to keep a 50% parenting time with his child. Father says that his support for mother’s travel to visit family does not mean he supports the child living there permanently.
(15) Father admits that after receiving the notice of relocation, he was less willing to agree to such trips. In fact, since the Notice in August 2023, the child has only been to Brazil once for a 13 day family event in February of 2024.
(16) The child has a stable and rich community in Toronto: swimming lessons, hip hop classes, and sports. He has play dates and visits to local attractions for children. The 2-2-3 schedule has recently changed to a 2-5-5.
(17) Father enjoys a bond which is strengthened by the regular 50-50 schedule in place. Father can describe his daily routine with the child in detail: after school, dinner, homework, bedtime, weekend activities, and school events.
(18) Father employs a part-time nanny/housekeeper for three days a week from 4 til 7 p.m. Perhaps once a month, father will be held up at work and the nanny will pick up the child from the after-school daycare. Generally, though, the nanny comes and cleans and helps to prepare dinner, so that father can pick up the child from daycare and spend time with him.
(19) Father’s colleague and friend from Campinas medical school gave evidence. She now works with father, as an anesthetist at the same local hospital. She is married and has two children. She returns to Campinas as a family once a year and also tries to return to visit her mother once a year.
(20) This colleague describes the schedule for their team of 50 anesthetists. They have a rotating daily and on call schedule; such that the day shift is 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with on call once a month and one weekend a month. If you work an on call shift you get the next day off. She has time with her children every evening and 3 out of 4 weekends. If you work the weekend, you get the next day off also. The senior doctor who schedules their team supports a family comes first principle.
(21) This witness has known father since medical school in Campinas. She also knows and likes the mother. She describes the father as like a brother to her and the child like a nephew. They spend a lot of social time together. She says that father is the best father she has ever known.

Legal Framework

Relocation

[10] The Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) provides a comprehensive framework that governs relocation matters. The sections of the Act that address relocation are 39.3 and 39.4.

[11] As B spends substantially equal time in the care of each party, the onus is on the mother to prove that the relocation is in the child’s best interests. See section 39.4(5) of the Act.

[12] In determining whether to authorize the relocation of a child, the court is required to consider the best interests of the child in accordance with section 24 of the Act, as well as the factors at subsection 39.4(3) of the Act, which are as follows:

(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.

[13] In Barendregt v. Grebliunis, 2022 SCC 22, the court interpreted these relocation provisions as follows:

1. The parent who cares for the child on a daily basis is in a unique position to assess what is in their best interests: Gordon, at para. 48. This logic applies to both parents in a shared parenting arrangement, and accordingly, both of their views are entitled to great respect in an assessment of the child’s best interests. This makes sense: a court always pays careful attention to the views of the parents. In my view, it adds little value to this analysis to label it a separate principle of “great respect”. See: paragraph 119.
2. The court should avoid casting judgment on a parent’s reasons for moving. A moving parent need not prove the move is justified. And a lack of a compelling reason for the move, in and of itself, should not count against a parent, unless it reflects adversely on a parent’s ability to meet the needs of the child. Ultimately, the moving parent’s reasons for relocating must not deflect from the focus of relocation applications — they must be considered only to the extent they are relevant to the best interests of the child. See: paragraphs 129-130.
3. Avoiding family violence or acrimony can be an important best interests factor in determining relocation. See: paragraph 147.
4. The court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, which may include the child's views and preferences, the history of caregiving, any incidents of family violence, or a child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage. A court shall also consider each parent's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other parent, and 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. These examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. See: paragraph 153.
5. At paragraph 154 the court writes:
   [154] However, traditional considerations bearing on the best interests of the child must be considered in the context of the unique challenges posed by relocation cases. In addition to the factors that a court will generally consider when determining the best interest of the child and any applicable notice requirements, a court should also consider:
   • the reasons for the relocation;
   • the impact of the relocation on the child;
   • the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or a pending application for a parenting order and the level of involvement in the child's life of each of those persons;
   • the existence of an order, arbitral award, or agreement that specifies the geographic area in which the child is to reside;
   • the reasonableness of the proposal of the person who intends to relocate the child to vary the exercise of parenting time, decision making responsibility or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new place of residence and the travel expenses; and
   • whether each person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility or a pending application for a parenting order has complied with their obligations under family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance.
   The court should not consider how the outcome of an application would affect either party's relocation plans - for example, whether the person who intends to move with the child would “relocate without the child or not relocate…”
6. The mother’s need for emotional support was an important factor. Courts have frequently recognized that a child’s best interests are furthered by a well-functioning and happy parent. See: paragraph 169.
7. Relocation that provides a parent with more education, employment opportunities, and economic stability can contribute to a child’s wellbeing. These considerations all have direct or indirect bearing on the best‑interests‑of‑the‑child assessment. See: paragraph 171.
8. The additional support of family and community at the new location can enhance the parent’s ability to care for the children. See: paragraph 172.
9. It is often difficult to disentangle the interests of a parent from the interests of a child. Indeed, “the reality that the nurture of children is inextricably intertwined with the well-being of the nurturing parent” is far from novel. A child’s welfare is often advanced in tandem with improvements in the parent’s financial, social, and emotional circumstances. The trial judge found this to be the case here. See: paragraph 173.

Best Interests:

[14] Section 24 of the CLRA sets out the best interests criteria, but this list is not exhaustive. See: White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 173.

[15] Caselaw has provided additional guidance; such as:

1. The child’s best interests are not merely “paramount” – they are the only consideration in this analysis: Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27 at para. 28; Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 641
2. The court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents. Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27.
3. No one factor in the statutory definition of a child’s best interests is given statutory preeminence. Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479.
4. A young child with attachments to both parents needs sufficient contact with both, without prolonged separations to maintain a meaningful and close relationship with them. Van Den Driessche v. Van Den Driessche, 2011 CarswellMan 255 (Q.B. Family); Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479.
5. In resolving custody disputes, emphasis must be placed on the critical importance of bonding, attachment and stability in the lives of young children. Barnes v. Parks
6. 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 custody order as it demonstrates poor judgment and an inability to prioritize the child’s interests. See: Jama v. Mohamed, [2015] ONCJ 619; P.H. v. T.J., 2017 ONCJ 166; McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610; J.T. v. E.J., 2022 ONSC 4956; Shokoufimogiman v. Bozorgi, 2022 ONSC 5057.

[16] The list of best interests’ factors is 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, her needs and the people around her. See: Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.

[17] No one factor is dispositive, and not every parenting dispute will contain every factor. Each parenting dispute must be decided on its own facts, in relation to the factors that are present with the primary consideration being the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being. See: M.Q v. R.C., 2022 ONSC 1753 and Cote v. Parsons, 2021 ONSC 3719.

Analysis

Credibility and reliability:

[18] Both parents are credible and reliable. They do not accuse each other of fabrication or undependability. Their narratives are consistent.

[19] Both parents and their respective families seem to genuinely like one another. They all appear to share an honest and generous approach to life.

[20] In thousands of pages of actual parenting time analysis, each parent notes but a few errors in the other’s methodology.

Parenting Style:

[21] The parents do not accuse each other of poor parenting. They support each other as fully capable and competent parents.

[22] The parents only disagree on one parenting issue, which is not determinative of this case.

Safety in Campinas:

[23] Both father and his colleague/friend point to some concerns about safety in Campinas. They have some terrible examples of sexual assaults and robbery.

[24] Mother points to the dropping crime rate in the area.

[25] Again, this issue is not determinative of the case. Both parents would take every step imaginable to ensure the safety of their child when living or travelling in Brazil, where many of their extended family members live.

Language and Culture:

[26] Both parents are very committed to maintaining their language and culture for their child.

[27] Mother was concerned that father was speaking more English with the child. Mother wants to safeguard his language by raising him in Campinas.

[28] Father does speak Portuguese with the child, as does his friend and her family when they get together for social activities.

[29] Both extended families speak Portuguese and will maintain that language connection for the child.

Religion:

[30] Both parents were raised in the same religion in Brazil. This particular Christian congregation has about 100 locations in and around Campinas but only one in Toronto.

[31] The maternal family are very involved in the church in Campinas; maternal grandmother plays the organ and maternal grandfather is a deacon.

[32] The paternal grandparents are also members of this church in Campinas.

[33] When the parents decided together to move to Toronto in 2017, religion was not the deciding factor and when they were together until late 2020, there is no evidence that they were active participants in this church.

[34] Father is concerned that this church is opposed to same sex partners and may make negative comments about sexuality in front of his child. Mother is confident that no one will say anything negative about father in front of the child.

[35] There is no doubt that each parent will continue to be a role model of their similar values for their child and will help the child to see the world through their respective and respectful eyes.

Parents’ New Partners:

[36] In their separation agreement, the parents had a section which included a protocol about introducing new partners to the child.

[37] Mother has had a long-term relationship with another man with whom she was going to live in Campinas. He has two children from a previous relationship. They broke up as he could not move here and she has been delayed in moving back there.

[38] Father too has had a long-term relationship which is over. He has also introduced two or more new friends to the child. Mother is concerned about this as the new friends did not turn out to be long term partners.

[39] Again, the court emphasizes the caring environment that these two separate parents have given to their child. This child is loved and supported equally by the parents and will be protected by them.

School:

[40] The parents do not express any negative comments about the child’s current school. A recent report card from senior kindergarten paints a picture of a bright and caring boy. He is noted to be developing soccer skills.

[41] Some concerns about the child being a bit clingy with the teacher have been addressed and the parents have also been offered an art therapy PhD student who will be working in the school with several students for additional support.

[42] Mother testified that the private schools in Campinas will be much better for the child. Father says the public system here is fine.

[43] Again, the school is not the determining factor in this case.

Agreed Upon Facts

[44] The parties continued to cooperate while the trial was ongoing and provided an Agreed Statement of Facts before closing submissions were made. Many of these facts are included in the various sections above. The court would add the following as particularly relevant to the parenting issues before the court:

(1) Since January 2023, father has been to Campinas on 3 occasions for vacation (3 days, one week, two weeks), and once as a visiting faculty member for one week.
(2) Since the birth of the child, the maternal grandmother has come to visit in November/December 2020 and both maternal grandparents came for about two weeks in November 2024.

Relocation and best Interests of B.

[45] In their separation agreement, the parents agreed to share the child and to remain in Toronto.

[46] Both parents are very respectful of each other and each other’s families.

[47] It is clear that both extended families and the parents share common values, which will continue to guide the parenting of B.

[48] B is much loved by all and is well cared for.

[49] Mother wants to move as she has felt lonely and isolated since the separation. Shortly after the separation she began to look towards the known and comfortable; such as Campinas, rather than to building a community here. She has come to associate Toronto with loss rather than opportunity.

[50] Mother has not lived in Campinas since 2016, when she and father moved to Porto Velhos.

[51] There is no dispute that B is thriving here – school, friends, activities.

[52] There is no dispute that B is very attached to both parents.

[53] B’s father is not a “visiting father”. He is an actively engaged and committed father who has always wanted and taken, whenever possible, his full 50% share of B’s time. He does not in any way shirk his responsibilities for B. He is happy to organize daycare and school. He pays his child support regularly and has provided for mother.

[54] Despite mother’s efforts to portray father as the “bread winner”, he is clearly much more than that. He is attuned to the relationships around him. He is able to connect with new people and travel with new interests. He remains always aware of the child’s needs and his responsibility to meet those needs. He cares deeply for this child.

[55] Mother has not made an effort to pursue her career here since she failed one exam some years ago now. She has, however, now found a part time job at the local gym. B has full time before and after school care, such that mother could work full time here or continue part time and study to upgrade her qualifications.

[56] B attends a good school here. He is stable, secure, and has a consistent routine.

[57] Father is committed to fostering B’s love of his Portuguese language and Brazilian culture. Father, himself, after nearly 10 years, has not lost his love for both.

[58] Because mother did not have employment, she was able to spend extended amounts of time in Brazil. Most people, including the father, do not have that amount of vacation or freedom from commitments.

[59] Mother proposes to maintain the child’s attachment and bond to father through technology and vacations. This is facile and completely fails to appreciate the nature of attachment. Her position is really just a measure of her own needs.

[60] Taking all of the above into account, it is impossible for mother to meet the onus on her. In particular, the court cannot accept that it is in this child’s best interests to move to Brazil. The court cannot authorize the mother move this child to Brazil.

Part 2: Parenting

[61] The court has considered the best interest factors set out in the CLRA in determining the issue of decision-making responsibility as well as the wealth of caselaw dealing with joint custody.

[62] If mother decides to remain in Toronto, the court supports the sections of the parents’ agreement dealing with joint decision-making and shared parenting time.

[63] The court trusts that the parents appreciate that 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; El Khatib v. Noun, 2023 ONSC 1667.

[64] If mother decides to move to Brazil without the child; father must assume sole decision-making responsibility.

Corollary relief: Documents and Travel

[65] Section 28 of the Act sets out the types of parenting orders the court can make. Clause 28(1)(c) of the Act reads as follows:

(c) may make any additional order the court considers necessary and proper in the circumstances, including an order,
(i) limiting the duration, frequency, manner or location of contact or communication between any of the parties, or between a party and the child,
(ii) prohibiting a party or other person from engaging in specified conduct in the presence of the child or at any time when the person is responsible for the care of the child,
(iii) prohibiting a party from changing the child’s residence, school or day care facility without the consent of another party or an order of the court,
(iv) prohibiting a party from removing the child from Ontario without the consent of another party or an order of the court,
(v) requiring the delivery, to the court or to a person or body specified by the court, of the child’s passport, the child’s health card within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act or any other document relating to the child that the court may specify,
(vi) requiring a party to give information or to consent to the release of information respecting the child’s well-being, including in relation to the child’s health and education, to another party or other person specified by the court, or
(vii) requiring a party to facilitate communication by the child with another party or other person specified by the court in a manner that is appropriate for the child.

[66] If the mother chooses to remain here, then the document provisions of their agreement should remain in effect.

[67] Travel of more than the parenting time of 5 days outside the country should require written consents and a detailed itinerary.

[68] If the current shared parenting time continues, then the parent who is travelling outside of Ontario during their 5 days of parenting time should provide an itinerary to the non-travelling parent. Parents like to know where their children are.

[69] If the mother decides to move to Brazil, then the corollary relief must remain with father as the sole decision-making parent.

Part 3: Retroactive child support

[70] The Family Law Act (FLA) and the Child Support Guidelines (CSG) govern the obligations of a parent to pay child support to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so. An order for child support must be in accordance with the CSG, which is essentially guided by the income of the payor.

[71] Any support claimed after an application is issued is prospective support, not retroactive support. See: Mackinnon v. Mackinnon, 2005 13 R.F.L. (6th) 331 (Ont. C.A.).

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

Powers of court
34(1) In an application under section 33, the court may make an interim or final order,
(f) requiring that support be paid in respect of any period before the date of the order;

[73] Mother seeks to go behind the agreement of November 2021. Mother claims that father did not pay sufficient child support and also submits that she was a primary parent from separation until the separation agreement in November of 2021.

[74] There is no reason given for going behind the original agreement except that both parents waived counsel. There is a vague allegation that mother generally feels intimidated by father. See AG v AG, 2024 ONCJ 124.

[75] The Court of Appeal recently underlined the “strong and well-known policy reasons for respecting agreements made between parties to family law proceedings whenever feasible.” Zhao v. Xiao (2023), 92 R.F.L. (8th) 265 (Ont. C.A.).

[76] The court can find no justification for going behind the separation agreement.

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

a) The recipient must meet the threshold of establishing a past material change in circumstances. While the onus is on the recipient to show a material increase in income, any failure by the payor to disclose relevant financial information allows the court to impute income, strike pleadings, draw adverse inferences, and award costs. There is no need for the recipient to make multiple court applications for disclosure before a court has these powers.
b) Once a material change in circumstances is established, a presumption arises in favour of retroactively increasing child support to the date the recipient gave the payor effective notice of the request for an increase, up to three years before formal notice of the application to vary. In the increase context, because of informational asymmetry, effective notice requires only that the recipient broached the subject of an increase with the payor.
c) Where no effective notice is given by the recipient parent, child support should generally be increased back to the date of formal notice.
d) The court retains discretion to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity where the result would otherwise be unfair. The D.B.S. factors continue to guide this exercise of discretion, as described in Michel. If the payor has failed to disclose a material increase in income, that failure qualifies as blameworthy conduct and the date of retroactivity will generally be the date of the increase in income.
e) Once the court has determined that support should be retroactively increased to a particular date, the increase must be quantified. The proper amount of support for each year since the date of retroactivity must be calculated in accordance with the Guidelines.

[78] In an original application, like this case, the first step is unnecessary. The next step is to determine when mother gave effective notice to the father of her request for an increase in child support.

[79] Formal notice of this application was given when it was served in May, 2024.

[80] The parties engaged in the mediation process that led to the first agreement executed on November 6, 2021 with child support to commence December 1, 2021 at the agreed upon amount. The parties wrote the income disclosure and expectations into the agreement and followed up with a second agreement on December 7, 2021. Both parties were to provide annual disclosure on August 1.

[81] Mother and/or her counsel raised the issue of increased child support after the father served his Objection to the relocation in September 2023. Thereafter, father increased his monthly child support on December 1, 2023. The court finds that the effective date of notice was in or around October 25, 2023.

[82] The presumptive date would be approximately October 25, 2023.

[83] In Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, 65 R.F.L. (7th) 6, the Court of Appeal described the duty to disclose financial information as “[t]he most basic obligation in family law”. A payor’s failure to make timely, proactive and full disclosure undermines the policies underlying the family law regime and “the processes that have been carefully designed to achieve those policy goals”. Without proper disclosure, the system simply cannot function and the objective of establishing a fair standard of support for children that ensures they benefit from the means of both parents will be out of reach.

[84] The disclosure obligations in the parties’ agreement were mutual.

[85] Retroactive child support is not an unusual concept:

(1) It simply holds payors to their existing (and unfulfilled) support obligations. (Michel - par. 25).
(2) It is a debt; by default, there is no reason why it should not be awarded unless there are strong reasons not to do so (Michel - par. 132).
(3) It can always be avoided by proper payment. (D.B.S. - par. 97).
(4) It will commonly be appropriate where payor parents fail to disclose their increases in income. At any given point in time the payor has knowledge of what their support obligation should be, while the recipient parent may not (Michel - par. 32).

[86] After determining the presumptive commencement date for child support, the court can apply the discretionary factors from the SCC decisions in D.B.S. (2006 SCC 37) and Michel v. Graydon (2020 SCC 24):

(1) Delay in coming to court: Mother’s delay in coming to court really related to her plans to relocate;
(2) Payor’s blameworthy conduct: Father’s conduct is not blameworthy. Father believed that the child would be with him more than 60% of the time in 2023 as mother was relocating;
(3) The circumstances of the child: In this case the mother and father live near each other in condo apartments; such that they can share parenting time with the child; father is paying an agreed upon sum for child support and spousal support; mother also has rental income from property in New Brunswick; there is no dispute that the child is well cared for at all times; and
(4) Hardship to the payor/father? No

[87] The parties entered an agreement that they followed until the summer of 2023 when neither party gave the other their financial disclosure, but simply continued with the agreed upon payments from 2022.

[88] In the spring and summer of 2023, both father and mother were discussing the mother’s move to Brazil. Father encouraged the mother to obtain legal advice which she eventually did. This led to the formal relocation notice being served on father on August 25, 2023. It was mother’s stated plan to move on November 1, 2023. Father responded with his opposition.

[89] Counsel for mother began to request increased child support. Father increased his child support on December 1, 2023.

[90] Mother brought this application on April 12, 2024 and father responded on May 31, 2024.

[91] Father does not make his own claim but argues for full child support owing to him due to the child spending 60% of the time with father for much of 2023 and early 2024, while mother was preoccupied with her Brazil plan.

[92] Taking all of the above into account, but particularly:
(1) The original agreement of the parties;
(2) The cooperative nature of their relationship; which led to mother caring for the child more in the early period of separation and the father caring for the child more in 2023 while mother prepared a plan to move to Brazil;
(3) The fact that the child has always been well-cared for;
(4) The failure by both parties to disclose financial information;
(5) The parties’ plans really diverged in mid-2023. Mother was not settling into Toronto as her home. She met a boyfriend who lived in Brazil through a friend at church and began spending more time with him. She was not looking for career prospects here nor even any type of employment. Father’s career was starting to flourish;
(6) Following the father’s objection to the relocation, counsel for mother sought increased child support.
(7) Father increased his child support December 1, 2023.

The court chooses January 1, 2024 as the effective date to review child support.

[93] The next step in the Colucci analysis is to quantify CSG for each year from the start date.

2024: Entitlement: The 40% rule

[94] In calculating the amount of time the child was with each parent, there are several different options. The two main options discussed in the case law are by overnights/days or by hours.

[95] Section 9 of the guidelines only applies where each parent or spouse exercises parenting time with respect to a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year.

[96] In Wither-Weston v. Blacker, 2024 ONCJ 490, this court discussed the approaches used to determine whether the 40% threshold had been met. If using days, to reach 40 per cent, the access parent must have the child in their care for 146 days for the year. When calculated in hours, the 40 per cent threshold is 3,504 hours for the year.

[97] In reviewing the caselaw, the court in that case noted that most courts are now using the hours’ approach to determine this issue. With this approach, a custodial parent will be credited with time that a child spends sleeping or at school, except for those hours when the non-custodial parent is actually exercising rights of access or the child is sleeping in the non-custodial parent’s home. See: Cusick v. Squire, [1999] N.J. No. 206 (S.C.).

[98] If there is a fixed drop-off time for the access parent to deliver the child to school or daycare and the child returns to the custodial parent at the end of that day, the time during school or daycare is typically credited to the custodial parent. See: Barnes v. Carmount, 2011 ONSC 3925, at para. 43.

[99] In this case, the parents share decision-making responsibility so there is no custodial or access parent.

[100] In the parent’s charts of time that each spent with B in 2024:
(1) Mother says they shared the time equally in most months except for 8 days in February when mother and son went to Brazil and two weeks in September when mother went to Brazil alone and father cared for the child; father and son also went to Belgium for 5 days. The remainder of the time was on a shared 2-2-3 schedule.
(2) Father agrees with most of this information but notes that for January and February 2024 he had more overnights.

[101] For context, the calendars of the parents indicate that in late 2022 and early 2023, mother took the child to Brazil for extended periods of time. Thereafter, however, from February until September of 2023, the child spent substantial periods with father while mother was in Brazil.

[102] The father’s calculation is from February 2023 until May 2024.

[103] It is common for the analysis of number of hours with each parent to be calculated over the course of a calendar year. This issue is discussed in Skaljac v. Skaljac, 2018 ONSC 3519 and Pimental v. Kavaratzis, 2018 ONCJ 293. The reason given for choosing a calendar year is that a different interpretation would undermine the objectives of the CSG by allowing a payor to choose whatever 12 month period is more advantageous.

[104] The court is now focused on the period from January 1, 2024. This is a shared parenting arrangement and section 9 CSG applies.

Part 4: Incomes

Father’s Income: Self Employed Professional Income

[105] A self-employed person has the onus of clearly demonstrating the basis of his or her net income. This includes demonstrating that the deductions from gross income should be taken into account in the calculation of income for support purposes. See Whelan v. O’Connor, [2006] O.J. No. 1660, (Ont. Fam. Ct.). The self-employed have an inherent obligation to put forward not only adequate, but comprehensive records of income and expenses, from which the recipient can draw conclusions and the amount of child support can be established. See: Meade v. Meade (2002), 31 R.F.L. 5th 88 (SCJ).

[106] A review of the case-law respecting business deduction claims reveals a general theme that in determining whether expenses should be added back into a parent’s income for child support purposes, an important consideration is whether there is a benefit derived from the business expenses that employed people would have to cover from their personal income. See: Izyuk v. Langley, 2015 ONSC 2409.

[107] It is appropriate where personal expenses have been unreasonably deducted to add them back to the income and to gross-up the payor’s income by the tax he or she would have paid, but for the deduction. This is done to ensure consistency of treatment where a party is found to have arranged his affairs to pay less tax on income. See Sarafinchin v. Sarafinchin, [2000] O.J. No. 2855 (Ont. S.C.).

[108] The parties have taken these principles into consideration and reached an agreement that father’s income is as follows:

(1) 2020 $462,479
(2) 2021 $603,663
(3) 2022 $548,101
(4) 2023 $627,878

[109] At the end of the hearing, after having the benefit of cross-examination on father’s income and deductions, the parties reached an agreement that father’s income for child support calculation purposes for 2024 shall be set at $650,000. The parties also agreed on how the father’s income will be determined in future years. The details are set out in the final order below.

Mother’s Income

[110] Mother was unemployed at all material times since coming to Canada in 2017 until she obtained part time work at the local gym in July 2024. Initially she sought to pass the re-licensing requirements for her profession but failed one of the two exams in her first attempt.

[111] After the birth of their son, mother stayed home to care for the baby.

[112] In November of 2021, the child was registered in full time day care.

[113] The parties estimated her income as $15,000 for the purpose of their agreement, which specifically stated part time work.

[114] As part of the separation agreement, mother has property that earns rental income in New Brunswick.

[115] Mother provides the following income information by year:

Year	Total Income	Spousal Support	Earned/Split/Rental Income
2020	$27,663	$13,500	$14,163 (income splitting)
2021	$73,900	$72,400	$1,500 (net rental)
2022	$101,814	$90,000	$11,814 (net rental)
2023	$87,730	$90,000	-$6,653 (rental loss)
2024	$121,687	$90,000	$14,689 (net rental), $16,998 (gym)

[116] Mother proposes that her annual income be imputed at $33,776, effective January 1, 2024. The court notes that her gym position was only for half of the year 2024. The annual rental income did not reach the estimated $15,000 until 2024. It appears to be a pattern that the rental housing will always need some repairs, which reduces the income.

[117] Father proposes that the mother’s income be imputed at $60,000 plus $15,000 for rental income, effective April 2025.

[118] Section 19 (CSG) provides that the court may impute to a spouse “such amount of income … as it considers appropriate” and provides a non-exhaustive list of such circumstances.

[119] Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to be intentionally under-employed. Clause 19(1)(a) of the guidelines is perceived as being a test of reasonableness. See Drygala v. Pauli, [2002] O.J. No. 3731 (Ont. CA).

[120] The court finds mother to be under-employed because:
(1) Mother is well-educated and probably capable of being licensed in her field here, with some dedicated study time;
(2) She just began part time work in July 2024;
(3) The child has full time kindergarten as well as before and after school day care;
(4) She agreed to work part time in the Separation Agreement of November 2021 - four and a half years ago;
(5) She has no medical or educational reason for under-employment; and
(6) Her proposal for work was focused on Brazil and no plan offered for Toronto.

[121] Father offered in the past to support her in changing professions, which she did not pursue.

[122] Mother will need some time to get back on the employment track.

[123] The court will give mother a graduated approach to the income imputed to her as follows:

(1) 2024: $33,776
(2) 2025: $40,000 plus $10,000 for rental income
(3) 2026: $50,000 plus $10,000 for rental income

[124] Effective January 1, 2024, the father’s income is agreed upon at $650,000 and mother’s income is imputed at $33,776.

Section 9 CSG Analysis:

[125] The support analysis for shared parenting cases is governed by section 9 (CSG). There is a three-step process for determining support set out in section 9 as follows:

1. the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the parents or spouses (the set-off amount);
2. the increased costs of shared parenting time arrangements; and
3. the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent or spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.

[126] The parties are relying on section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines (CSG) to argue:
(1) According to mother, a set off of child support based on incomes; and
(2) According to father; a section 9 analysis which would confirm that he has more costs of the shared residence. Father maintains that he has higher fixed costs due to setting up a bedroom for the child.

[127] In M.D.L.C. v. D.S.C., 2024 ONCJ 550 the court did not order the set-off table amount. It calculated these amounts and then adjusted them as the father had better means, needs and circumstances than the mother. He had free rent, lower transportation costs and higher earning potential.

[128] Because the father has far greater means than the mother, the court will not reduce his share of the set off child support amount.

Calculation of child support for payors with incomes over $150,000; Section 4, CSG

[129] In Ridley v. DeRose, 2017 ONCJ 877, Justice Barry Tobin set out the following legal pathway when a payor is earning annual income over $150,000:

[131] Section 4 of the Guidelines provides the Court with two options when dealing with a payor whose income is over $150,000.00 per year.
[132] The first option is to award Table support and an amount for special and extraordinary expenses.
[133] The second option arises if the Court considers the first option to be inappropriate.
[134] If the second option is found to be appropriate, then child support will be determined in a three-step process:
a) Table support is calculated on the payor’s first $150,000.00 of income;
b) In respect of the payor’s income in excess of $150,000.00, the Court must determine an amount it considers appropriate having regard to:
(i) the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children;
(ii) the financial ability of each parent to contribute to the children’s support.
c) An amount for special or extraordinary expenses is determined.

[135] There is a presumption that Table support is the appropriate amount to award: Francis v. Baker, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250 para. 42.

[136] A payor who wants the Court to order a different amount bears the onus of rebutting that presumption by “clear and compelling evidence”. Francis v. Baker, supra para. 43. The onus is to demonstrate on the evidence that the Table amount of support would be inappropriate.

[137] The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the meaning of the word “inappropriate” in the context of s. 4 in Francis v. Baker, supra. The Court held that “inappropriate” is to be broadly defined to mean “unsuitable” rather than merely “inadequate” (para. 40).

[130] Ewing v. Ewing, 2009 ABCA 227, [2009] A.J. No. 712 (Alberta C.A.), citing Francis v. Baker, [1999] 3 SCR 250, sets out the following considerations:

i. There is a presumption that the Table applies to all incomes, including incomes over $150,000. A party seeking to deviate from the Table has the onus of rebutting the presumption. (paras. 41, 43)
ii. Children can expect the Table amount on the first $150,000 and a fair additional amount for that portion that exceeds $150,000. The closer the amount is to $150,000, the more likely it is that the Table amount will be awarded. (para. 41)
iii. Where the presumption is rebutted, the Guideline figures can be increased or reduced under section 4. (para. 42)
iv. The test for deviation from the Table amount is that the evidence in its entirety must be sufficient to raise a concern that the Table amount is inappropriate. The evidence for departure from the Guidelines must be clear and compelling. A party seeking deviation is not required to testify or adduce evidence and no unfavourable conclusion should be drawn from a failure to do so. It is recognized that a party may not possess the required relevant evidence. (para. 43)
v. The actual situation of the children is central, and the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children must be considered in the assessment of the initial determination of inappropriateness and the determination of appropriate support. (para. 44) No single element of legislative purpose is to be given more weight than the actual circumstances of the children (para. 39). A proper construction of section 4 requires that the objectives of predictability, consistency and efficiency on the one hand, be balanced with those of fairness, flexibility and recognition of the actual "condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children" on the other. (para. 40)
vi. To determine appropriateness the court must be armed with sufficient information, and trial judges have discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a child expense budget is required to provide that information and they have the power to order it. (para. 45) Custodial parents are not required to produce child expense budgets in all cases under section 4.
vii. Although frequently child support results in a benefit to the wife, the legislative objective is maintenance for the children rather than household equalization or spousal support. (para. 41)
viii. While standard of living can be considered in assessing need, at some point support payments will meet even a wealthy child's reasonable needs. When the Table amount is so in excess of the child's reasonable needs it must be considered a functional wealth transfer to a parent, or de facto spousal support. (para. 41)
ix. The test for whether expenses are reasonable will be met by the paying parent if the budgeted expenses are so high as to "excee[d] the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible": Bellenden v. Satterthwaite, [1948] 1 All E.R. 343 at 345. (para. 49).

[131] In R. v. R., the Court found that in a s. 4 analysis, the family’s lifestyle and pattern of expenditures were relevant in determining appropriateness.

[132] There is a consistent pattern in the case law that deals with high income earners and Section 4. The payors who consistently earn the high income are more likely to pay the Table amount. See: Tamo v. Husband, 2023 ONCJ 233, where the court found that the table amount was not appropriate when the payor had one unusual year of very high income.

[133] Father’s income in this case will be consistently high.

[134] The child in this case is still small but his needs will grow. If mother chooses to stay, she will need to develop her own lifestyle here.

[135] In this case the court finds that the table amount for the father is appropriate as he has not presented clear and compelling evidence to rebut that presumption.

Section 7 (CSG) Expenses

[136] The retroactive support analysis equally applies to claims for retroactive section 7 expenses. See: Smith v. Selig (2008) 2008 NSCA 54, 56 R.F.L. (6th) 8 (NSCA); Hetherington v. Tapping, 2007 BCSC 209; Surerus-Mills v. Mills [2006] O.J. No. 3839 (SCJ).

[137] With the incomes of the parents as set out above, the share of section 7 expenses for 2024, to be applied as of January 1, 2024 is 5% for mother and 95% for father.

Final Order:

1. Mother’s claim for relocation with the child is dismissed.
2. If mother chooses to remain in Toronto, the parents shall continue joint decision-making responsibility for the child in accordance with their agreement of November 7, 2021, amended as follows:
   (a) Shared parenting time will follow the 2-5-5 rotating schedule or otherwise as agreed upon.
   (b) The child’s primary residence for the purpose of school and professional contacts will be with the father.
   (c) For travel of more than 5 days outside the country, a signed travel consent is required from the non-travelling parent.
   (d) A parent who travels outside Ontario, whether less than or more than the five parenting time days, should provide a detailed itinerary.
   (e) Mother will continue to be the holder of the child’s documents pursuant to paragraph 13 of their agreement and will provide the father with a copy of all current documents. Either party may obtain the documents with the consent of the other party.
3. If mother chooses to move to Brazil, father shall have final sole decision-making responsibility but will consult with the mother in respect of all important decisions.
   (a) Mother will then have liberal parenting time with the child with a maximum of 45 days’ vacation per calendar year, not during school time, and liberal virtual parenting time.
   (b) Father will be responsible for obtaining all necessary documents for the child.
4. Commencing August 1, 2026, the parties will continue to follow the August 1 annual disclosure and child support/section 7 expense adjustment date based on the previous year’s income, according to their agreement.
5. Father’s income for child support calculation purposes for 2024 shall be set at $650,000. Commencing in 2026, when the parties adjust child support, father’s income for child support purposes shall be calculated as follows:
   (a) His annual income as shown in line 15000 of his Notice of Assessment for the previous year;
   (b) Plus the following expenses as deducted from his corporations shall be added back and grossed up:
   i. 80% of total transportation/vehicle expenses;
   ii. 50% of total expenses with staff gifts;
   iii. 100% of total expenses with health and dental; and
   iv. 50% of total expenses with meals.
   Plus retained earnings:
   i. Father shall advise and disclose to mother information about his retained earnings for the tax year ending in August of the same year.
   ii. In the event father wants to exclude any portion of the retained earnings from his income for child support calculation purposes, father shall provide mother with a letter from his accountant with an explanation and supporting documentation justifying his position.
   iii. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount that should be added to father’s income, they shall follow the “Family Dispute Resolution” term set out in Section 19, of the parties’ Separation Agreement dated November 7, 2021. The costs of mediation shall be paid by the parties as a section 7 expense.
   iv. Pending resolution, the full amount related to retained earnings shall be added to father’s income for child support calculation purposes.
6. Mother’s income is imputed as follows:
   2024: $33,776, including rental income.
   2025: $40,000 plus $10,000 for rental income = $50,000.
   2026: $50,000 plus $10,000 for rental income = $60,000.
7. Commencing January 1, 2024, the parties will retroactively adjust their child support set off amounts based on the CSG for their respective 2024 incomes as set out above.
8. For the period commencing January 1, 2024, the parties will retroactively adjust the payment of section 7 expenses, based on their proportionate shares, using the incomes as set out above for 2024.
9. A support deduction order through the Family Responsibility Office will issue.
10. Counsel for father will serve and file cost submissions within 14 days, with a page maximum of 3 pages, excluding Bills of Costs and Offers.
11. Counsel for mother will serve and file cost submissions within 14 days of receiving father’s submissions, with a maximum of 3 pages, excluding Bills of Costs and Offers.
12. Filing for paragraphs 10 and 11 submissions shall be in the trial coordinator’s office, 2nd floor, 47 Sheppard East, Family Court.

Released: April 28, 2025
Signed: Justice Debra Paulseth

[1] See: D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; Laura Jean W. v. Tracy Alfred R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, 2006 SCC 37. These factors are:

1. Whether the recipient spouse has provided a reasonable excuse for his or her delay in applying for support.
2. The conduct of the payor parent.
3. The circumstances of the child.
4. The hardship that the retroactive award may entail.

[2] See: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 25.