ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025-05-12
COURT FILE No.: City of Guelph D23/46
BETWEEN:
Mischa Aaron Ettinger
Applicant
— AND —
Amilynn Bresseau
Respondent
Before Justice Cleghorn
Heard on May 1, 2025 and May 2, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on May 12, 2025
Mischa Aaron Ettinger .............................................................................. On his own behalf
Amilynn Bresseau ..................................................................................... On her own behalf
Cleghorn, J.:
Overview
[1] The parents have been unable to resolve the parenting schedule, including exchanges, for their child, Ozwald Edwin Mischa Ettinger, born on […], 2020. The father has advanced a claim to impute income to the mother, and he believes he overpaid his portion of Section 7 exchanges between February 2023 and May 1, 2024, by 5%.
[2] The father is requesting an increase in his parenting time. His first request is to have parenting time every weekend. His second request is to have three weekends per month and a Wednesday evening visit preceding the weekend that the child is with his mother. If the schedule remains the same (alternate Fridays to Sundays), his third request is that he be allowed to do Wednesday dinner visits. Additionally, the father would like the major holidays divided equally, including a week about schedule in the summer. Finally, he requests the exchanges occur at Ozwald’s school or Tim Horton’s in Guelph on non-school days.
[3] The mother requests that the parenting schedule remain as it currently stands, with the father having alternate weekends: Friday pick-up from school until Sundays, with the exchanges at 6:30 p.m. The mother would like the exchanges to continue at the police station because she believes this is necessary to ensure the father does not harass and intimidate her. Additionally, the mother would like to keep exchanges and communications to a minimum. She requests that holiday weekends follow the regular parenting schedule. For the summer, she seeks an order for the parents each to have two non-consecutive weeks. The mother feels this will provide the child with the same school structure and is best for him.
[4] To the parents' credit, a consent final order was reached on May 1, 2024. It is a detailed order with parenting covenants and language guiding the parents on acting maturely and child-focused in their interactions. All communication between the parents must be done using a parenting APP, Our Family Wizard. The substantive portion of the order provides sole decision-making and primary residence with the mother. Under the order, the parents had agreed to a holiday schedule. However, during the trial, the parents indicated they were not content with the holiday schedule and sought a more encompassing one.
[5] On May 1, 2024, a temporary order was made, on consent, extending the father’s parenting time to alternate Thursdays until Mondays. The parties have not followed the order. Instead, they have implemented every second weekend from Friday to Sunday for the father’s parenting time, accommodating the father’s work schedule.
The parenting schedule
[6] How the parents chose to react to the separation, the mother moving without consent and refusing to allow the father parenting time until an agreement was signed, and the father sending far too many requests begging for parenting time, almost guaranteed that these two loving, capable parents were about to start the journey of a high-conflict separation. Regrettably, when this occurs, neither parent can see properly through a child-focused lens and lack insight into their contribution to the resulting dysfunction. Instead, their focus becomes a laser on each other’s movements and decisions. This behaviour results in a complete inability to make child-focused decisions for their young son regarding the parenting schedule.
[7] The parties separated on February 26, 2023. At the date of separation, the parents lived in Fergus. The mother left the home and, on the father’s account, without his knowledge or consent, moved to Kitchener, to an unknown location.
[8] The father’s evidence is that he made multiple attempts to contact the mother to find out where their son was living and to plan for parenting time. He testified that he had no parenting time until the court date of March 23, 2023. He recalls continually requesting time with his son and being always told “no.”
[9] The father testified that the mother presented him with an agreement, which he did not sign, and told him he could not have any parenting time until he signed what she had drafted.
[10] The mother testified that the father knew she was leaving the home. She facilitated a video call within 48 hours. Her evidence is that she sent the father a draft separation agreement, hoping they could finalize their matter and settle into a routine. The draft agreement was made an exhibit at trial. The agreement was emailed to the father on March 2, 2023, and proposed:
a) Joint decision-making;
b) A shared residence following a 3-3-4-4 schedule.
[11] Her grandmother's address was on the draft agreement. She testified that the father should have known where she lived, given that it was on the proposed agreement.
[12] The father responded to the mother’s email the next day. His counterproposal was for a parenting schedule of 2-3-2. Much of his email focused on the mother’s vehicle and insurance. The mother, an insurance broker, testified that the father filed a complaint against her at work. The complaint was dismissed.
[13] Regrettably, the mother did withhold the child until an order was in place.
[14] Based on the email exchange on March 2 and 3, 2023, the court finds that contrary to the father’s evidence, he knew where the mother and their son lived after the separation.
[15] On March 23, 2023, the parents agreed to an order for a shared schedule. Included in the order was a provision that the child remain at his daycare provider, located in Kitchener.
[16] The mother readily agreed to a shared schedule, supporting her testimony that she was prepared to facilitate such an agreement once an order or agreement was in place. Despite the order in place, the sting felt by the father from the mother’s withholding resulted in an emotional wound that has not entirely healed to the present day.
[17] To understand how things unraveled further, it is necessary to have an overview of the s. 112 report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. The shared parenting schedule did not last long.
[18] During the father’s first week, he brought the child to the childcare provider, and he alleged his son was assaulted when the childcare provider held onto the child, who was having a difficult time at drop-off. He made a report to a child protection agency. The incident was investigated, no concerns were verified, and the file was closed.
[19] Not surprisingly, the childcare provider was no longer willing to interact with the father.
[20] The parents brought 14B motions after this incident.
[21] Justice Caspers made a temporary order on April 18, 2023. The order was varied to provide the mother with sole decision-making and changed the father’s parenting time to alternate weekends from Fridays at 5:00 p.m. to Sundays at 5:00 p.m.
[22] The conflict continued, and further changes were made to the parenting schedule and the exchanges.
[23] On June 9, 2023, an order was issued changing the start and end times for the father’s parenting time from Fridays at 6:30 p.m. until Sundays at 6:00 p.m. Paragraph 3 of the order reads, “… all pick-ups for and drop offs following parenting time shall take place at the Kitchener-Waterloo Police Station.” By this date, the father was working Monday through Friday and conceded that his work schedule would not allow for a shared residence.
[24] On August 8, 2023, on consent, an order was made extending the father’s parenting time to include Monday if it is a statutory holiday. The court had to amend the wording for exchanges for the parents and ordered the following, “…exchanges shall take place inside the Kitchener-Waterloo Police Station.”
[25] The mother testified that she feels harassed and intimidated by the father. She does not claim the father has threatened or assaulted her. Rather, it is the volume of texts and emails that the father has sent to the mother over the past few years; she has not had a break from having to hear the ding of incoming text messages or opening her email to find emails from the father. She testified she is tired of the father raising her mental health as an issue.
[26] After enduring years of relentless texts and emails from the father, the mother no longer feels comfortable in his presence.
[27] The level of discomfort the mother feels have caused issues at the exchanges. For example, in August of 2023, the mother believes the father breached the parenting order when he was not in the lobby of the police station for the exchange but rather in the vestibule. I cannot find that this was a reasonable response by the mother. This example demonstrates the capacity these parents have for unnecessary and avoidable conflict. It further illustrates the mental energy both parents are wasting on issues rather than focusing on and enjoying their child’s younger years.
[28] The drama continued in 2023 and pulled in two different police departments.
[29] The OCL collected the dates in the collateral section of the report on when the police were called:
- The father called the OPP on February 26, March 3, 15 and September 10, 2023;
- The father called the Waterloo Regional Police on March 13, September 4 and October 3, 2023;
- The mother called the OPP on March 8, 12, 19, and May 3, 2023;
- The mother called the Waterloo Regional Police on March 7, August 23, and September 11, 2023.
[30] None of these calls resulted in charges being laid. Rather, the police dealt with parenting issues that did not require their involvement.
[31] On consent, the mother filed a letter from Family & Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region dated June 23, 2023. The father had raised a concern that the mother suffered from attention deficit disorder, which impacted her ability to parent. The society met with the mother, did not verify the concerns, and closed the file.
[32] After spending two days with the parents and listening to their testimony, I find the father is the major contributor to the conflict. The mother is not without fault. She has taken the bait and responded, perhaps defensively, but nevertheless, in a way that is not focused on what is in the child’s best interests.
[33] The father believes the mother does not facilitate his parenting time and has not from the start. His evidence was that he continually asked for more time, and the answer was always “no.” His belief is not entirely supported by the evidence. The evidence that does not support his belief includes:
- The mother was willing to facilitate shared scheduling shortly after the separation, as evidenced in the draft separation agreement;
- The mother consented to a shared residence on the first court date before a judge;
- The mother consented to expanding the father’s parenting time to include statutory holidays;
- The mother consented to alternate weekends from Thursdays to Mondays;
- The mother agreed with the father to change the weekends to Fridays to Sundays despite the May 1, 2023, order to accommodate his work schedule.
[34] For the significant changes to the parenting schedule, the mother has agreed to change the schedule to accommodate the father. I suspect she has done so with the misguided hope that the father will settle into the parenting schedule and stop contacting her. Perhaps the mother’s willingness to be flexible at times has unwittingly encouraged the father to continue to ask for additional parenting time even when the mother responds with a “no.”
[35] The father takes issue with the fact that he never receives additional parenting time. He has three grown children and 11 grandchildren. He would like their child to be with his extended family for celebrations. He testified the mother never allows him to take the child to birthday parties or important church events.
[36] The evidence supports the mother’s inability to agree to parenting time outside the order. A message from the mother to the father, dated October 14, 2023, was filed as an exhibit. In response to the father’s request, the mother wrote, “Stop asking to have him outside the court order. The answer is always no." The father gave evidence that the mother refused to apply for the child’s passport, which resulted in the cancellation of the trip to Disney World.
[37] The evidence supports that the mother has largely denied additional parenting time and has acted immaturely. For example, the mother insisted the father present proof of a birthday party. The father sent a picture of the invitation, but the mother felt this was insufficient proof and contacted an extended family member to confirm the event. The mother agreed in cross-examination that on October 23, 2024, she would not agree to a pick-up time 30 minutes past the regular schedule. This was unreasonable of the mother. There was no evidence that the father was routinely late for exchanges, and the mother should have allowed a later exchange time. Lastly, the mother felt the father acted aggressively when he brought a frog to the exchange. In the mother’s mind, the act of aggression is that she would be left to deal with the frog her son brought home.
[38] Both parents gave evidence that they recognized the importance of the child knowing and spending time with extended family members. The mother seeks an order that the schedule remain the same to allow her to have two weekends with her son, enjoy unstructured time, and engage with her side of the family.
[39] Requests from either parent to change the schedule led to resentment, conflict, and unnecessary contact. Both testified to having large extended families and friends. The child cannot attend every event that either of the parents may be invited to in the future, and since the parents have been unable to manage this issue, an order will need to be made to hopefully end the conflict. The mother’s evidence is she needs an order that is “black and white.”
[40] The mother testified that 2915 messages had been sent from March 23, 2023 (when they started using Our Family Wizard) to the present. The average number of messages in a month is 117. Importantly, by May 1, 2024, the parents had agreed the mother is to have sole decision-making and primary residence. The court did not review all 2915 messages. The sheer volume of communications demonstrates that the sole decision-making order has not assisted the parents in deciding when and when not to contact one another.
[41] The mother testified that the father emailed her if she did not respond to a message on Our Family Wizard. She testified that the emails contained issues surrounding the court, reminding the mother to keep things child-focused and reminding her she was “under oath.” She felt intimidated by the contents of the messages. The last email received by the mother was on September 13, 2024. This is a positive development for the father because he has learned to control the urge not to email the mother.
[42] The culprit of creating the toxic environment is the father’s inability to hear and accept the word “no.” When the mother disagrees with a request by the father, the pattern appears to be that the father keeps asking. The father feels aggrieved and resentful of the mother’s decisions. The continual assault of emails and texts by the father to the mother has resulted in her inability to be in his presence. The mother deserves peace in her day-to-day life as a single mother, working full-time to focus on their son rather than be stressed whenever she looks at her phone or email. The father deserves to know when his parenting time will be and find ways to enjoy that time rather than focus on the time when he does not have his son.
[43] I accept the father is doing his best and wants to spend as much time as possible with his child. Despite his best efforts, his communication skills are problematic. He, too, appears to be drained from the constant negotiations. He testified, “The less we have to communicate, the better.”
[44] The author of the s. 112 report noted:
It should be noted that Mr. Ettinger displays an alarming lack of insight into how regularly he commented poorly about Ms. Bresseau, sometimes when Ozwald could overhear and Mr. Ettinger displayed a continuous lack of insight into his repeated comments that seemed designed solely to represent Ms. Bresseau as a poor mother impacted by her mental health.
[45] There is no evidence the mother is suffering from mental health issues that impact her ability to parent. The father consented to the mother having sole decision-making responsibilities before the trial began. On some level, he must trust her decisions for their son.
[46] The communication dynamic has created an environment where both parents are on edge over additional parenting time.
[47] Both parents have tried to improve the situation by completing the counselling recommended by the OCL. Separately, the parents attempted to use the B.I.F.F. (Bill Eddy’s Brief, Informative, Friendly and Firm) method of communication and completed the Walk the Talk (an 8-week program with two-hour sessions each week). The parents have also done individual counselling. Yet, the contact between the parents creates a toxic parenting environment.
[48] Despite the parents' best efforts, both testified that they cannot communicate, and the less interaction they have, the better.
[49] The only solution is to set a schedule and order neither parent to request parenting time outside of what is court-ordered. An exception will be for the death of a family member.
[50] In arriving at this decision, section 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act enforces the primary consideration, and reads:
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.
[51] I have found both parents are capable, loving, competent parents. The child is bonded to his mother and his father. The factor that requires evaluation is s. 24(3)(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;
[52] I find that the parents cannot communicate and cooperate. Despite the court's attempts to have the parents improve their communication, conflict has continued to result. The driving force of creating the toxic environment is the father’s inability to accept the word “no” when his requests for additional parenting time are refused. He cannot let it go. The mother will not allow additional parenting time outside of a court order. A provision that reads, “At other times as the parties may mutually agree,” is meaningless. It will keep the conflict going, with the father asking and the mother refusing.
[53] The mother’s emotional and psychological safety flows to the child. Keeping in mind the primary considerations of the Act, the child will have emotional stability and feel safe when the mother is left to parent the child on a day-to-day basis without interference from the father. The child will have emotional stability and feel safe when in the father’s care when the father can focus on spending his time with his son rather than be consumed by thoughts of how the mother has denied parenting time for him in the past and may in the future. Hopefully, the father will reach a point where he will not be thinking of the mother during his parenting time. Hopefully, the child will be free from hearing his father make random, critical comments about his mother.
[54] It is in the child’s best interest that his parents adhere to a strict parenting schedule and have as little contact as possible.
[55] Both parents are entitled to weekend time with their son, which provides opportunities to have the child on an unstructured day, exposure to the parent’s interests, and time spent with extended family members. The schedule of alternate weekends from Friday to Sunday shall remain the same.
[56] The mother’s request to allow long weekends, including holidays (Easter, Thanksgiving, etc.), to follow the regular parenting schedule is sound. Carving out the long weekends would result in an increase in contact between the parents, which must be avoided.
[57] Both parents will be entitled to holidays from their places of employment. An order will be issued to alternate March breaks.
[58] For the summer months, an order will be issued for a week about schedule. The summer holidays for a child should be unstructured and fun. The child will be enrolled at camp either where his mother lives or where his father lives. The parents gave evidence that they could make the necessary childcare arrangements during the summer when working. The schedule will expose the child to new adventures and friends in Kitchener and Fergus. The parents can plan their vacations with the child without requiring communication from each other. The parents must ensure they plan any trips during their regular parenting time. They cannot ask for additional time from the other parent.
[59] A strict schedule that does not allow for requests for variation will mean this child will miss out on extended family members’ celebrations. Each parent must accept this fact. Neither parent will gain anything by holding resentment that a child must miss a birthday party, wedding, etc. Critically, this child needs to be in each parent’s presence, in a stress-free environment free from post-separation conflict. Each parent is best served by being present in the moment.
Imputing Income and the claim of overpayment by the father towards section 7 expenses
[60] The March 7, 2023, temporary order, paragraph 7, directs the parents to pay their half-share of childcare directly to the service provider.
[61] The equal sharing was based on the parents earning a similar income.
[62] The father argues he has overpaid his share. He testified that the mother ran a home business selling cleaning products, and he believed that the mother earned anywhere from $10,000.00 to $15,000.00. His belief is not grounded in evidence.
[63] The mother testified she was selling Norwax products. She stopped when she left the family home as the father would not return the products to her. Her evidence is that he returned the products to her about a week before this trial.
[64] The mother kept detailed notes of extra income from Norwax and private cleanings. The mother has a friend who cleans for a living. Sometimes, the mother is offered a cleaning job if the person is unavailable.
[65] In 2023, she earned $219.76 in commission. She earned $440.00 for private house cleaning. In total, $659.76.
[66] In 2024, she earned between $2,400 to $2,600.00 from cleaning. She testified that 2024 was a unique year as the person who asked her to clean married in 2024, and there were many opportunities for the mother to clean while the person was taking personal time. The mother testified she claimed any additional income earned on her taxes.
[67] I accept the mother’s evidence that her additional income in 2023 was $659.76 and that she will claim any income earned when she files her income tax returns.
[68] In 2023, the mother’s Notice of Assessment shows an income of $65,775.00. Her additional income of $659.76 results in a total income of $66,434.76.
[69] In 2023, the father’s Notice of Assessment shows an income of $57,983.00.
[70] The mother’s share for section 7 expenses should have been 53%. The father’s share 47%.
[71] The parents testified they paid the childcare expenses equally and claimed any tax deductions. The daycare expenses paid from February 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023, was $8,980.00. The father overpaid by $269.40.
[72] In 2024, the mother’s Notice of Assessment shows an income of $69,673.00.
[73] In 2024, the father’s Notice of Assessment shows an income of $63,067.00.
[74] The mother’s share for section 7 expenses is 52%. The father’s share is 48%.
[75] From January 1, 2024, to April 2024, total daycare was $3,949.00. The father overpaid by $78.98.
[76] The total overpayment by the father is $348.38.
[77] The father testified to a childcare invoice for July and August 2023. He has not paid his share of the $750.00. The dispute arose because the father was available to care for their son while he was on holiday for a week. The mother refused to allow the father parenting time and instead sent the child to daycare.
[78] At a certain point, the parents agreed to a payment of $500.00 for the months of July and August 2023. The father e-transferred the funds, but the mother refused to accept the transfer.
[79] Based on the agreement reached by the parties, the father owes the mother $151.62. I have taken the $500.00 the father owes to the mother and subtracted the overpayment of 348.38.
Final order to be issued:
Parenting Schedule
(1) Mischa Ettinger shall have parenting time with the child, Ozwald Edwin Mischa Ettinger, born on […], 2020, as follows:
a) Every second weekend from Friday at 4:30 p.m. until Sunday at 6:30 p.m. starting May 23, 2025.
b) If Friday is a P.A. Day or a Statutory holiday, parenting time shall begin on Thursday at 4:30 p.m.
c) If Monday is a P.A. Day or Statutory holiday, parenting time shall be extended to Monday at 6:30 p.m.
d) Every second Wednesday from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. for a community visit in Kitchener, starting June 4, 2025. Mischa Ettinger must confirm the Wednesday visit on the Monday before by 6:00 p.m. For example, if the visit is to proceed on June 4, 2025, Mischa Ettinger must send a message by OFW to Amilynn Bresseau no later than June 2, 2025, at 6:00 p.m.
(2) Paragraphs 11 through 17 of the final order dated May 1, 2024 (the holiday schedule) shall be rescinded and replaced with the following:
a) On Mother's Day weekend, the child shall be with Amilynn Bresseau from Saturday at 6:30 p.m. until Sunday at 6:30 p.m., regardless of the regular schedule.
b) On Father's Day weekend, the child shall be with Mischa Ettinger from Saturday at 6:30 p.m. until Sunday at 6:30 p.m., regardless of the regular schedule.
c) The parties shall rotate the March break starting in 2026. March break starts on the Friday before the break and ends on the Sunday before school re-starts. The week will run from Friday at 4:30 p.m. until the following Sunday at 6:30 p.m. Mischa Ettinger shall have the March break in even-numbered years, and Amilynn Bresseau shall have the March break in odd-numbered years.
d) The parents shall equally divide the Christmas break. Christmas break starts on the Friday before the break starts at 4:30 p.m. and ends on the Sunday before school returns at 6:30 p.m. Amilynn Bresseau shall have the first week in even-numbered years; Mischa Ettinger shall have the second half of break. In odd number years, Mischa Ettinger shall have the first week and Amilynn Bresseau shall have the second week. Should the Christmas break be an uneven number of days off, for example, 15 days, Mischa Ettinger will have the extra day. For example, Mischa Ettinger would have 8 days of the break, Amilynn Bresseau would have 7 days of the break. Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day are not to be divided or carved out as this requires additional exchange communications and continues the pattern of dysfunctional contact between the parents.
e) The school summer holidays shall be a week about. The summer holidays begin on the Friday of the last week of school and end on the Sunday before school starts. The week will begin on Friday at 4:30 p.m. and end on Sunday at 6:30 p.m. Parents must follow the regular parenting schedule to start the summer holidays. For example, if school is done on June 26, 2025, and the next weekend is the father’s regular schedule, his first week of the summer holidays begins. If his next scheduled weekend is July 6, 2025, the mother has the first week of the summer vacation, and the father’s first week begins July 6, 2025.
(3) Paragraph 2 of the final order, of Justice Neill, dated May 1, 2024, is terminated. Neither parent shall request parenting time outside of their schedule, with the only exception being the death of an extended family member. Proof is not required and shall not be requested by either parent.
Exchanges
(4) On non-school days, the exchanges shall occur in a public location, Tim Horton’s, located at 488 Woodlawn in Guelph. The exchange will occur inside the restaurant. The parent bringing the child to Tim Horton’s should arrive 5 to 10 minutes early and sit at a table. The other parent will enter the restaurant to collect the child. The parents shall restrict their communication to saying “hello.” There shall be no discussions, no information sharing, and no documents passed during this exchange. Either party can bring a third party of their choosing to the exchanges.
(5) On school days, Mischa Ettinger shall collect the child from school or after-care school program.
Additional parenting covenants
(6) OFW communication is to be used only for emergencies, illness, injury, confirmation for the Wednesday evening visits, late pick-ups or drop-offs, or any urgent changes to parenting time for that day.
(7) OFW texts shall be no longer than 50 words. If paragraph 3 applies, a parent may send a text; the other parent may send one response per day. There shall be no further contact or communications.
(8) The child’s identification and medical/dental appointments shall be uploaded to OFW. Each parent is responsible for looking at the OFW calendar to see when appointments are scheduled for the child.
(9) Both parents must contact the school directly to obtain information for parent-teacher interviews (not to be attended together) and to request documents (report cards). Both parents shall have access to the school app/email list and are responsible for obtaining any updates directly from the teachers.
(10) Both parents are to have complete and unrestricted access and to both give information and obtain information from all professionals/service providers involved with a child.
(11) Both parents are entitled to enroll the child in extracurricular activities during their own parenting time at their own expense. A schedule of the activity will be uploaded to OFW. Both parents may attend to watch the activity. The parents are not to sit together, approach one another, or speak to each other unless it is necessary (for example, the child asks a parent, “Can I say hi [to the other parent], and parent A feels it is required to accompany the child to parent B to allow the child to greet parent B). There is no requirement for the parent with parenting time to bring the child to the activity the other parent has registered the child for. For example, if the child is enrolled in soccer at Kitchener and has games/practices on a Saturday, Mischa Ettinger is not obligated to bring the child into Kitchener during his parenting time.
Child Support and Section 7 expenses
(12) Mischa Ettinger shall pay child support to Amilynn Bresseau, for the child, Ozwald Edwin Mischa Ettinger, born on […], 2024, based on his 2024 Notice of Assessment, $63,067.00, in the Table amount of $586.00 per month, starting June 1, 2025, and the first of the month thereafter until further order of the court.
(13) The parties shall pay, proportionate to their incomes, section 7 expenses, which are deemed reasonable and necessary (childcare for the purposes of employment is reasonable and necessary). Consent is to be obtained in advance. Consent is not to be unreasonably withheld. Section 7 expenses include:
a) childcare expenses incurred as a result of the employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment of the spouse who has the majority of parenting time;
b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child;
c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses;
d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’s particular needs;
e) expenses for post-secondary education; and
f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.
(14) Starting June 1, 2025, and for the first of each month thereafter, Amilynn Bresseau shall pay 52%, and Mischa Ettinger shall pay 48% of Section 7 expenses. Amilynn Bresseau must provide Mischa Ettinger with an invoice for the expense incurred. Mischa Ettinger shall reimburse Amilynn Bresseau within ten days. Amilynn Bresseau must calculate the net cost of the expense.
(15) If Amilynn Bresseau is considering a new section 7 expense, the parents shall schedule a Facetime call to discuss it. Each parent will be limited to 10 minutes of talking. Amilynn Bresseau has final decision-making power and will convey her decision to Mischa Ettinger by OFW, which may exceed the word limit in paragraph 7. Mischa Ettinger does not have the right to respond.
(16) Mischa Ettinger shall pay Section 7 arrears fixed at $151.62 by July 1, 2025.
Miscellaneous
(17) Amilynn Bresseau shall complete a passport application for the child by June 13, 2025, and mail the application to Mischa Ettinger for him to complete and sign his portion. Mischa Ettinger will mail the completed form to Amilynn Bresseau by June 27, 2025. Amilynn Bresseau will upload a picture of the passport once it is received to OFW. Amilynn Bresseau will be the holder of the document and provide to Mischa Ettinger two weeks before any travel outside of Canada. Mischa Ettinger will return the passport to Amilynn Bresseau within two weeks upon his return from travel. If necessary, the parties will mail the passport to the other parent by registered mail, as documents are not to be delivered through the child.
(18) All other claims and counterclaims are dismissed.
(19) If costs are an issue, Mischa Ettinger shall file his cost submissions by June 13, 2025. Amilynn Bresseau shall file her cost submissions by June 27, 2025. Cost submissions are limited to five pages, double-spaced, 12-point font with normal margins. The only attachments are to be offers to settle, which are equal to or better than what I have ordered.
Released: May 12, 2025
Signed: Justice Cleghorn