ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: February 3, 2025
COURT FILE No.: Toronto DFO-22-42680-00
BETWEEN:
STEVEN SKIFFINGTON
Applicant
— AND —
CHRISTINE PARSONS
Respondent
Before Justice Jennifer S. Daudlin
Heard on June 17-20, 2024.
Reasons for Judgement released on February 3, 2025
David Anthony....................................................................................... counsel for the applicant
Glenda Perry....................................................................................... counsel for the respondent
DAUDLIN J.:
Part One – Introduction
[1] This case involves an application brought by the father, Steven Thomas Skiffington (the father), against the mother, Christine Lucy Parsons (now MacDougall) (the mother), regarding parenting arrangements, child support obligations, and related matters concerning their three children: Noah (8), Dawson (6), and Victoria (4).
[2] The parties filed an agreement about decision-making responsibility and the regular parenting time schedule for the children at the outset of the trial that will be incorporated into the final order. It provides that the mother has final decision-making responsibility for the children and that they have their primary residence with her. It further provides that the father shall have parenting time with them on alternate weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m., with additional time during school holidays.
[3] The remaining parenting issues to determine in the children’s best interests are:
The summer parenting schedule. The father wants a sharing of the summer holidays. The mother opposes this. The temporary parenting order does not address this issue.
Travel arrangements with the children, including international travel. The father seeks defined travel terms. The mother seeks more flexible terms. The temporary parenting order does not address this issue.
Transportation responsibilities. The mother wants the father to do all transportation for his parenting time. The father seeks a sharing of transportation responsibilities. The temporary parenting order requires the father to do all the transportation.
Whether the court should order at this time, as requested by the father, that if he relocates closer to where the mother lives this should result in a change to his parenting time. The mother opposes this.
[4] The mother seeks retroactive child support from the father, starting on October 1, 2021, including contribution by him to the children’s section 7 expenses. She seeks to impute additional income to him each year for unreported cash income. The father opposes any imputation of his income.
[5] Pursuant to the order of Justice Melanie Sager, dated June 30, 2023, the father is paying temporary child support to the mother of $1,299 each month. This is the Child Support Guidelines Table amount for three children, based on the father’s estimated 2022 income of $65,000. The father seeks adjustments to that order on a final basis, based on his actual income reported to the Canada Revenue Agency.
[6] The remaining support issues for the court to determine at this trial are:
What is the presumptive start date for child support?
Should the court depart from the presumptive start date, and if so, to when?
How much support should the father pay the mother for each year from the start date? In particular:
a. What is the father’s income each year for support purposes? Should any income be imputed to him?
b. What are the children’s eligible section 7 expenses in each year since the start date?
c. What amounts should the father contribute each year to the children’s section 7 expenses?
What credits should the father receive for support paid since the start date chosen by the court?
How should any support arrears be paid?
[7] The parties filed affidavits for their direct evidence and gave additional oral evidence. The father called his mother, Elaine Skiffington, and a former friend of the parties, Alexis Gimondo, as witnesses, and the mother called her wife, Nicole MacDougall, and friend of the mother and her wife, Reyden MacDougall, as witnesses.
Part Two – Family History
[8] The parties’ relationship began in 2011 or 2013, depending on their respective accounts. They cohabited intermittently until May 2014 and then consistently from 2014 to December 2021. They separated on September 14, 2021, but continued living in the same home until the mother moved out with the children in December 2021.
[9] The relationship faced significant challenges, including the father’s struggles with addiction, mutual allegations of infidelity, persistent financial constraints, and allegations of family violence.
[10] In February 2022, the father began dating his current girlfriend and relocated from Toronto to Stratford for work.
[11] In April 2022, the mother met her current spouse who lived in Peterborough and notified the father of her intended move from Toronto to Cavan. She began transitioning to a new home in Cavan in May 2022 and officially relocated there with the children in June 2022.
[12] The father brought his application on May 19, 2022, following the mother’s notice of relocation to Cavan with the children.
[13] The mother filed her Answer/Claim on August 17, 2022.
[14] Both parties amended their claims.
[15] In June 2023, the mother moved to Peterborough with the children and later married her spouse, Nicole MacDougall, in August 2023.
Part Three – Parenting Issues
3.1 Overview of the Law
[16] Under section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA), the court must consider all the needs and circumstances of the child, including but not limited to the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological well-being, the child’s views and preferences where they can be reasonably ascertained, the nature and strength of the child’s relationships with each parent, and the willingness of each parent to facilitate the child’s ongoing relationship with the other parent.
[17] The CLRA emphasizes that the focus must remain on the child’s best interests, and the court should not consider parental rights or preferences as primary factors. The best interests of the child test is the sole consideration in all parenting decisions.
[18] The Supreme Court of Canada in Gordon v. Goertz, affirmed that the best interests of the child must be assessed from the perspective of the child rather than the parents. No single factor within the statutory definition holds greater importance than others, and the court must take a holistic approach to evaluating the child’s unique circumstances. Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479
[19] The best interests of the child are not merely paramount; they are the only consideration in this analysis. Gordon v. Goertz, supra; Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 641. In assessing best interests, courts consider factors such as the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological needs, the stability of the child’s environment, the ability of each parent to provide for the child’s needs, and the presence or absence of family violence.
[20] Family violence is a significant factor in this case. It is established that both parties have engaged in family violence, and such violence has been perpetuated by their extended family members. Pursuant to section 24(3) of the CLRA, the impact of family violence on the child’s safety and well-being, including exposure to conflict and any resulting emotional harm, must be considered. Exposure to family violence can undermine the child’s sense of security and stability, which must be carefully weighed in determining parenting arrangements. Courts have recognized that findings of family violence are critical considerations in the best interests analysis. Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22. Research indicates that children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives. [Department of Justice, 2014]
[21] Courts have consistently taken a holistic approach, evaluating the totality of the child’s circumstances rather than treating the factors as a checklist. Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480. The child’s need for stability, continuity in care, and the preservation of meaningful relationships with both parents are emphasized as fundamental considerations. Barnes v. Parks
[22] A child’s views and preferences, depending on their age and maturity, can play a significant role in determining parenting arrangements. While younger children may require greater stability and predictability, older children may express a preference for a particular arrangement, which will be carefully considered in accordance with the CLRA. The court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the child’s perspective rather than that of the parents. Kirichenko v. Kirichenko, 2021 ONSC 2833
[23] Parental cooperation and the ability to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent are crucial factors in determining parenting time. Courts will assess whether a parent demonstrates a pattern of fostering or impeding the child’s relationship with the other parent. Barendregt v. Grebliunas, supra. Absent concerns such as abuse, each parent should be expected to support the child’s relationship with the other parent. Moreira v. Garcia Dominguez, 2012 ONCJ 128
[24] Financial stability is also a relevant consideration in determining a parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs. A parent’s failure to meet financial obligations, such as child support, may be considered indicative of their capacity to act in the child’s best interests. Jama v. Mohamed, 2015 ONCJ 619. Courts emphasize compliance with existing orders as a measure of parental responsibility. Cooley v. Cooley, 2024 ONSC 1133
[25] The court takes a broad and comparative approach to assessing the impact of parental conflict and the overall circumstances of the child. Courts strongly discourage self-help remedies, emphasizing that changes to parenting arrangements should only be made through proper legal channels. Blair v. Hamilton, 2018 ONSC 7328. Failure to adhere to court orders and refusal to pay child support go directly to a parent’s ability and willingness to act in the best interests of the child. Raifi v. Raifi, 2014 ONSC 1377
[26] Subsection 24 (6) of the CLRA states that in allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.
[27] A primary parent must not just accommodate parenting time, they must facilitate it. Scrivo v. Scrivo, 2012 ONSC 2727; Tran v. Chen, 2012 ONSC 3994
[28] The party who seeks to reduce normal parenting time will usually be required to provide a justification for taking such a position. The greater the restriction sought, the more important it becomes to justify that restriction. M.A. v. J.D.; 2022 ONSC 6510
3.2 Findings
[29] The court makes the following findings of fact after hearing the evidence:
This is a high conflict case.
Both parties are equally responsible for this conflict.
The parties’ supporters, and in particular, the mother’s spouse are fueling this conflict. At times, the mother and her spouse have frustrated the father’s parenting time. The mother’s spouse has taunted the father by saying, “I get your kids to call me daddy”.
Both parties and their supporters have committed family violence.
The children are caught in the middle of this conflict. Both parents and their supporters need to do better.
It is in the best interests of the children to make sure parenting terms are clear and structured.
The evidence does not support any reduction in the father’s parenting time with the children as submitted by the mother.
The children have a close and loving relationship with the father.
3.3 Summer Parenting Schedule
[30] The father seeks a week-about parenting summer parenting schedule.
[31] The mother opposes this, asserting that it would disrupt the children’s participation in structured programs, including literacy initiatives and summer camps. She argues that maintaining the current schedule ensures continuity and stability.
[32] The court finds it is in the children’s best interests to order a week-about summer parenting time schedule with exchanges occurring on Fridays at 5:00 p.m. This arrangement allows both parents meaningful, uninterrupted time with the children while maintaining structure.
[33] The father has demonstrated his commitment to the children’s development, and the benefits of extended time outweigh any disruption to structured programs.
[34] The evidence informs the court that the children have a close and loving relationship that should be fostered. Ordering extended summer holiday time is consistent with subsection 24 (6) of the CLRA and the jurisprudence.
[35] Accordingly, the father shall have a week-about summer parenting schedule.
3.4 Travel Arrangements
[36] Travel outside Canada requires both parents’ consent unless otherwise ordered, balancing the benefits of travel with the need to maintain stability and continuity for the child. Verbanac v. Dawson, 2019 ONSC 4473. The court must weigh the benefits of travel against potential risks and disruptions to the child’s routine. Mahadevan v. Shankar, 2010 O.J. No. 4836
[37] The father seeks defined provisions for travel arrangements.
[38] The mother seeks flexible travel arrangements, emphasizing that rigid requirements could limit the children’s ability to participate in meaningful experiences, such as family vacations, cultural events, and educational trips. She argues that requiring the father’s consent for extended travel may lead to unnecessary delays or conflicts, particularly if the father is uncooperative. She maintains that she has always acted in the children’s best interests and that a more adaptable framework would better serve their needs, ensuring they have opportunities for growth and enrichment without undue restrictions.
[39] The court finds that structured travel provisions are necessary to avoid unilateral decisions that could interfere with the other parent’s parenting time. This is in the children’s best interests.
[40] Each parent shall be given at least 60 days’ notice for international travel up to seven nights, with consent required for trips exceeding eight nights, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
[41] No make-up parenting time is necessary for trips of seven nights or less, whereas make-up time is required for longer trips.
[42] Short trips of 72 hours or less require only one week’s notice and do not require consent, provided they do not interfere with the other parent’s scheduled time.
[43] Additionally, no travel, domestic or international, during the other parent’s scheduled time shall occur without their consent, which must not be unreasonably withheld.
3.5 Transportation Responsibilities
[44] In cases involving transportation and travel arrangements, courts have discretion to order an equitable division of responsibilities when it serves the child’s best interests. Chong v. Donnelly, 2021 ONSC 5263
[45] The mother argues that the father should remain solely responsible for all transportation, citing her work schedule and discomfort with highway driving. The father seeks an equal sharing of transportation responsibilities.
[46] The court finds that the current arrangement places an undue burden on the father. Equitably sharing transportation responsibilities is in the children’s best interests, ensuring both parents contribute while maintaining consistency in their routines. It also demonstrates their commitment to a cooperative co-parenting relationship that prioritizes the children’s well-being. Exchanges shall take place at a midpoint location, such as the Scarborough Town Centre.
3.6 Parenting Time in the Event of Relocation
[47] The father seeks to have the court pre-emptively address parenting time modifications in the event that he relocates closer to the children. He argues that advanced planning would minimize future disputes and ensure a smoother transition for the children. He asserts that increased parenting time following relocation would be in the children’s best interests and would allow for more meaningful involvement in their daily lives. The mother opposes the court doing this.
[48] The court agrees with the mother. Any parenting time adjustments should only be considered upon actual evidence of a material change in circumstances. Pre-emptively addressing relocation is speculative and does not serve the children’s current best interests. Additionally, this issue was not properly pled, and as such, the court will not entertain pre-emptive modifications. Accordingly, no automatic modifications are ordered at this time, and the father retains the right to bring a motion should relocation occur.
Part Four – Support Issues
4.1 Overview of the Law
[49] Child support is primarily governed by the Child Support Guidelines, which establish the rules for calculating child support payments and determining how parents should share special or extraordinary expenses under section 7. The Guidelines provide a structured approach to ensure that child support obligations are fair, predictable, and reflective of the financial means of both parents while prioritizing the best interests of the child. Courts are required to consider both the financial means of the parents and the best interests of the child when determining support obligations.
[50] In an original application for retroactive support, the court does not require the applicant to establish a material change in circumstances, as outlined in Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24. The first step is to determine the presumptive date of retroactivity, which is generally the date when the recipient parent gave effective notice of their intent to seek support, provided this date is no more than three years before the date formal notice of the support claim was given. The second step involves assessing whether the court should depart from this presumptive date to ensure fairness, guided by the factors outlined in D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, as further explained in Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24. These factors include delay in seeking support, the conduct of the payor, the circumstances of the child, and potential hardship to either the support payor or the support recipient. The third step is to quantify the proper amount of support for each year since the date of retroactivity, calculated in accordance with the Guidelines.
[51] The retroactive support analysis equally applies to claims for retroactive section 7 expenses. Smith v. Selig, 2008 NSCA 54; Hetherington v. Tapping, 2007 BCSC 209; Cumor v. Mohamud, 2024 ONCJ 162.
[52] With respect to imputing income, courts have the discretion to attribute an income level that reflects what the payor is actually earning, or the payor’s capacity to earn, considering factors such as employment history, age, education, skills, and any intentional underemployment or failure to provide financial disclosure. Section 19 of the Guidelines allows the court to impute income if the payor is found to be intentionally underemployed or has not made reasonable efforts to obtain employment consistent with their qualifications and experience. Courts may also draw an adverse inference where financial disclosure is lacking or inconsistent with the payor’s lifestyle and spending patterns.
[53] The court may impute income where it finds that a party has hidden or misrepresented relevant information respecting their income to the other party or to the authorities. This includes cases where the evidence indicates that a party earns cash income that they do not declare for income tax purposes. Kinsella v. Mills, 2020 ONSC 4785; Prillo v. Homer, 2023 ONCJ 8; Sobiegraj v. Sobiegraj, 2014 ONSC 2030; Lu v. Zhao, 2012 ONSC 5354, at para. 26, affirmed 2014 ONCA 12, at para. 5
[54] The court can also impute income where the evidence respecting income is not credible for any other reason. Heard v. Heard, 2014 ONCA 196, at paras. 33-35; Gostevskikh v. Gostevskikh, 2018 BCSC 1441. This includes situations where the party’s deposits into their personal or business accounts reflect that their income was greater than reported in their income tax returns. (Lazarevic v. Lazarevic, 2014 ONSC 7348)
[55] The father’s inability to work due to medical issues is another factor in determining prospective support obligations. Courts will examine whether the inability to work is substantiated by credible medical evidence and if the payor has made reasonable efforts to seek alternate employment within their capabilities. Cook v. Burton; Stoangi v. Petersen. Temporary health setbacks, without a clear prognosis of long-term disability, may not warrant a reduction or suspension of support obligations. The father must prove that any medical excuse for being unemployed or underemployed is reasonable. Rilli v. Rilli
[56] Regarding the repayment of outstanding child support arrears, courts will weigh factors such as the father’s ability to pay, efforts made to comply with support obligations, and any hardship that may arise from an expedited repayment schedule. The D.B.S. factors, including delay in seeking relief, blameworthy conduct, the circumstances of the child, and hardship to the payor, will guide the court’s discretion in establishing an equitable repayment plan. Courts may also consider whether the payor has made voluntary payments and whether their financial situation has improved since the arrears accumulated.
[57] In determining the father’s liability for section 7 expenses, the court will assess whether these expenses are necessary and reasonable in relation to the child’s best interests and the financial circumstances of both parents. The mother bears the burden of demonstrating that the claimed expenses fall within the enumerated categories under section 7 and are proportionate to the family’s pre-separation spending patterns. Courts will consider whether the expenses were incurred with the payor’s knowledge and consent, whether they are recurring or exceptional, and if they reflect the child’s needs and customary lifestyle.
4.2 Retroactive Child Support – Colucci Analysis
[58] The mother asks that child support start on October 1, 2021. The father did not take a firm position about when child support should start.
4.2.1 Step 1: Determining the Presumptive Date of Retroactivity
[59] The presumptive start date for retroactive child support is the date when the recipient parent gave effective notice of their intent to seek support. However, it cannot be more than three years before the date of formal notice. In this case, the mother first requested child support on August 17, 2022, when she filed her Answer/Claim – the same date she gave formal notice of her claim.
[60] The presumptive start date for child support is August 17, 2022.
4.2.2 Step 2: Adjusting the Retroactive Start Date Based on Fairness
[61] The D.B.S. v. S.R.G. and Michel v. Graydon factors require the court to examine delay in seeking support, the conduct of the payor, the circumstances of the child, and potential hardship when determining whether to depart from the presumptive start date.
[62] The mother provided understandable reasons for why she delayed in seeking child support from the father. She was in difficult financial circumstances. Her housing was in transition. She was not receiving any financial support from the father. She was reluctant to engage in litigation with him. There has been family violence in their relationship.
[63] The father engaged in blameworthy conduct by not paying child support commencing in January 2022 until ordered to do so in December 2022.
[64] The circumstances of the children were disadvantaged by the failure of the father to pay appropriate child support. The mother struggled to support the children them.
[65] The mother will suffer hardship if she is not awarded retroactive child support. Any hardship to the father can be addressed through a reasonable payment agreement.
[66] The court orders that the start date for child support shall be January 1, 2022, as the parties continued to live in the same residence until December 2021, even though they formally separated on September 14, 2021. Support should not be retroactive to a period when the parties were living together and both parties were contributing to the expenses.
4.2.3 Step 3: Quantifying the Support Obligation
a) The father’s income
[67] The father is a union laborer in the construction industry. He deposed his annual income has been as follows:
- 2022 - $60,000
- 2023 - $61,698
[68] The father testified that his 2024 income was anticipated to be lower because he broke his leg, and he could not work.
[69] The mother asks the court to impute the father’s annual income at $82,400 from the court orders support to start.
[70] The mother does not believe the father produced adequate evidence to justify reducing his income in 2024. She claims he was deliberately unemployed or underemployed.
[71] The father disputes the imputation of additional income, asserting that his reported income accurately reflects his earnings. He argues that any additional income attributed to him is speculative and unsupported by the evidence. He acknowledges helping his father-in-law collect scrap metal but states that he never earned income from it. He has also searched for cash jobs online but has been unsuccessful due to limited opportunities and lack of steady work.
[72] The court finds that the father’s reported income to the Canada Revenue Agency does not fully reflect his actual income, or his ability to earn income.
[73] The court finds that imputing additional income to the father is justified based on:
The father’s pattern of unreported cash earnings, as evidenced by discrepancies in financial disclosure and inconsistencies in his reported income.
The father’s history of employment in industries where cash work is common.
The lack of clear and complete financial documentation supporting his claims.
[74] The reasonable expectation is that the father can resume earning at pre-injury levels following his recovery from his broken leg. Based on the available evidence, the court imputes additional income as follows:
2022: The father’s tax-assessed income was $60,000. However, financial disclosure indicates unreported cash earnings. Given inconsistencies in the father’s financial disclosure and evidence of additional cash work, the court imputes an additional $10,000, inclusive of any gross-up, bringing his total income to $70,000. The Guidelines table amount for 3 children at this income is $1,379 each month.
2023: The father’s assessed income was $61,698.88. Similar to 2022, financial records suggest a pattern of cash earnings. Given the lack of complete disclosure and evidence of ongoing side income, an additional $10,000 is imputed, inclusive of gross-up, making his total income $71,698.88. The Guidelines table amount for 3 children at this income is $1,431 each month.
2024: The father appeared in court having recently broken his leg. While no formal medical evidence was admitted, the court finds it reasonable that following a serious fracture, a period of recovery and rehabilitation would be required before returning to work. The court, therefore, accepts that the father’s income remained consistent with 2023 levels until his injury from January 1, 2024, to June 30, 2024. From July 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024, only 50% of his 2023 income shall be applied to account for his limited ability to work during recovery but assuming a return to work before the end of the calendar year. An additional $5,000 in cash earnings is imputed for the period prior to his injury, including gross-up bringing his total 2024 income to $51,274.28. The Guidelines table amount for 3 children at this income is $1,004 each month.
2025 and onward: The father’s income is expected to return to pre-injury levels. The court imputes an additional $10,000 in earnings, including gross-up, bringing his total 2025 income to $71,698.88. The Guidelines table amount for 3 children at this income is $1,431 each month.
b) Section 7 Expenses
[75] The mother seeks contributions for daycare expenses for Victoria, totaling $1,306.97 for 2023 and $1,832.61 for 2024 (up to June 2024). These amounts are net of any tax benefits or credits the mother receives related to these expenses. The mother also requests contributions for health, dental, and orthodontic expenses for the children.
[76] The court finds that Victoria’s daycare expenses are reasonable and necessary. The father shall contribute proportionally based on the parties’ respective incomes as follows:
2023: Father’s imputed income: $71,698.88; Mother’s self-declared income: $21,647.93 (per Financial Statement sworn February 21, 2024). Contribution proportion: 77% father / 23% mother. The father’s share of Victoria’s daycare costs is $1,006.37.
2024: Father’s imputed income: $51,274.28 (adjusted for injury period); Mother’s projected income: $43,738.50 (based on a regular hourly wage of $22.43 x 37.5 hours per week). Contribution proportion: 54% father / 46% mother. The father’s share of Victoria’s daycare cost is $989.61.
Going forward, the children’s section 7 expenses must be agreed upon in advance where applicable, with consent not to be unreasonably withheld. These contributions shall be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) and apportioned based on each party’s income.
[77] Starting on January 1, 2025, the father shall pay 62% of the net amount of the children’s section 7 expenses and the mother shall pay 38% of these expenses. This is based on the father’s annual income of $71,698.88 and the mother’s annual income of $43,738.50.
[78] For future Section 7 expenses, the paying parent shall reimburse the requesting parent within 30 days of receiving proof of payment, unless otherwise agreed in writing. If full repayment is not made within 30 days, the unpaid amount may be enforced through the FRO.
c) Calculation of the father’s Guidelines table support obligation
[79] The father's total support obligation from January 1, 2022, to February 28, 2025, is calculated as follows:
- 2022: $1,379 × 12 = $16,548
- 2023: $1,431 × 12 = $17,172
- 2024: $1,004 × 12 = $12,048
- 2025 (January & February): $1,431 × 2 = $2,862
Total Table Support Obligation (January 1, 2022 – February 28, 2025): $48,630
[80] The father also owes the mother section 7 expenses of $1,995.98 for 2023 and 2024.
[81] The total amount of support accrued to date is $50,634.98.
[82] The father shall be credited for payments of support made directly to the mother in the amount of $1,720. The mother acknowledged receiving these payments.
[83] The father also seeks support credits for shouldering the entire transportation costs for visitation.
[84] The mother opposes the father receiving a transportation credit, arguing that transportation responsibilities were part of the initial agreement and that the father voluntarily assumed the costs.
[85] The court finds it will result in a fairer determination of the father’s past child support obligations if he is granted some credit for assuming the entire and substantial transportation costs. The court accepts the father's evidence that reasonable requests for cooperation and assistance with transportation by the mother were made and unreasonably refused, further supporting the justification for this credit.
[86] The court will give the father a credit of $150 per month from December 1, 2022, to January 31, 2025, totaling $3,900.
[87] With the introduction of shared transportation responsibilities after this date, the court finds that no further credits will be applied beyond January 31, 2025.
[88] The father is given support credits of $5,620, from the start date, calculated as follows:
- $1,720 for child support paid directly to the mother.
- $3,900 for transportation costs.
[89] This leaves a balance owing to the mother of $45,014.98 ($50,634.98 – $5,620).
[90] The father shall also be credited for any payments he has made through the Family Responsibility Office as shown in the Family Responsibility Office records.
[91] The mother has requested that the arrears be paid at a rate of $400 per month, commencing March 1, 2025.
[92] The court finds this is more than the father can reasonably afford. The court will order that the father shall make monthly arrears payments of $269, starting on March 1, 2025, until the outstanding balance is fully paid. These payments will be in addition to his ongoing child support obligations and any contributions required for future Section 7 expenses.
Part Five – Disposition
[93] The terms contained in the parties’ Consent to a Final Order signed and filed June 18, 2024, shall form part of the final order.
[94] In addition, the following terms shall form part of the final order:
Commencing in 2025, the parties shall have a week-about summer parenting time schedule with the children, with exchanges occurring on Fridays at 5:00 p.m.
Each parent shall provide at least 60 days’ notice for international travel.
For travel with the children outside of Canada:
a. Each parent may travel up to seven nights without the consent of the other parent.
b. For trips of eight nights or more, the other parent’s consent is required, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
c. Where consent is required, the travelling parent shall provide the non-travelling parent a consent to travel to be notarized and returned to the travelling parent at least seven (7) days before the intended date of travel. The cost of the notary shall be paid for by the travelling parent.
No make-up parenting time is required for international trips of seven nights or less. Make-up parenting time shall be provided for trips exceeding seven nights.
Short trips of 72 hours or less require one week’s notice and do not require consent, provided they do not interfere with the other parent’s scheduled time.
No domestic or international travel shall take place during the other parent’s scheduled parenting time without their consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
No less than fourteen (14) days before the intended date of departure, the travelling parent will provide the non-travelling parent a detailed itinerary, including but not limited to flight date, times, and carrier information (if any), the name, address, and contact information for where the children will be staying for the duration of the trip.
The parents shall share transportation responsibilities to parenting exchanges, equally. Exchanges shall take place at a midpoint location, such as the Scarborough Town Centre.
The father’s request for pre-emptive modifications to the parenting schedule in the event of his relocation is dismissed. Any such modifications shall be addressed upon a material change in circumstances.
The father’s child support arrears are fixed at $45,014.98, as calculated in this decision, less any payments he has made through the Family Responsibility Office, as reflected in its records.
Commencing on March 1, 2025, and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter, the father shall pay child support to the mother of $1,431 each month. This is the Child Support Guidelines table amount for three children, based on the father’s annual income assessed at $71,698.88.
The father shall pay child support arrears at $269 each month, starting on March 1, 2025, until the balance is paid.
Nothing in this order precludes the Family Responsibility Office from collecting arrears from any government source, such as income tax returns or HST/GST returns, lottery or prize winnings or inheritances.
The children’s section 7 expenses must be agreed upon in advance where applicable, with consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
Commencing on January 1, 2025, the father shall pay 62% of the net amount of the children’s section 7 expenses and the mother shall pay 38% of these expenses. This is based on the father’s annual income of $71,698.88 and the mother’s annual income of $43,738.50.
The paying parent shall reimburse the requesting parent within 30 days of receiving proof of payment, unless otherwise agreed in writing. If full repayment is not made within 30 days, the unpaid amount may be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office.
A Support Deduction Order shall issue.
Part Six – Costs Submissions
[95] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, the father shall serve and file his costs submissions by March 3, 2025, and the mother shall serve and file her costs submissions by March 17, 2025. Submissions shall not exceed five pages, double-spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman font, exclusive of any offers to settle and bills of costs. Caselaw is not required; however, if relied upon, it must be hyperlinked in the document. Submissions must be filed with the Trial Coordinator by email.
Part Seven – Other
[96] Any mathematical errors may be brought to the court’s attention by emailing the Trial Coordinator within ten (10) days of the date of the order. The other party will then have seven days to respond.
Released: February 3, 2025
Signed: Justice Jennifer S. Daudlin
