Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-387731
DATE: 20131105
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Joseph Guy Christian Bouchard, Applicant
AND:
Monica Anne Cameron Bouchard, Respondent
BEFORE: Czutrin J.
COUNSEL: Kathryn R. Hendrikx, for the Applicant
Nadine Waldman, for the Respondent
HEARD: November 1, 2013
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Ontario Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) is asked to intervene, adjourned to be spoken to on December 17, 2013, 9:00 A.M.
[2] The issues for today are a parenting schedule for the parties’ three children and child support.
[3] The parties have not been able to resolve all these issues in spite of both parents own professional experiences.
[4] I find no fault in father seeking maximum contact (equal time share of the three children); however, it would appear that the parties have not put their children first and looked at the reality of their circumstances (theirs and the children).
[5] The father moved out of the matrimonial home at the beginning of July.
[6] It is clear that the father wanted to resolve issues before his leaving the home, researched the issues that would need to be addressed upon separation, including a parenting schedule and financial issues. He at first wanted a nesting arrangement where the children would remain in the home and the parents would move in and out. It is unclear whether this arrangement was practical or affordable or in the children’s best interests.
[7] The father left the home and rented a home in Markham and took on financial obligations while the financial issues were unresolved. He chose a home out of the children’s school catchment and wanted to dictate the temporary financial arrangements and did so on the assumption of shared parenting and set off of child support obligations. The parties have near equal income.
[8] Unfortunately, while maximum contact is generally in the children’s best interests, sometimes, as in this case, the age of the children, distances between parents’ residence and children’s school make it unrealistic to have an equal time.
[9] The OCL may shed some light on this. While together these parents may have been able to manage their household and needs as two working parents, but now the houses to be maintained also create challenges.
[10] While I cannot conclude that the father seeks near equal time with the three children to reduce his child support obligations, the expenses related to the matrimonial home and father’s new residence create challenges and his unilateral action, while understood, creates issues for a parenting schedule as well.
[11] The parties’ two daughters are 16 and 14 and they have a son who is seven years old.
[12] Given the age of the older children their wishes may have a greater influence on a schedule and the parties accept that they may need to look at different schedules for the youngest child and the older children.
[13] Pending further orders on a temporary temporary basis, the Christmas two-week period is to be divided equally (including December 24, 25 and 26) with December 25 shared so that each parent has time with all children:
Father will be responsible for pickup and delivery from either school, daycare or from the matrimonial home (when there is no school or daycare).
For all children he shall have his time alternate Fridays after school until 8 P.M. Sunday.
The father shall also have every Wednesdays from after school until 8 P.M.
In addition the parties’ son shall be with the father, each Monday after school to Tuesday to school.
After OCL response, access may be revisited.
As I advised the parties’ financial obligation create a challenge as the mother and children remain in the matrimonial home, jointly owned, while the father moved to Markham and knowing the financial obligations and income of both parties chose to rent a townhome for $1,550 per month, while knowing that the carrying costs of the parties’ jointly held home (according to his first financial statement) excluding repairs and maintenance, included a mortgage of $1,860 per month, insurance of approximately $60 per month, taxes of approximately $200 per month and utilities of approximately $200 per month.
[14] The mother earns approximately $82,000 per annum. Each drives cars. There are childcare costs of approximately $400 per month for their son. There is also a cell phone cost for the daughters of approximately $100 per month.
[15] While there is no spousal support issue for the interim and the issue of the home will be part of the property issues, the father will need to continue to pay one-half of the mortgage, taxes and home insurance. The mother will have to cover the balance of the household and her own expenses.
[16] In the circumstances, I see no reasonable way of otherwise addressing child support but by the father, as of September 1, 2013, paying $1,566 per month child support, both maintaining all benefits for the children and cooperating on coordination of benefits, sharing the cell phone expense, daycare expense and Metro passes for the children. (These are table and section 7 expenses.)
[17] Therefore, I order child support as per the proposed order presented by the mother’s counsel but shared on 50/50 temporary basis and as of September 1, 2013 as per paragraphs 6 and 7 to be re-addressed by agreement, final order or on resolution of the property issues.
[18] Costs may be addressed by exchange of written submissions within 30 days limited to three pages supported by Bills of Costs.
Czutrin J.
Released: November 5, 2013