BARRIE

COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-1277-01

DATE: 20140526

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: ERIN ELIZABETH HUNT, Applicant

AND:

RICHARD DAVID VALLEE, Respondent

BEFORE: THE HON. MADAM JUSTICE H.A. McGEE

HEARD: May 20, 21 and 23, 2014

ENDORSEMENT

BACKGROUND AND CONDUCT OF TRIAL

[1] The parties began living together on February 1, 2007, almost eight months after the birth of their daughter, B. born June 15, 2006. At the time of B.’s conception and birth the mother was married to the father of H. born February 1, 2003. She also had two older daughters, P. and A. borne from an earlier union.

[2] A son was born to the parties on January 1, 2008. That son, R. is the youngest and only boy within a sibling of five children to date. The applicant mother and respondent father disagree as to when they separated, but it was certainly by March 2011 when the mother had her first large gambling win. She has since won over 2 million dollars.

[3] The mother recently miscarried a child with her current partner – with whom she states she has a stable relationship, but not a spousal relationship. There was much time taken up at trial as to whether the current partner, Mr. Paul Borthwick resides with the mother. Mr. Borthwick was present throughout the trial but was not called as a witness. It was observed that he assisted the mother. No explanation was given by the mother as to why Mr. Borthwick’s name appeared on a Barrie criminal court docket of May 14, 2014.

[4] Between the time of her separation from the respondent and her current relationship the mother has had two other significant relationships. The father’s evidence is that each of the gentlemen resided in the home. The mother says that they did not – at least not on a fulltime basis. Both men were the subject of police attendances in the home.

[5] From January to August 2013 the mother also housed, or in her words employed as a nanny, a former nurse and fellow gambling enthusiast on Ontario Works named Sue Evans. The terms of her employment were not made known and I suspect, were they known, would have disentitled Ms. Evans to social assistance.

[6] Until the order of Justice Olah on December 19, 2014 the respondent father had B. and R. in his care three weekends a month, as well as one evening a week. After that date, the children have alternated weeks between their parents, with the exchanges occurring every Friday at the end of the school day.

[7] Both parents agree that the alternate week schedule has greatly reduced the parental conflict. That conflict peaked earlier last year when exchanges were done at the local police station. The worst of those exchanges occurred when the mother sent her teenage daughters, A. and P. to conduct the exchanges.[^1] The daughters took the opportunity to express their views. The father couldn’t resist responding in kind.

[8] Only two concerns arise from the current schedule of alternating weeks. First, on Fridays for which there is no school attendance - such as P.A. Days and summer holidays, there is no alternative method of exchange.

[9] Second, the father has not made available, nor participated in mid-week Skype contact between the kids and the other parent as also provided for in the December 19, 2014 order. He has chosen not to do so in light of a present prohibition[^2] to have no contact with the mother following on a charge of breach of probation set to be heard this June. I do not find his caution to be unreasonable. Given how Skype works, it is not impossible that there might be inadvertent contact between the parents.

[10] Within their opening statements, each of the father and the mother sought custody of B. who will be 8 on June 15th, and R. who is 6. Each proposes that B. and R. spend the same pattern of time with the non-residential parent: three weekends a month from after school on Friday to return to school on Monday. Both seek child support from the other without any ability to articulate the amount sought or the basis for its calculation.

[11] Both parties have been self-represented throughout this trial.[^3] Neither party called the extensive list of witnesses previously set out within the Trial Management Conference endorsement. Only two witnesses were called additional to the parents: the maternal grandmother and a clinician from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

[12] The OCL has twice offered service within the course of this custody and access litigation. On both occasions their involvement was incomplete.

[13] The first involvement ended in March of 2012 when the father withdrew his claim to spend time with the children additional to weekly visits, and three weekends a month. At that time there was an open file with the CAS. The Society’s concerns included ongoing conflict between the couple during exchanges, inadequate supervision and parenting by the mother, often due to the mother’s extensive attendances at casinos; and inadequate conditions within the father’s home. The father testified during this trial that he was simply “not in the right place” to tolerate the conflict at the time, and that with the help of his counsellor he now feels that he can proceed.

[14] The second activation ended in September 2013 when the mother withdrew for reasons more fully set out below. The father had fully participated. The process was marked discontinued and a report dated November 23, 2013 was forwarded to the parties and the court.

[15] That report sets out comprehensive and significant observations, but does not include the usual section on recommendations as the clinician was unable to complete her inquiries. The items not completed included police record checks on the multiple adults who had frequented the mother’s home over the prior year: Mr. MacDonald, Ms. Evans and Mr. Borthwick. Only Mr. Borthwick continues in the home at this time.

[16] Within their closing statements at trial, each parent continues his and her respective claims - except that the mother has now varied her claim to seek joint custody. The mother did not file a current Form 35.1 Parenting Affidavit.

[17] The father had, but then made no mention of it during his closing submissions. Indeed, he contradicted it. Questioning from the court was necessary to draw out proposals from each parent for access exchanges and communication protocols. Neither parent was able to articulate their claim for child support, even with the assistance of the court.

EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

The Parents

[18] At trial, both the applicant mother and the clinical assist used the same term to describe the mother’s home: “chaotic.” The older two daughters, P. now nearly 18 and A. aged 15 have been in significant distress this past year and are under medical care.

[19] It is possible that P. and A. are not currently living in the home. The father testified that B. and R. told him recently that they miss their older sisters and the family dog, Oakley, as all three have recently moved from the family home. They especially miss their dog, who had to go as a result of conflict with Mr. Borthwick’s dog.

[20] The mother was asked by the court in closing submissions if this was the case. Her answer was that the information was “hearsay” and that he can’t prove it. She went on to say that all five kids have always lived with her. I am not satisfied at all with the quality or veracity of that statement.

[21] The parents have poor personal and spousal histories. The father has had significant anger problems, and reacts badly when provoked. And he is easily provoked.

[22] The father is preoccupied with the mother’s gambling addiction. Perhaps more to the point, for most of this litigation he has been engrossed in his quest for a share of the mother’s over 2 million dollars in gambling winnings.

[23] Much of those winnings have been dissipated. The home that she purchased in September 2011 has a large mortgage. She leases her vehicle. OLG records from January 1, 2013 to March 22, 2014 show 121 uses of her WC Card and more importantly, $51,809.05 in cumulative gambling losses. Without intervention, I doubt it will be long before the gambling industry has back with dividends their temporary investment in Ms. Hunt.

[24] The mother denies any gambling addiction and submits that the OLG records speak to nothing of importance – she claims that anyone could have used her card. I do not find such a statement credible, nor did I find the mother generally credible. On many occasions during her testimony she changed the facts to support her perspective, often when it was not even necessary to do so.[^4]

[25] What she does not deny is that her present social life and a preponderance of her activities with the children are centred on casino life. She testified that she has travelled with one or more of them on multiple trips to the Bahamas, Atlantis and Casino Rama. When asked if it was good for the children to be so exposed to gambling, she answered that she enjoys spending time with them doing what she loves.

[26] She has also taken one or more of the children to Great Wolf Lodge, Niagara Falls, Disneyworld, Sunset Speedway and Canada’s Wonderland. They enjoy OLG complementary passes to hotels, Blue Jays and Maple Leaf games.

[27] Whether or not the mother has a gambling addiction is of less concern to the court than her pattern of inviting rescuing-type men into her home for revolving periods of time, which times always seem to come to a relatively short and dramatic end.

[28] The father was one of those rescuing men. In the fullness of time his involvement with her was predictably terminated – and perhaps not entirely without cause.

[29] However, and much to his credit, the father has continued an active role in his daughter and son’s life. He now proposes that only his residence can provide the kids with the stable, settled environment that they so desperately need, away from the “circus” that is their mother’s home.

[30] He described at some length the activities that he enjoys with the children in his home: from teaching them to skate and swim to carving pumpkins. They enjoy outdoor activities with their Dad, go to the library, bake together and enjoy various outings. He rarely employs a babysitter, and has never missed an access visit but for one occasion for which there were circumstances outside his control. The mother takes no issue with his parenting time and clearly stated in her closing submission that she supports his ongoing parenting.

[31] What the mother cannot understand is why he would put forward a claim for custody, and more so, why the court would even consider it. She states that she is in better physical health than the father and has more financial resources. She states that he is a diabetic and lives in much lesser circumstances than she.

[32] She is certain that he will be incarcerated when his trial for breach of a recognizance is heard this June. She is also concerned with the difficulty in working with the father while under a non-communication order.

[33] The current prohibition arises from terms of a recognizance on an alleged breach of a February 2013 conviction for assault. That conviction is the only conviction following on five different charges laid against the father between January 16, 2012 and September 1, 2013. Each was the result of information from the mother and for two, information from the teenage daughters.

[34] Those five charges are the only ones laid following on 48 police occurrence reports. Certain of those reports are illustrative of the dynamic between the parents:[^5]

(a) September 11, 2011: “…the complainant (Mr. Vallee) and his ex-wife have a history of each calling the police to report the other is an unfit parent…”

(b) August 31, 2012: “…Erin [Hunt] has also proven herself to be deceptive and using allegations to police for personal gain in Family Court…”

(c) August 8, 2013: “The complainant and the suspect have both at times appeared to be vindictive and manipulative towards police in attempt to aid their version of events…”

[35] The parties’ relationship has been described by a number of service providers including the CAS, police and OCL as one of unacceptable, unrelenting adult conflict. That conflict has so marked this litigation that matters of importance to the children have been pushed into the shadows.

[36] For example, the school attendance records for the four school age children show alarming patterns of truancy, particularly for A. B. has been having problems at school and has been identified with special needs. The school organized a meeting for the parents to create an Individual Education Plan. The mother did not attend. The father never knew about it. Upon the court becoming aware of this circumstance an order was made on December 19, 2013 giving the father responsibility for the children’s education.

[37] Another example is the contrast between the intensity of the father’s ambition to have Mr. MacDonald, (one of the mother’s in-between partners) held accountable for perceived abuse of B; and how the events actually affected B. It is still not clear to me whether any abuse occurred, or what constitutes the father’s view of abuse. What is clear is that B. and R. would benefit from counselling supports. They have had way too many step-father figures in their young lives. Neither parent presented a plan for counselling.

[38] The children have had multiple caregivers in the home. In addition to the confusing relationships with gentlemen who may or may not reside there, and may or may not be in a spousal relationship there have been two other caregiver figures. Ms. Grant resided in the home for the first part of 2013. Her attendance appears to have been largely positive and her departure was unexplained. In closing submissions the mother referred to a “cleaning lady” who could now take care of any court required access exchanges.

[39] A final and most important area of concern not addressed at trial was the attachment between the siblings. The parties agree that when they first set out as a couple, then 15 year old P. was a “godsend.” She did much of the early care for B. and R.

[40] As the spousal relationship broke down so did the step-parent relationship. As above, there was much conflict between the older daughters and the father. Not addressed in significant detail was the current relationship between the older sisters and B. and R., or the effect on H. should B. and R. live with their father fulltime.

[41] I did have evidence that A. has become disruptive and has been occasionally violent in the home, but that she is now under medical care and doing better. I heard that P. is leaving for college in the fall and will be residing away from home. H. goes to the same elementary school as B. and R and shares a room with B.

[42] In summary, I have little if any evidence on the effect of separating the younger two children from their older siblings. The father states that it will be good for them and will protect them. He states this without also referencing his testimony that B. and R. miss their older siblings. He offers no plan for sibling access. The mother states that it will devastate her to have the siblings separated.

Evidence of the OCL Clinician

[43] The evidence of the parents contrasted sharply with that of Ms. Lois Chouinard, a clinician assigned to the family by the O.C.L. from February to September of 2013. While the parents’ evidence was a dance of parry and thrust; Ms. Chouinard’s evidence was child focused and neutral. In a refreshingly positive and helpful tone she spoke of each child’s strengths and challenges within the context of their experiences.

[44] B. was 7, and R. was 5 at the time of Ms. Chouinard’s involvement. She described sister and brother as unusually close and cooperative, kind to one another and helpful. She observed with approbation the children’s attachment with the father, their calm demeanor while in his care, age appropriate toys and activities in his home and full engagement with the rules of the home. The father appeared to read the children’s cues and there was a flow of respective communication and direction between them.

[45] Her concern with the father centred on his unfiltered remonstrations of the mother shared while the children were present. She testified that his negative comments peppered all the interviews. Bold statements were routinely thrown out while the children were present. The father appeared to have no insight as to the effect on the children hearing such angry statements from one parent about their other parent.

[46] The mother’s home produced a different set of observations. The children were considerably less compliant and did not seem to hear her voice. There were no obvious signs of parent-child attachment, although it was clear that the children cared for their mother.

[47] She observed the mother’s household as chaotic, and driven by the dynamics of two very stressed out teenagers. The mother was frequently out of the home – including during one of the OCL home visits. On an office visit, P. brought the children. When the mother was at home, she appeared frustrated by her lack of control. She also spent a great deal of time talking about the other parent’s shortcomings in front of the children.

[48] The court asked about the unique characteristics of each child. Ms. Chouinard spoke about Belle displaying signs of low self-esteem, not being able to manage change and having a limited understanding of the confusing events going on around her. She:

(a) really wanted the conflict amongst the various adults in her mother’s home to stop,

(b) was frightened by the police coming to her mother’s home, and

(c) didn’t like change and people moving in and out of the house.

[49] It was learned that B. had missed 23.5 days of school during the 2012-2013 year and was struggling in the classroom. As earlier stated, neither parent had attended a meeting to address her special educational needs.

[50] R. has also been struggling at school, but for different reasons. He is quite bright and exceeding academic expectations. His experience of the disruption and conflict in his mother’s home has been vented through tantrums and acting out. At the time of the OCL observations his misbehavior was just starting to ramp up. It was the view of the clinician that it was certain to escalate given the older sibling’s template for behavior in the mother’s home.

[51] During her eight month period of involvement, Ms. Chouinard chronicled the mother’s relationship with three different men: Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Fournier and Mr. Borthwick. When she attempted to speak to the mother about whether the changing relationships and turmoil in the home was having an effect on the children, the mother answered a quick “no.”

[52] Within days the mother had got ahold of a person whom she understood to be Ms. Chouinard’s “supervisor” to have the clinician fired for being biased and asking an inappropriate question. She made it clear that her lifestyle choices were not to be questioned. As she stated in her cross examination, “it is 2014.”

[53] The OCL subsequently discontinued the investigation, citing the mother’s withdrawal as the condition precedent. As above, a comprehensive report was tendered, but without the usual recommendations. During her questioning of Ms. Chouinard during trial the mother seemed disappointed to learn that the investigation had been discontinued as a result of her failure to participate, rather than the steps she took to have the clinician “fired.”

[54] I find that the clinician’s question was both appropriate and central to the question of custody. While the mother has demonstrated her ability to access outside services such as police, CAS, and medical assistance, she has shown no ability to adapt her own actions to meet the needs of the children. The evidence of Ms. Chouinard is that the children do not hear their mother’s voice as an authority. In many respects P. has become a co-parent. Indeed, P. carries more parenting authority in the home than her mother.

[55] At the time of the OCL observations, the children were not settled in their mother’s home. Indeed, they were in the midst of having to change bedrooms to accommodate the mother’s current partner. The switching of bedrooms had “stirred up a hornet’s nest,” and illustrated a lack of stability even in their own home.

[56] The older children spoke to the clinician about their wish that the mother would stop bringing men into their home so that they could be a normal family. Whenever there was a man in the house he always “spoke over” the mother so that she had no voice. That coupled with her erratic absences left the kids more or less on their own with the older ones under heavy pressure to care for the younger ones.

[57] At no time has the mother acknowledged the terrible dilemma in which she has been placing her children, or that her behavior is a root cause of their distress – a cause that cannot be attributed to others.

ANALYSIS

[58] Neither parent proffered any law, or legal authority in the course of the trial. The court directed the parents to paragraph 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the guiding provision within statute. Although neither was able to formulate submissions touching on paragraph 24, I include them in these reasons for the parties’ consideration in future legal disputes.

Merits of application for custody or access

24. (1) The merits of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child, in accordance with subsections (2), (3) and (4). 2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1).

Best interests of child

(2) The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including,

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and

(iii) persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing;

(b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

(h) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application. 2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1); 2009, c. 11, s. 10.

[59] For the purposes of this decision I am satisfied on two key points:

a. the mother delegates too much of her parenting responsibilities to the older children and variable adults,

b. the mother is unable to separate her own needs from those of the children,

[60] I and am very concerned with the lack of attachment and continuity in the mother’s home. With such findings, I would ordinarily consider transitioning the children from the mother’s primary care to that of the father.

[61] However, I make two additional findings:

a. the children are interdependent within their sibling and separating them on a fulltime basis is not supported by the evidence available within this proceeding.

b. At this time the father continues to be emotionally reactive to the mother. He appears unable to separate his emotional responses from the responsibilities of primary parenting.

[62] In my view, neither parent is presently a good prospect for a primary care parent. The mother lacks insight into her children’s needs and the father cannot rise above his reactions to the mother to parent independently. I am not satisfied that left to their own devices, either would protect the children’s relationship with the other parent.

[63] For the same reasons, neither is a good candidate for co-parenting. The mother has unduly created a specter of fear around the father’s communications. She must develop the ability to understand her children’s experience of events and the skills to communicate with their father in a neutral manner. At the same time, the father must correct how he communicates and give no cause for concern.

[64] After reflection, I find that the best result for the children at this stage is an order continuing the current parenting schedule of alternating weeks, with divided decision making by the parents - in effect parallel parenting.

[65] Justice Olah’s decision of December 19, 2013 provided a marked improvement for the children from the prior schedule. The week about scheduled has reduced the number of transitions for the children and thus, the opportunities for conflict between the parents.

[66] I also decline to award the father custody and primary care for the following reasons:

a. The sibling relationships have been the only constant in the young lives of B. and R. And even though P. and A. have been in distress over the past period; they have in many respects been their younger siblings’ primary caregivers.

b. Separating the siblings in any permanent manner may also have a negative effect H. who goes to school with them, and A., and to a lesser extent P. who is leaving for college this fall.

c. The number of transitions for the children increases should either parent have primary care. Transitions are the conflict points between the parents. At this stage the schedule must be kept simple and predictable with minimal parent contact.

d. I am not sufficiently satisfied that the father can follow through with the details of a plan for primary parenting. He filed his Form 35.1 deposed May 16th on Tuesday May 20th. It was well prepared with useful proposals. But then in his closing submissions tendered two days later on Thursday May 22 he gave contradictory proposals. When asked by the court to explain the contradiction he stated that he had entirely forgotten about the Plan and did not have a copy with him. He now prefers different terms.

e. Finally, I am concerned that the father does not fully appreciate the importance of medical intervention for mental health issues – particularly for children. The mother has taken appropriate steps to obtain medical, and psychological assistance for the P. and A. I am satisfied that she has the demonstrated capacity to do so for B. and R. should the need arise.

FINAL ORDER

[67] I therefore make the following Final Order which will supersede the terms of the temporary order of December 19, 2013.

1. The parents shall have joint custody of B. born July 15, 2006 and R. born January 1, 2008.

2. Each parent may claim one child as a dependent, eligible for Child Tax Credit. The mother shall name B. as a dependent and the father shall name R.

3. On or before July 1, 2014 the mother is to provide to the father by mail or email a police record check for Mr. Paul Borthwick. Alternatively, she is to provide a sworn statement that Mr. Borthwick does not reside, or attends at 132 The Queensway, Barrie, Ontario and has no contact with P., A., H., B., and R.

4. During the school year the children shall reside on alternate weeks with their father and mother, continuing the current schedule.

5. During the school year the children are at all times to have their school agenda with them, as well as their backpack, any comfort items, sports equipment and personal belongings. On the odd occasion for which B or R has forgotten something important, the parent with the items is to deliver the items to the school for pick up by the other parent.

6. During the summer holidays the children shall reside in alternate periods of two weeks with each of their father and mother. As above, the children are at all times to have any comfort items, sports equipment and personal belongings with them. On the odd occasion for which B or R has forgotten something important, the parent with the items is to deliver the items to the residence of the maternal grandmother for pick up.

7. Friday exchanges shall occur at the end of the school day. If Friday is a P.A. Day the exchange shall be on Thursday at the end of the school day.

8. When school is not in session, Friday exchanges shall occur at the YMCA located at 7315 Yonge Street, Innisfil 3:30 p.m. The parent delivering the children is to engage a designate who is not a sibling of the children. The parent picking up the children is to arrive in person.

9. When R. is 7 years of age, the designate will no longer be required and each parent is to attend the YMCA in person. The drop off parent shall stay in his or her vehicle in the parking lot and the pick-up parent shall stay inside the YMCA.

10. But for Christmas, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day this schedule shall continue irrespective of statutory holidays unless the parties agree otherwise in advance, in writing.

11. The exchange on Christmas shall occur at noon of December 25th. The parent with whom the children are leaving shall pick them up at the other parent’s home. The parent picking up and delivering shall stay in the car at all times.

12. The children shall spend 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the Mother on Mother’s Day and with the Father on Father’s Day. If the children are with the other parent, the mother shall pick up and deliver the children on Mother’s Day and the father will pick up and deliver the children on Father’s Day. The parent picking up and delivering shall stay in the car at all times.

13. The children may call, text, email or otherwise communicate with the other parent, or a sibling at any time that he or she wishes. The children are to be encouraged to communicate with the other parent, but the communication must be independent of the parents.

14. On Wednesday of each week, the parent with whom the children are not staying may take the children for lunch, during the school designated lunch period.

15. The applicant mother shall make all medical and dental decisions for the children. She shall arrange for their medical and dental appointments and shall transport them to same. Should an appointment be only available on the father’s time, she shall give him 10 days’ notice and the opportunity to reschedule it to a different time while the children are in his care.

16. The mother is to develop a list of three options for counselling for each of B. and R. She is to then forward that list by email to the father on or before July 1, 2014, with information on the cost, or waiting period for each option. The father is to pick one of the options and communicate his choice by email on or before July 15, 2014. Counselling is to start thereafter. Both parents may be involved in the counselling process as the counsellor sees fit. The duration of the counselling shall be in the counsellor’s discretion.

17. The mother shall copy the father electronically with any documents regarding the children’s medical and dental care within 24 hours of receipt.

18. Either parent may consent to emergency treatment of the children while in his or her care. The other parent shall be notified electronically or by third party immediately upon transport to the hospital or clinic.

19. The respondent father shall make all educational and extracurricular decisions for the children. He shall attend all parent teacher meetings.

20. So long as H. attends Hyde Park Public School, B. and R. shall attend at that school. Should H. no longer attend Hyde Park, the father may transfer the children to a school within his jurisdiction.

21. The school is requested to provide mailings and emails to both parents.

22. Both parents are encouraged to attend all school and sporting functions for the children, but must be seated separately and at all times are to conduct themselves with utmost courtesy towards the other.

23. The mother shall ensure that B. and R. attend school each day while in her care.

24. By July 1, 2014 the mother is to provide a list of up to five proposed activities for the children during the 2014-2015 school year. The activities are to include bowling and house league hockey. The father is to pick up to three activities for the children from the mother’s list. The list is to be forwarded by email. Each parent is responsible for transporting the children to the activity during his or her week.

25. The parents may communicate by email, text, letter, or other written or electronic communications. They are not to post to social media, or use any forum which is not private. Communications are to be brief, child focused and respectful. The parents are strongly encouraged to consider using Our Family Wizard http://www.ourfamilywizard.com/ofw/ which includes a filter for parental communications.

BASIS FOR REVIEW OF PARENTING TERMS

[68] I expect that the children’s circumstances will continue to evolve, and that this order will need to be reviewed within the next five years. Potential events constituting a material change in circumstances will include but not be limited to:

(a) A move resulting from a loss of Ms. Hunt’s residence due to ongoing gambling losses.

(b) Changes in the lives of A. and H.

(c) Breach of paragraph 67(3) above.

(d) Breach of paragraph 67(16) above.

(e) Failure of either parent to make certain that the children attend school.

(f) Failure of the mother to demonstrate that the agreed upon amount has been secured into a Registered Education Savings Plan for each of B. and R.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON PARENTING

[69] I ask that each parent continue with personal counselling and make such gains as she or he is able. Although there was never any real prospect of being long term spouses, Ms. Hunt and Mr. Vallee are their children’s life - long parents.

[70] I believe that the father is genuinely motivated to grow with the children and that he will see his own esteem mature alongside that of his daughter and son. As he matures perhaps he will employ wisdom in how speaks in front of the children. Perhaps he will be able to model how he hopes his children will deal with difficult circumstances.

[71] The mother is fun and has the ability to brighten their days. If she can learn to stand still and be in the moment with her children, perhaps she will hear their voices. Perhaps someday she will learn to be comfortable in her own space without the need to continuously cycle through intimate partner vindication and vilification.

[72] Both parents have much to offer their children. Perhaps in time, each parent will grow through their current difficulties and become better parents. It is a hopeful possibility.

CHILD SUPPORT

Determination of Income for Support purposes

[73] Neither parent could articulate, or calculate his or her claim for child support per sections 3, 7 or 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. The father’s income within his Financial Statement sworn May 16, 2014 deposes annual income of $17,042. The mother’s Financial Statement filed as an Exhibit but not sworn shows annual income of $40,800 inclusive of child tax benefits and exclusive of interest income.

[74] The mother has not complied with the prior order of March 2014 requiring her to furnish proof that she has placed the agreed funds into RESPs for each of the five children. She continues to be under an obligation to do so.

[75] Both parents are obliged to financially provide for the children. I find that the father’s annual income for support purposes is $17,000; being the pretax income against which $5-11,000 per annum is reported for tax purposes. I calculate the mother’s income on a full time basis to be approximately $30,000[^6]. Were she to responsibly invest the remaining funds for her lottery winnings, the interest thereon could be $12,400 per annum, [^7] for a total income of $42,400.

Table Support Commencing June 1, 2014

[76] In the absence of any submissions from the parties on a section 9 analysis, I order that the mother shall pay to the father the amount of $364 in table child support. This amount is the set off amount of table support for two children of $256 payable on the father’s income of $17,000, and $620 based on income of $42,400 for the mother. This amount is to commence June 1, 2014.

[77] Support Deduction Order to issue accordingly.

[78] In making this order I am aware that the mother has care of three other children, but in the absence of any evidence as to whether she receives child support from the other two fathers, I cannot consider an amount per section 9 or 10 of the Guidelines.

No Retroactive Support

[79] I decline to award retrospective child support for the period of June 2011 to present in the absence of any calculations or submissions by the parties. Given their respective incomes over this period, and amount paid in lieu, I am satisfied that any amount owed by the father for the period of June 2011 to December 2013, is an equitable set off for the amount owed by the mother from the period of January 1, 2013 to present.

Section 7 Expenses

[80] Order to go that the cost of uninsured health, medical and dental expenses; bowling and hockey and any other activities agreed by the parties shall be paid by the parties per the rounded proportionate shares on incomes of $17,000 and $42,400; being 30% payable by the father and 70% payable by the mother.

COSTS

[81] No costs shall be payable by either party.

McGEE J.

Date: May 26, 2014

[^1]: This outrageous arrangement prompted a “what were you thinking” question from the court to which the mother’s reply was simply “that P. had her license.”

[^2]: As well as strident professional advice.

[^3]: A situation most curious to the Court. Perhaps the father’s financial circumstances did not support the retainer of private counsel, but the mother’s means were more than ample to the task. Given the importance of the issues it was surprising that no professional advice was sought in the preparation or presentation of her case.

[^4]: For example, she stated that her brother, an RCMP officer was present during a particular incident that ended when P. called the police. It was clear from her own and other’s testimony that the brother was not present. In her opening she stated that she and the children had always resided at 132 The Queensway, when in fact they have only resided there since the home was purchased in September 2011.

[^5]: These specific reports are set out in Appendix B of the November 27, 2013 report of the OCL clinical assist.

[^6]: Her part time income is $19,200.

[^7]: Assuming that she has purchased RESPs in the required amounts, and calculating an average pre-tax return of 4% per annum on the remaining savings of $310,000 set out in page 6 of the undated Financial Statement, Ex. 6.