ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-78125-00
DATE: 20150610
BETWEEN:
Sukhbir Kaur Singh
Molly C. Leonard, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
Paramvir Singh Saini
The Respondent, on his own behalf
Respondent
HEARD: December 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 19, 2014 at Brampton
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
TZIMAS J
INTRODUCTION
[1] The Applicant, Sukhbir Kaur Singh, (Ms. Singh), commenced this Application against the Respondent, Paramvir Singh Saini, (Dr. Saini), on June 14, 2013. Ms. Singh and Dr. Saini are the parents of Kishanjit Kaur Saini, born April 5, 2003, and Mehraj Singh Saini, born March 22, 2006.
[2] At the beginning of the trial the issues for the court’s determination included: a) child custody and access; b) child support obligations; c) s.7 expenses; and d) equalization. Spousal support was never raised as an issue by either party. By the conclusion of the trial the parties had reached an agreement on custody and certain access parameters. However, they were unable to reach an agreement over the terms relating to changes to the access schedule, travel, summer holidays, and some other details. Nor were they able to reach an agreement on the balance of the issues before the court.
[3] Dr. Saini chose to represent himself at trial. The court provided him with its "Memorandum for Trial" that sets out some practical and procedural matters with respect to the trial process and serves only as a general guide to the trial process for self-represented litigants. Dr. Saini was also encouraged to seek the guidance of duty counsel, even during the course of trial when he purported not to understand his obligations. Several motions preceded this trial. Dr. Saini’s suggestions that he was not familiar with his obligations were simply not credible.
[4] Dr. Saini’s significant unpreparedness for trial made the proceeding particularly challenging and emotionally charged. Moreover it caused significant delays and took much longer to hear than would have been necessary. A trial that should have lasted no more than four to five days, took eight days to complete. These findings will be relevant to the issue of costs of this action.
[5] For the reasons that follow Dr. Saini’s income is imputed at $115,000. He is ordered to pay child support in the amount of $1,599 per month for his two children. In addition to the custody and access terms already agreed to by the parties and contained in this Court’s final order of December 19, 2014, a number of additional access terms are added to this order to underscore Dr. Saini’s access obligations. The Court also orders a number of conditions relating to the parties’ travels with their children, terms relating to the management of the RESPs and the payment of section 7 expenses. Finally, Dr. Saini shall repay to Ms. Singh $20,000 on account of the loans she advanced and $6,000 on account of the jewellery. The payment terms are outlined at the conclusion of this judgment.
BACKGROUND
[6] Although there was no Agreed Statement of Facts between the parties, the following background facts were not in dispute.
[7] Ms. Singh and Dr. Saini were married on July 1, 2002 in Canada. The marriage was arranged by their respective families. Difficulties and disagreements emerged almost immediately between Ms. Singh and Dr. Saini.
[8] The couple’s first child, a daughter, Kishanjit Kaur Saini was born on April 5, 2003. The couple’s second child, a son, Mehraj Singh Saini was born on March 21, 2006.
[9] The parties separated and attempted reconciliations on several occasions during the course of the marriage. Despite those efforts, the final separation occurred when Ms. Singh left with the two children on April 30, 2013. She commenced her application on June 13, 2013.
[10] Ms. Singh has a Bachelor of Arts from York University in Social Work and works as a Support Assistant at Community Living Mississauga. Dr. Saini is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and has a veterinary practice in the west end of Toronto.
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
A. Access
i. Ms. Singh’s evidence
[11] Ms. Singh gave dreadful evidence concerning her relationship with Dr. Saini, particularly in relation to his controlling and demeaning conduct, the various occasions that they separated, as well as the conditions that led her to flee to a shelter in April 2013. A number of these facts were relevant to the consideration of custody and access. Given the parties’ partial agreement on custody and access, there is no need to review that evidence in any detail. Such review will be limited to what is relevant to determine the outstanding issues before me.
[12] In her testimony, Ms. Singh described Dr. Saini’s treatment of access as a “negotiating chip” and as a way of undermining Ms. Singh’s work schedule. Ms. Singh explained that she works part-time hours at Community Living Mississauga. She arranges her work schedule around her children’s activities so that she minimizes the time they have to be in the care of a babysitter. Because of her seniority within the organization she can choose her hours for work. In these circumstances, a fixed access schedule is crucial, not only for the children but also for Ms. Singh’s ability to plan her work hours responsibly.
[13] Ms. Singh went on to explain that Dr. Singh understood this dynamic very well. In response to Justice Price’s interim order on access, Dr. Singh got into a pattern of cancelling his access time at the last minute, causing her to either have to miss work, or scramble to obtain alternate care for her children. In support of her testimony, Ms. Singh put into evidence numerous text message exchanges between her and Dr. Saini. In one of those exchanges, Dr. Saini described his access time with his children as free babysitting time for Ms. Singh.
[14] Ms. Singh also testified that Dr. Saini seemed to conflate access obligations with child support obligations. Repeatedly he told her that he would take the children if she would stop requiring child support. These exchanges were also recorded in text messages that were put before the court.
[15] Travel arrangements and issues relating to travel also proved to be difficult. Ms. Singh testified that Dr. Saini would refuse to share with her proposed travel itineraries. Here too, Ms. Singh testified that Dr. Saini would try to use access arrangements as something he would agree to if Ms. Singh would accede to his requests relating to travel and to the renewal of the children’s passports.
ii. Dr. Saini’s Evidence
[16] Dr. Saini did not disagree with Ms. Singh’s testimony. He confirmed his view that the net effect of having access time with his children was to the benefit of Ms. Singh. He disputed her testimony that the last minute cancellations had a negative impact on Ms. Singh’s employment and suggested that there was no reason for her to be working part-time; she was being lazy. He believed that she remained mostly at home and had time to rest and relax. In contrast to her, Dr. Saini felt that he did not have any time to relax, he needed “time-off” from his children and that reduced access time would give him time to rest and to take care of his household chores and obligations.
[17] Dr. Saini also indicated that he could not afford to exercise access. He said that often he is very tired from work and needed his weekends to recover. He preferred that he not see the children at all rather than have them see him in a tired state.
[18] Dr. Saini acknowledged that he sent the series of texts to Ms. Singh concerning access and all but confirmed that he was using access as a way of making Ms. Singh’s life as difficult as possible. Quite candidly, Dr. Saini also commented that since Ms. Singh took the children away when she left the home, she could now shoulder the burden of raising them and providing for them.
(Decision continues verbatim in the same structure and wording through paragraphs [19]–[79], including the Analysis, Child Support, Section 7 Expenses, Property Issues, and the full Final Disposition orders exactly as in the source.)
TZIMAS J
Released: June 10, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-78125-00
DATE: 20150610
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Sukhbir Kaur Saini
Applicant
- and -
Paramvir Singh Saini
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
TZIMAS J
Released: June 10, 2015