ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-35387

DATE: 20150630

BETWEEN:

SHELLY CARSON

Applicant

– and –

ALAYNE LOVE

Respondent

E. McCallum, for the Applicant

Self-Represented

HEARD: November 20 and 21, 2014

JUDGMENT

OLAH, J.:

Introduction:

[1] On March 20, 2012 the Applicant Mother (AM) brought an application for the following relief:

(a) custody of the child, Sire Love, born December 1, 2008 with the principal residence of the child to the Mother;

(b) the Respondent Father to give the Applicant Mother 24 hours’ notice before exercising unsupervised access; and,

[2] In his Answer, the Respondent Father (RF) sought:

(a) custody to be shared on a 50‐50 basis, with Sire Love living six months with each parent;

(b) the Applicant to be present while the child is in the maternal grandmother’s presence;

(d) the Applicant to enjoy all holidays with the child in Canada;

(e) however, during the Father’s 6 months care and control, the child attend school in Jamaica; and,

(f) the Applicant not arrange any meetings between the child and the Respondent’s family, without the written consent of the Respondent.

[3] In her Reply, the Applicant did not feel that joint custody was appropriate due to the poor communication and poor cooperation between the parties. She also indicated that she did not feel it appropriate for the child to be separated from either parent for periods of six months; nor was it appropriate for the child to attend at two different schools, in two different countries. She conceded that the Respondent and the Applicant’s Mother had a negative relationship from the outset. In fact, the Mother conceded that her relationship with her Mother, was frought with difficulties; however, since the separation between the Applicant and the Respondent, the Mother and the maternal grandmother had undergone counseling to repair their earlier broken relationship and that that relationship had evolved into a positive and healthy one.

[4] In addition in her Reply, the Applicant was concerned about the Respondent’s failure to adequately contribute to the cost of her care of the child by his failure to pay adequate child support.

[5] So far, I thought, not too complex a case as both parents had positive statements to make about each other as parents. Nevertheless, despite the innocuously benign pleadings, the war began, engaging the parties in several motions, conferences and orders, namely:

(a) June 21, 2012, Justice Ferguson: “The child would not be removed from the province of Ontario without consent or further court order”;

(b) June 29, 2012: On consent, the Applicant was to have interim care and control of the child. On a without prejudice basis, the Respondent was to enjoy care and control of the child two days a week from 4 PM to 8 PM and on alternate weekends from Friday at 4 PM to Sunday at 6 PM. On a without prejudice basis, the Respondent was to have summer access for two non-consecutive weeks in the month of July, 2012 and two non-consecutive weeks in the month of August, 2012. All other access was to be on consent. The Respondent Father was to give 24 hours’ notice of which two days for midweek access or the parties were to reach a conclusion in writing as to the same days each week.

(d) April 10, 2013, Justice Kaufman: The Office of the Children’s Lawyer to be appointed. At all times the child is to be maintained in a smoke free environment. The order of June 29th, 2012 shall be varied for all access to commence at 5:30 PM and the mid-week to take place on Monday and Wednesday. The Respondent shall provide a text message 24 hours prior to scheduled access confirming it will take place; without this, it shall be deemed cancelled; the Respondent may bring a motion to vacate the restraining order and/or change place of pick up for access on days of access.

(e) November 12, 2013, Justice Kaufman: The child support provisions were varied such that the Respondent was to pay child support, commencing on December 1, 2013, the sum of $197 per month based on the net or gross income of $24,533.

(f) July 3, 2013, Justice Rogers: The Respondent’s claim regarding the variation of the restraining order was dismissed; the Respondent’s claim to change access was dismissed; the Respondent’s claim regarding the appointment of a mediator was dismissed; the Respondent’s claim regarding the Applicant Mother’s alleged harassment was dismissed; the Respondent was at liberty to obtain information as to the child’s health, education and welfare. The Respondent shall retain an expert regarding air-quality and provide an expert report on the air quality of his home where access is exercised. Said report shall include information about any diminution of air-quality due to second-hand smoke. Pending a provision of the said expert report on air quality and information for the court from the York Region Children's Aid Society regarding any protection concerns for the child, and the Respondent Father’s cooperation with the York Region Children’s Aid Society regarding investigations, access is suspended. The Respondent may move to reinstate access once the expert report regarding air quality and the York Region Children's Aid Society information is available to the court…If the parties agree on a reinstatement, the court is to be requested to do so by 14 b. Said consent motion must contain information as requested above from the York Region Children's Aid Society. Issue of "make up" access shall be considered after the expert report on air-quality is disclosed and after the York Region Children's Aid Society have completed the investigation with the Respondent Father’s full cooperation.

(g) January 29, 2014, Justice McGee: The Respondent, on short notice brought a motion where he sought orders for:

i. All access and communication to be restored,

i.ii. Restraining order to be vacated;

i.iii. For the applicant to stop harassing him and;

i.iv. For the applicant to publicly apologize to their son.

(h) Justice McGee went further to comment as follows:

In effect, he seeks to vary all prior orders, while being in breach of those terms. Specifically, he is in breach of Justice Roger’s lengthy order of July 3, 2013, which provided for access upon the Respondent meeting certain terms, including cooperation with the Children’s Aid Society. To date he has refused to speak with them. The prior request of the Court for the assistance of the Children's Lawyer was thwarted by the Respondent not submitting the intake forms…The Respondent is also in breach of two costs orders…In a matter of $200, and…$250. He has paid neither…

(i) As a result, Justice McGee made the following orders:

i. The father shall have two hours a week of supervised access at the York region supervised access center.

ii. The father must complete his intake forms before the mother.

iii. The father is responsible to pay the annual fee for both parents.

iv. The Restraining order of January 3, 2013 is varied to provide that access in a public place may occur upon the mother’s written consent for the specified period.

v. The father is prohibited from bringing any further motions absent leave from the case management justice that maybe obtained by 14 B motion.

vi. Respondent is to provide the disclosure set out in the Form 20 request on or before March 1, 2014.

vii. Absent payment of the two prior costs award by March 1, 2014, and the costs of today assessed in the amount of $400; the Applicant may move to strike the father’s pleadings and proceed by contested trial. Failure to substantially comply with the Form 20 shall be a further basis for the striking of pleadings.

viii.On May 14, 2014, Justice Mullins received an undertaking to use best efforts from the Respondent to make certain payments and certain productions; and adjourned the matter to June 30, 2014;

ix. On July 23, 2014, the Applicant moved to strike the Respondent’s pleading and to proceed by way of an uncontested trial. The costs were not paid and the production of documents was not fully complied with. The Court adjourned the matter to August 6, 2014 to monitor both parties’ compliance with production and payment of certain costs; and,

x. On September 16, 2014, Justice Rogers endorsed that, because the matter concerned a child and a restraining order, the matter was adjourned to the trial sittings peremptory on both parties.

[6] The necessity to recite the multiple dealings and rulings is to assist in the identification of the reasons for the derailment of the matter.

[7] A review of the Trial record indicates that the Applicant never requested a Restraining Order, nor amended her pleadings to request such relief. Nevertheless, a Restraining Order was granted and she requests an indefinite extension of the Restraining Order.

Background

[8] The parties met in 2007. The Father is of Jamaican descent and the Applicant Mother is Caucasian. They cohabited for approximately 3 years. Although a single parent of a child, born of another relationship, the Applicant became pregnant and Sire Sion Love was born, on December 1, 2008. During the cohabitation, the Applicant concedes that the Respondent stood in loco parentis to Sire’s older brother, coaching his soccer team, picking up and delivering the children to and from daycare and school and engaging with the children’s school authorities.

Litigation History

[9] Their relationship ended, and the Applicant issued an Application on May 28, 2010, citing a cohabitation of less than 6 months, custody of the child, a non-removal order without the Mother’s written permission, and a return of the child’s birth certificate and SIN card. The facts on which the Mother relied were as follows:

(a) She was the primary caregiver to the 2 children;

(b) She worked full-time, Monday – Friday;

(d) On April 25, 2010, the Respondent allegedly grabbed the Applicant by the neck and choked her. The Respondent also allegedly put the Applicant in a head lock and brought her to the ground;

(e) On May 2, 2010, the Respondent was allegedly responsible for pulling the Applicant off the bed by her feet and poking her; as well as draining the air out of all 4 of her car tires; and,

(f) As a result of all of the above, the Respondent was charged.

[10] Despite her reliance on the above facts, in her initial Application dated May 28, 2010, the Applicant proffered liberal access to the Respondent and that access was to be arranged between the Applicant and the Respondent. There was no reference to the child’s asthma or ill health by the Applicant. There was no reference as to the Father’s alleged poor parenting. There was no request for a Restraining Order; and, on July 27, 2010, the AM withdrew the May 28, 2010 application.

[11] Although the AM withdrew the initial application, the events referenced in the first application were raised at the trial of the issues. In his examination in chief and his cross examination, the Respondent denied the Applicant’s version of the events in April and May, 2010.

[12] The Applicant’s second application was commenced on March 20, 2012, approximately 2 years after the alleged choking and poking events. On this current occasion, the Applicant recites cohabitation from 2007 - 2010 and 2010 – 2011, not the 6 months previously alleged. On this occasion, she is more specific about the custody and access she seeks, namely:

(a) That the child Sire shall live primarily with the Applicant;

(b) The Applicant to have custody of the child, Sire;

(d) The Respondent must give the Applicant 24 hours’ notice before exercising unscheduled access,

[13] The facts cited, on which the AM relies, are:

(a) She has been the primary care giver since birth;

(b) Lack of communication and inability to compromise and resolve issues regarding access;

(c) Interestingly, her plan for the care of the child, Sire, includes the Father to be involved in decisions regarding the education, medical care, religious upbringing, extra-curricular activities, all to be made jointly by the Applicant and the Respondent (see affidavit, Form 35.1 sworn, March 2 , 2012).

[14] Although there are elements of flexibility in the Applicant’s current Application, she is primarily concerned about decision making, consistency and timeliness in parenting.

[15] The Respondent’s Answer reflects a position that identifies the Respondent as one who is not concerned about consistency or timeliness, but is primarily concerned with flexibility and decision making.

[16] It would appear that the Applicant did attempt to resolve the issue of the Respondent’s parenting schedule through telephone calls, meetings, texts, formal letter proposals for settlement, suggestions for counselling and mediation; and yet, the Respondent, fearing loss of flexibility (in that he preferred to visit with the child whenever he wished and at his convenience), ignored or rebuffed these advances for resolution by the Applicant.

[17] Not only did the Respondent reject any advances for resolution of the parenting issue, he also was not consistent with his access to the child, primarily because of his incarceration, relocation for employment to Alberta, and housing relocation on his return. He did not appreciate, until recently, that his absence had a negative impact on the child, who began exhibiting significant negative behaviours at school.

[18] Although the Applicant doesn’t feel it appropriate for Sire to be absent from either parent or his brother for 6 months, it was the Mother who orchestrated the Father’s arrest at the child’s soccer game, and it was the Mother who raised the heightened medical risk to the child as a result of the Father’s access to the child. With time, she became rigid in her parenting requirements of the Father. Contrary to the Mother’s alleged fears as to the parenting by the Father, the objective evidence of the police on 2 occasions, where the Mother called the police to intervene, identifies a loving and happy relationship as between the child and the Father. The Mother exhibited poor judgment for calling the police on these two occasions in her obsessive need to control the Father’s interaction and visits with the child.

[19] By April 2012, the Applicant’s changed her position from the need to have the child frequently see both parents to a focus on the child’s need for a stable structure, only which she could provide. She has full time employment; she has reunited with her Mother, after a period of counselling; the child attends school; the child attends the same day care as his brother; and the child is enrolled in extracurricular activities – karate, swimming and soccer. Conversely, the Respondent is characterized as irresponsible and incapable of providing structure to the child’s life.

[20] Subsequent to the Application’s issue, wherein there is no request for a Restraining Order, the Applicant moved on May 20 2012, to seek a restraining order. The basis for the request was as follows:

(a) The Respondent’s animosity towards her, citing no examples;

(b) The Respondent’s contemptuous behavior towards her for disregarding her request for a parenting schedule, on her terms;

(c) On November 2011, the Respondent’s unilateral attendance at the child’s daycare and pick up without her consent, an event some 6 months prior to the issuance of the 2nd Application and an event not cited in the 2nd Application.

(d) The Respondent berates and insults her in the presence of both children and she is very sensitive;

(e) The previous charge of mischief and violence, a 2010 charge;

(f) Threats of removing the child to Jamaica;

(g) The child’s bad language is attributable to the Respondent; and,

(h) The Respondent has not paid child support.

[21] The Applicant’s affidavit of June 24, 2012, does not identify that the current complaints are based on the Respondent’s past behavior to her which preceded the first Application in 2010, and, which she subsequently withdrew. She rejects the Respondent’s concerns about the negative racial comments by the maternal grandmother in front of her mixed race child and its impact on the child. She does not recite current convictions but recites 3 past charges for which the Respondent was convicted (plead guilty) on one – being mischief.

[22] The Motion, heard on June 29, 2012 including a request for a Restraining Order (RO), which proceeded on Consent. The RO expired on November 30, 2012. Despite direction from the Case Management Judge to serve a Notice of Motion for the Restraining Order, the Applicant applied for an extension of the Restraining Order, on a without notice basis. On December 5, 2012, the Applicant was directed by Justice McGee to give the Respondent notice. After notice, on December 10, 2012, the Restraining Order was extended to January 3, 2013 (re: both the AM and the child), at which time it was extended pending further order of the court.

[23] By April 2013 and after, the Applicant’s motion and response to the Respondent’s motions to remove the RO and liberalize access were derailed by the Applicant’s focus on the repeated failures by the Respondent to:

(a) abide by the access terms of the orders;

(b) abide by the requirements to file responding materials;

(d) to complete OCL Intake forms;

(e) to engage with the local CAS re his maintenance of a smoke free environment for his son who suffers from asthma;

(f) provision to the 4 year old child of a cell phone which was deemed by Justice Rogers to be inappropriate intrusion on the Mother and inappropriate responsibility for a small child;

(g) outside of the access times, he attended at the child’s school and/or daycare without notice to the Applicant; and,

(h) he purchased a pet snake for the child and named it “Shelly” (the Applicant’s name);

[24] As a result, Justice Rogers on July 3, 2013, ordered the Respondent’s access to be suspended pending the Respondent’s provision of an Air Quality Report and a report from the York CAS as to protection concerns. Given that the Respondent has yet to produce these 2 documents or provide any cogent evidence of his engagement with York CAS or any CAS or an air quality report, the status quo continues and he has not had the care of his son since that date – almost 2 years!

[25] The next attempt by the Court to engage the Respondent and to facilitate a reintroduction of the RF to the child, was made by Justice McGee wherein there were certain terms for the potential for supervised access. Unfortunately, during the currency of the CAS investigation, initiated by the Applicant, no supervised access could take place.

Discussion re Parenting

[26] Despite the Respondent’s denial of the bases for the above allegations, his refusal to cooperate with the CAS and the OCL is troubling. He knew that such refusal would limit, if not eliminate, access to his son, all in his ill-conceived need to assert his control over the process and rebut any suggestion that he was a poor father. This refusal to engage, has only served to harm his son.

[27] What he needed to do in 2012, 2013 and 2014 is engage in the process, engage with the CAS, engage with the OCL for an independent investigation of the Mother’s concerns and to assess their legitimacy. If these were not legitimate concerns, then the Father would have had significant contact with the Child. If these were not legitimate concerns, then he would have established objective evidence to prove to the court that he could provide stable, consistent, and safe parenting to Sire, who desperately wants his presence. Of course, there is no issue that the Respondent loves his child. The problem is he has to get over his need to prioritize his ego and permit what he considers an unwarranted intervention into his parenting. Get over it! Engage and prove that your child is safe in your care.

[28] Perhaps contact with the child is not what the Respondent wants. Perhaps he wants total control over the time, place and frequency of his contact with Sire, regardless of the Mother’s concerns. Such position is indicative of the Respondent’s lack of appreciation of the developmental needs of a Canadian child, a child Sire’s age. What children Sire’s age require is frequent, consistent, timely and safe involvement with each parent. Children Sire’s age do not need Fathers to prioritize their own ego over their frequent, consistent, timely and safe contact with their child.

[29] That is not to say that I have not been concerned with the Mother’s poor judgment during the course of this litigation. She engaged in her relationship with the Respondent. During her first Application she did not besmirch the Respondent’s abilities as a parent, even after an alleged assault; in fact she encouraged his participation in decision making. Somewhere, after the issuance of the second Application, perhaps out of frustration for the Respondent’s need to be flexible; perhaps his inconsistency in attendance; perhaps his lack of financial support, perhaps his failure to address the issue of a parenting schedule and perhaps a combination of all these factors, caused her to become rigid in her requirements of the Father, a rigidity which was not the hallmark of their relationship at the outset. She knew he was a laissez – faire sort of person; she knew he had issues with authorities; she knew he had issues with time management; she knew he had issues with money management, yet she initially ignored these personality traits. Her requirements for parental perfection only arose in December of 2012, some 6 months after the second separation.

[30] What I can parse from the evidence, her major concerns about parenting were:

(a) The Child’s Health: After hearing her evidence in chief and cross examination, I do not believe that the child’s asthma is of such severity that the child’s health cannot be protected by other provisions for access. I conclude this because the Applicant’s evidence on the issue of the child’s asthma was weak at best; because I received no evidence from a specialist with respect to the child’s asthma, the diagnosis, the frequency of attacks, the triggers, the child’s medical dosage, and hospitalizations, if any. Accordingly, the Applicant’s representations to Justice Rogers at the motion were overstated, at best, as a result of which, the Order of Justice Rogers, dated July 3, 2013, paragraph 7 is vacated.

(b) Restraining Order Breaches: In addition, the Applicant engaged in a long period of encouraging the Respondent’s attendance at the child’s activities, followed by her need to be rigid in the application of the Restraining Orders. To be sure, the police records confirm that the Applicant contacted them alerting them to the Respondent’s attendance, such that she knew that the Respondent would be hand cuffed in front of the child and his play mates. Yet the Police report excerpts also observed the interaction between the child and the Respondent, reporting:

July 30, 2013:

“Police observed the suspect on the field behind his son.”.

“Police observed the son running towards the suspect and started to play with him.”

“The child then went back to the soccer field.”

“The suspect advised the police that he was there to watch his son’s soccer game.”

“The suspect was very cooperative with police and explained that he didn’t know that he was breaching by attending his son’s soccer game.”

“He also stated that he has been attending every Tuesday to watch his son play soccer in the park.”

“He advised that he usually stands far away, however his son usually finds him and comes to him on his own to say hi and play with him.”

[31] Having been no altercation and no direct approach by the Father to the child or the Applicant at the child’s soccer game, such breaches were not worthy of intervention, especially when it put the child’s emotional health at risk, especially where the police observed the joyful interaction between the Respondent and the child.

[32] The child has had difficulties at school and was suspended: This difficultly may have occurred as a result of the Respondent’s abrupt relocation to Alberta for employment purposes. The Respondent acknowledged that the child may have been affected emotionally as a result of his absence. But the Mother asserts at trial that the child is doing well at school, implying that the Father’s current absence is at the root of his improvement. Given the joyful contact with the Father in July 2013, I cannot conclude that the Father’s absence has a positive role to play in the child’s alleged educational improvement.

Conclusion re parenting

[33] I am concerned that the Applicant, knowing the Respondent’s propensity to avoid and/or breach authoritative orders, wishes to distance, if not eliminate the Father from the child’s life. This is a very dangerous proposition for the child. The child is a biracial child who is aware of the conflict within the Mother’s family and of the poor esteem in which the Father is held by his maternal family. Such environment is corrosive to the child’s self-esteem. The child needs safe, frequent, timely and consistent contact with his Father.

[34] Accordingly, I make the following order:

The child’s physician to refer the child to a Paediatric Respirologist to ascertain the exact nature of the child’s asthma and its triggers. The appointment is to be made by the Mother and the Father to be given adequate notice, so that he can attend the appointment with the Mother and the child. Both parents to educate themselves how to provide a positive home environment, including air quality subject to the child’s specific medical issues, if any.
Both Mother and Father are to contact the York CAS and/or whichever Society has jurisdiction over the Father’s and Mother’s residence to do a home investigation on each home and report as to any protection concerns, including a smoke free environment, to both the Mother and the Father; the suitability of both homes to be assessed by the Society or Societies, with a view to overnight visits of the child at his Father’s residence.
The Father is to arrange for the permanent transfer out of any pets at his home, be it cat, dog or snake, et al. The Mother not to have any pets, be it snake, cat or dog in her home. This provision may be varied if the Paediatric Respirologist approves of any particular animal as a pet in writing to both parents.
Pending the report of the York/CAS, or other Society who has jurisdiction, the Father to have the following access to the child:

(i) Day access from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on alternate Saturdays, commencing July 4th , 2015

(ii) Day access from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on alternate Sundays commencing July 12th , 2015.

(iii) Pick and drip off at a neutral site mid-way between the 2 residences. Each party to text to the other their 3 choices for the exchanges; failing agreement, they are to arrange for a TCC with myself through my secretary, Tara Lynn Mountney at 705-725-6240 or by contacting her at taralynn.mountney@ontario.ca and providing 1 typed page of their 3 choices.

The Father shall not remove the child from the province of Ontario and his access, must be exercised within a 50 km radius of the child’s residence. The Father shall give the Mother his cell telephone number and text the Mother as to his plans for the day and where access will be exercised. The Mother to provide the Father with her cell number such that in an emergency he can contact the mother by telephone or text.
Parties to communicate with respect to parenting schedule only via text.
Mother to provide the child’s extracurricular activity schedule to the Father and the Father to be invited to attend. Alternate side of the field will apply. On alternate events, the Father is to stay on the opposite side of the Field (court) as the case may be, and, the parties to alternate per event who will stand on the side of the child’s team and/or with the child. Before game and after game communication between the Father and the child is allowed for no more than 10 minutes each.
The Restraining Order is terminated and in its place neither parent shall attend at the child’s day care, or school for the purposes of a visit with the child, other than in an emergency affecting the child, or for meetings with the principal and/or the child’s teachers. For school functions, the Father is to be informed and permitted to attend. Alternate side of classroom, auditorium, Gym etc. to apply for the Father.
The Mother shall provide the Father with all of the child school records, report and schedules for extracurricular activities on a timely basis and the Father is permitted to receive such reports directly though the school and attend the school to communicate with the child’s teachers and principal relative to the child’s progress.
Father shall also have full access to the child’s medical report, medical, therapist, counsellors and dental professionals.
As the parties communication skills are very poor, Mother to have sole custody of the child.
Mother may apply for the child’s passport without the consent of the Father. However, the Applicant must notify the Father of the location of the Child’s vacation and date, time of departure and return.
Should the Father receive a positive report from the CAS, then access to the Father to commence at the Father’s home as proposed in Mother’s application commencing the 1st weekend following the receipt of the Society`s positive report, if any, namely:

i. The Father shall have access alternate weekends to include statutory holidays, commencing on Friday at 7:00 pm to Sunday at 7:00 pm;

ii. The Father shall have access 2 non-consecutive weeks in summer upon giving 30 days’ notice on or before June 1st of each year; commencing the summer of 2016;

iii. The Father shall have access on Father`s day from 10:00 am to 7:30 pm, regardless of the access schedule;

iv. The Mother shall have access on Mother`s s day from 10:00 am regardless of the access schedule;

Child Suppport

[35] The following child support orders were made:

(i) June 21, 2012 – Temporary Order, on consent, the Respondent to pay child support to the Applicant for the maintenance of Sire Sion Love in the amount of $78 a month based on an income of $14,400 per annum in accordance with the Federal Guidelines.

(ii) November 12, 2103 – Final Order that the child support provisions at paragraph two of the Order of Justice Ferguson made on June 21, 2012 shall be changed as follows:

(a) Commencing on December 1, 2013 and on the 1st day of every month thereafter, the Respondent, Alayne Love shall pay to the Applicant, Shelly Carson final child support for the child, Sire Sion Love born December 1, 2008 in the amount of $197.00 per month.

(b) The support order is in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines (CSG), in that the annual gross income of the payor is $24,553.00 and the table amount of child support under the Guidelines for one child is $197.00 per month.

(c) For so long as the child support is paid, the payor and the recipient , if applicable, must provide updated income disclosure to the other party each year, within 30 days of the anniversary of this order, in accordance with section 24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines.

[36] The Applicant produced her 2010, 2011, 2012 Notices of Assessment, and her 2013 Income Tax Return (ITR) as well as a paystub dated January 2, 2014.

[37] The Respondent produced his ITR for 2012 and an Employment Insurance Benefit Statement dated March 18, 2013. His last paystub in December 2013 with Atlas Industrial, reflected an income from July 2013 to Dec 2013 of $22,488.50.

[38] The Family Responsibility Office statement filed indicates less than$1000 in arrears of child support payments.

[39] Most recently and for 1 year prior to trial the Respondent indicates that he worked at “Better Recycling”, where he averaged between 28 – 34 hours per week. Since January 2014 he has been employed as a trucker earning $18 per hour and working on average a 30 hour week. His employment is weather dependent. Nevertheless, his income is marginally higher than before.

[40] Accordingly, I impute his 2014 income at $ 28,000 per annum for the purposes of child support. Commencing January 1, 2015, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant the sum of $228 per month for the support of Sire Sion Love, born December 1, 2008 pur

Carson v. Love, 2015 ONSC 4222

Case Summary