ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Louis John Pontigon

Applicant

– and –

Renee Rose Pontigon

Respondent

Self-Represented/Father

J. Hyndman for the Respondent/Mother

HEARD: January 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 31, and February 2, 2018

JUDGMENT ON CUSTODY, ACCESS AND SUPPORT

RICCHETTI, J.

Contents

OVERVIEW... 1

FAMILY BACKGROUND.. 2

THE COURT PROCEEDINGS. 3

THE TRIAL. 4

THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES. 5

THE OCL REPORT. 6

ADDITIONAL FACTS. 7

CREDIBILITY.. 11

The Father 11

Deceptive and Unreliable Evidence: 12

Controlling: 14

Manipulating: 17

Disregards the best interests of the Children: 19

The Mother 21

Other Witnesses. 23

THE OCL CLINICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT. 24

ANALYSIS. 28

Custody. 28

Sole or Joint Custody?. 30

Which Party should have sole custody?. 35

Conclusion on Custody. 37

Parenting Time. 37

2-2-3 parenting schedule. 37

Week About parenting schedule. 39

The Father's Parenting Time. 41

INCOMES. 44

The Father 44

The Loan Business. 45

The Mother's Loans. 45

The Father's Expenses. 47

What is the Father's income for support purposes?. 50

The Mother 52

CHILD SUPPORT. 52

SPOUSAL SUPPORT. 53

CONCLUSION.. 54

COMPLETION OF THE TRIAL. 54

COSTS. 54

THE ORDER - SCHEDULE A..

OVERVIEW

[1] This proceeded by way of a bifurcated trial - dealing solely with the issues of custody, access and support.

[2] Despite the short period of time from the commencement of the Application to the commencement of this trial, there have been too many court attendances driven by the high conflict between these parties. For example, the parties had the court decide which party kept their old washing machine and dryer. The police have been called approximately 28 times. A CAS file has been open for 2 years because the conflict affecting the Children. The Office of the Children's Lawyer conducted a clinical investigation. Yet, right up to trial, the conflict persisted with little regard to the impact on the Children.

[3] This is an extreme high conflict situation between the parents. The victims have been the Children.

[4] Both parties share blame for this high conflict situation. Elimination of all parental conflict is a lofty goal but can only be achieved where both parents are reasonable and focused solely on the best interests of the Children, something not achievable in this case.

[5] Lack of financial disclosure has been a very serious issue in this case. Numerous disclosure orders were made. Many directed at the Father, who is self-employed. Yet, during the trial, it became apparent that the Father's lack of full, complete and meaningful financial disclosure was woefully deficient and, in my view, done to deliberately mislead this court on his financial matters.

FAMILY BACKGROUND

[6] The parties started living together in the spring of 2007 and were married on December 20, 2008.

[7] There are two children of the marriage: Alexandra Paige Pontigon (date of birth May 8, 2010) ("Alex") and Katherine Belle Pontigon (date of birth January 28, 2015) ("Kate"). Collectively Alex and Kate will be referred to as the "Children".

[8] The parties separated on December 2, 2015. The Mother is prepared to accept the Father's date for the purpose of dealing with the financial issues between the parties.

THE COURT PROCEEDINGS

[9] The Father commenced this proceeding on January 4, 2016.

[10] Some of the more significant court orders made in this proceeding are:

a. On January 19, 2016, the court ordered, on consent, a 2-2-3 alternating parenting schedule. Because the Mother was employed outside the home and the Father was self-employed, the parties included the following term:

e. During Renee's time with the Children, during the week access only, Louis shall pick up Katherine from Renee's residence at 8:30 a.m. and parent until Renee returns from work. In addition, Louis shall pick up Alexandra from school (approximately 2:30 p.m.) and parent her until Renee returns from work.

(emphasis added)

b. On August 26, 2016, the court ordered that Alex continue to attend St. Aidan Catholic Elementary School;

c. On October 12, 2016, the court ordered that the Office of the Children's Lawyer ("OCL") investigate this matter and report to the court under s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act;

d. On May 26, 2017, the court ordered that parenting be on a "week about" schedule for the summer with a specified MacDonald's as an exchange location. The court also dealt with the Mother's motion that the Children attend a wedding as flower girls on a Father's access day. The court ordered an exchange in the parenting time to permit this attendance while granting the Father the following Saturday in lieu;

e. On August 26, 2016, the court ordered updated Financial and NFP statements and disclosure of all supporting documentation and proof of their income in the prior 3 years;

f. On March 21, 2017, the OCL provided its Final Report of the Children's Lawyer. ("OCL Report");

g. On July 5, 2017, the court, on consent, ordered considerable disclosure as set out in lengthy detailed schedule, to be produced within 30 days;

h. On August 2, 2017, the court ordered the continued "week about" parenting time until trial;

i. On August 25, 2017, the court determined that the Father failed to comply with the prior July 5, 2017 order for disclosure. The court ordered production no later than September 5, 2017; and

j. Because the Father's financial disclosure remained outstanding, on November 16, 2017, this court ordered that the Father provide a sworn affidavit of documents by November 27, 2017.

THE TRIAL

[11] The Father was self-represented. He was provided written information for self-represented litigants in Family Cases. A copy was marked as Exhibit #1.

[12] The Father called the following witnesses:

a) Himself;

b) Leodegaira Pontigon (his mother); and

c) Icyline Graham (the grandmother of Kate's best friend, Zari).

[13] The Mother called the following witnesses:

a) Herself;

b) Camisha Sibblis (the OCL clinical investigator); and

c) Mario Lontoc (her brother).

[14] The Father also gave evidence in Reply.

[15] Although both parties expressed an intention to call a CAS witness (each a different CAS case worker), neither did.

THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES

[16] The following is the respective positions on the major issues to be decided.

[17] The Father seeks:

a) Joint or shared custody of the Children but with him having the final decision making authority;

b) Continued "week about" access;

c) Generally, an equal sharing of non-school time;

d) Child support (including retroactive child support to 2016) in the amount of $858 per month; and

e) Spousal support for an indeterminate term, reviewable every three years.

[18] The Mother seeks:

a) Sole custody of the Children;

b) Access during the school year - Father to have alternating weekends and Wednesday after school/dinners;

c) Access during the non-school year - to be divided equally;

d) Child support in the amount of $1,746 per month; and

e) a dismissal of the Father's spousal support claim.

THE OCL REPORT

[19] Section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act provides:

112 (1) In a proceeding under the Divorce Act (Canada) or the Children’s Law Reform Act in which a question concerning custody of or access to a child is before the court, the Children’s Lawyer may cause an investigation to be made and may report and make recommendations to the court on all matters concerning custody of or access to the child and the child’s support and education.

(2) The Children’s Lawyer may act under subsection (1) on his or her own initiative, at the request of a court or at the request of any person.

(3) An affidavit of the person making the investigation, verifying the report as to facts that are within the person’s knowledge and setting out the source of the person’s information and belief as to other facts, with the report attached as an exhibit thereto, shall be served on the parties and filed and on being filed shall form part of the evidence at the hearing of the proceeding.

(4) Where a party to the proceeding disputes the facts set out in the report, the Children’s Lawyer shall if directed by the court, and may when not so directed, attend the hearing on behalf of the child and cause the person who made the investigation to attend as a witness.

[20] Ms. Sibblis, the OCL clinical investigator, provided an affidavit under s. 112(3) of the Courts of Justice Act attaching the OCL Report and testified at the trial.

[21] The Mother filed a Dispute to the OCL Report. The Father did not.

ADDITIONAL FACTS

[22] The marriage had shown strains for years. The Mother believed that the Father had had and was continuing an affair with Ms. Salazar, a cousin.

[23] The Father suggested there was an agreement that, after Alex was born, he remain and work part time at home. I reject this. I do not find that there was any such agreement. Both parties were working. The Father self-employed. The Mother at the company office. While the Mother was still on maternity leave with Alex, the parties agreed that the maternal grandmother give up her job and move into their home in September 2011 to provide child care to permit the parties to fully pursue their employment endeavours. This fact alone is entirely inconsistent with the Father's submission.

[24] In 2013, the family moved to Brampton. The marriage remained in trouble. The Father expressed an interest to separate on several occasions.

[25] In 2013, both parties filed for bankruptcy at the insistence of the Father, the parent who managed the financial affairs for both parties. The Mother was not given a reason as to why this was necessary by the Father. The exact reasons were never put into evidence.

[26] In January 2015, the family moved to Killick Road, in Brampton, the current residence of the Mother. On January 28, 2015, Kate was born. Nevertheless, the marital problems continued.

[27] The Mother was on maternity leave in 2015. In June 2015, the Father renewed his desire to separate. The parties moved to different bedrooms and tried to "figure out what to do for divorce".

[28] The Father rented other accommodations. He called them an "office". He spent a considerable amount of time there, including some overnights.

[29] The parties did not tell anyone about the separation until the late summer or the fall of 2015.

[30] When the maternal grandmother found out about the separation, she was devastated. She moved out of the Brampton home in September 2015.

[31] In October 2015 there was an attempt to reconcile. That did not work.

[32] In November 2015, the parties told the respective families they had separated.

[33] What had become common, there was an argument between the parties in November 2015. During the argument, the Mother took the Father's phone and discovered intimate pictures of the Father and Ms. Salazar. She forwarded copies to several family members. Eventually, the Mother was charged with distributing photographs without the permission of Ms. Salazar. A peace bond was entered into.

[34] Things came to a head on December 2, 2015. The Father had previously told the Mother he would end his relationship with Ms. Salazar. The parties were discussing whether the Father had carried through with this promise. The Father did not admit he had broken the relationship off with Ms. Salazar. The argument escalated. The Mother was carrying Kate near the stairway. The Father pinched the Mother's nose twice as the Mother tried to walk away up the stairs. The Father pulled at the Mother's clothing. This caused the Mother to slip and fall down. Kate's head hit the wall. Father took Kate to the kitchen. The Mother went upstairs and locked herself in the bathroom. The Father broke into the bathroom. The police were called.

[35] The Father was charged with domestic assault. With the assault charges came the Recognizance. The Father could not return to the home. It prevented the Father from any direct contact with the Mother.

[36] The CAS became involved with the family.

[37] After the alleged assault, the maternal grandmother moved back into the Mother's home.

[38] The parties, through their lawyers, agreed to the shared parenting time order of January 19, 2016.

[39] Issues arose immediately. The Father interpreted the January 19, 2016 Order as giving him the absolute right to parent the Children during school days even when the Mother did not have to go to work or returned early from work. The Father also interpreted the said order to keep the Children until 5:00 p.m. each school day (being what he considered the usual end of the work day). The Father insisted on this "right" whether or not the Mother was finished work early or did not have to go to work that day. This was an erroneous and unreasonable interpretation of the January 19, 2016 Order by the Father and an interpretation by the Father designed to minimize the Mother's parenting time with the Children.

[40] Conflict between the parties continued. The Children were witnesses to and impacted by the conflict.

[41] The Father was charged with breaching the Recognizance three times.

[42] The Father's assault and breach charges were withdrawn in September 2016.

[43] There have been numerous police attendances involving domestic issues between these parties. 28 police reports have been generated by the Peel and Toronto Police regarding these parties, all but one of which were after they separated. Many related to conflict at the access exchanges in front of the Children.

[44] The Mother resides in the home the parties lived in before the separation. The maternal grandmother lives with her.

[45] In late 2017, the Father decided to rent a large 5 bedroom home for $2,350 per month in Brampton. He resides there with Ms. Salazar.

CREDIBILITY

The Father

[46] I reject the entirety of the Father's evidence.

[47] He is deceptive, evasive and prepared to say whatever he thinks will help his case. The Father has an answer for every question, even when his answer makes no sense - but he sticks by his answer! He makes self-serving bald statements with no details or supporting evidence. He is a controlling, manipulating individual.

[48] During his entire evidence, he could not say a good word about the Mother. The Father went out of his way to make himself look good and at the same time marginalize the Mother's role in the Children's care and her ability to make reasonable decisions for the Children.

[49] The most significant problem with the Father is that he is prepared to and has allowed his controlling and manipulative ways to entirely overcome any sense of what is in the best interests of the Children and has no understanding of the impact his actions have had and continue to have on the Children. The Father is more interested in proving that he is/was right on any particular issue and entirely misses the impact of the particular issue on the Children.

[50] Let me provide some examples of why this court comes to such a harsh conclusion regarding the Father and his evidence.

Deceptive and Unreliable Evidence:

a) The Father stated that sometime in September 2015 until the separation, he rented a basement "office" because he needed a quiet place to work. That is entirely misleading. It was not an office but separate accommodations for him and Ms. Salazar:

o Ms. Salazar had moved to Canada from the USA. She needed accommodations. The Father got this "office", likely to accommodate Ms. Salazar;

o The OCL investigator reported that the Father told her he had obtained an evening job (7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) during this period and that is why he rented these premises;

o On December 2, 2017, the Father admitted that Ms. Salazar was living in this "office";

o His explanation to rent other premises makes no sense in light of extremely low reported income in 2015 and his evidence of his alleged financial difficulties.

b) The Father agreed that the Mother's mother ("maternal grandmother") moved into their home in September 2011 to help care for Alex. Yet, The Father was adamant that he was the primary and virtually sole care giver for Alex during this period even when the maternal grandmother was living with the parties with the child care responsibility for Alex. He denied any significant role of the maternal grandmother in Alex's life. The Father was extremely resistant to any suggestion the maternal grandmother had any role in Alex's care. This evidence makes no sense;

c) During the December 2, 2015 incident, after the alleged assault, the Mother went upstairs and locked herself in the bathroom, the Father got scissors and broke into the bathroom. Why? Because he says that he wanted to determine whether the Mother was "ok". The Father was deceptive about his actions and when forced to explain why - provided a nonsensical answer;

d) In October 2015, the Father knew that the January 19, 2016 Order provided for equal parenting time. Yet:

o The Father proceeded to change Alex's registered school home address to his home address as primary residence, to exclude the Mother as a contact person and the maternal grandmother as a pick up person;

o The Father asked the school principal to say that Alex lived primarily with him in the 2016 in the school records;

o The Father obtained a letter from the family doctor (asking the doctor to state that the Children were in the Father's primary care ), which the doctor obliged;

o The Father also was able to get the doctor to change Alex's registered medical address to show the Father's home address.

e) When questioned about this, the Father attempted to shift the blame to CRA suggesting that the CRA asked for this. The Father misses the point - the information and changes the Father was seeking, obtaining and forwarding was inaccurate and false. At least one purpose was for the Father to obtain the entire Child Tax Benefit to the exclusion of the Mother. The Father was successful. The Mother lost the Child Tax Benefit. The Mother was forced to correct the erroneous records created at the Father's insistence.

f) When pressed, the Father also tried to explain his actions by using his erroneous and unreasonable interpretation of the January 19, 2016 Order to say that he in fact did have the Children for more parenting time than the Mother. There is no doubt the Father knew this was not the intention of the January 19, 2016 Order.

g) The Father suggested that the change in the school records did not matter since the school knew that Alex resided with both parents. When questioned further, the Father said it was a "misunderstanding" that he did not want the Mother to be a contact person for the school. The Father will manipulate the circumstances to his benefit when given any opportunity;

h) The Father admitted he owned two cars. That is consistent with his Financial Statement. But in cross-examination he admitted he "drives" a Mercedes. This vehicle is not disclosed in his Financial Statement as he said that it is owned by his sister. This is just a small piece of a much larger pattern of deception when it comes to the Father's financial affairs which is described in more detail below;

i) When questioned why the Bank of Montreal had terminated him in the mid 2000's, the Father said it was a "conflict with his boss" but later in re-examination the Father said that the Bank of Montreal had falsified errors in his documents to justify the termination. The Father's answers are not even internally consistent; and

j) The Father stated at trial that the parties had agreed Alex attend St. Benedict's School (near Etobicoke) and that was why he did not consent to the Mother's motion to re-register Alex at St. Aiden. One major problem with this answer. In responding to the Mother's school motion, the Father never alleged that the parties had agreed to move Alex to St. Benedict's school. The Father had no explanation for this. The Father makes things up as he goes along.

Controlling:

a) There is considerable additional references to the Father's controlling nature set out in the OCL Report on page 14 under the heading: "Level of power and control being exercised in this case at the expense of the children". These reference the Father's controlling nature towards his Children, the CAS and the OCL investigator. I agree with Ms. Sibblis' comments in this section;

b) The Father attended on many occasions at Alex's school. He would have Alex withdrawn from class to give her clothes that he wanted her to wear (snow coat, snow pants, boots...) rather than the clothes the Mother had sent Alex to school with. Initially the Father said that the school principal suggested that the Father come in the mornings with the Father's clothing. This makes no sense. The school raised no issue regarding Alex's clothing. The school principal stopped the Father from continuing this clothing exchange. The school principal said this clothing exchange was disruptive. This example demonstrates both controlling and deception by the Father. When confronted with the OCL investigator's statement in the OCL Report as to the impact this was having on Alex, the Father said he was not concerned because Alex had "asked him" to do this. I reject this bald statement. Besides, the Father's answer totally misses the most important fact - it was negatively impacting Alex!

c) There are many examples of the Father's controlling nature as it relates to the Children:

o On at least one occasion Father brought Alex a different lunch than Mother had sent Alex to school with;

o When the Father could no longer change Alex's clothes at school, he started to change Alex's clothes at the washroom at MacDonald's! The Father didn't consider this to be unusual;

o The Father did not communicate with the Mother regarding Alex's flu shot. He just took her to the doctor and had it done without the Mother's knowledge or consent. The Mother was told after the fact. He did this because he wants to control what goes on in the Children's life without input or approval by the Mother;

o Rather than continue with the same parish that Alex was used to (in Brampton), the Father unilaterally took Alex to his new parish (in Etobicoke). There was no consultation. No agreement;

o The Father arranged for Alex to see a school social therapist during his parenting days. Did he tell the Mother? No. Why? He explained that she did not need to know since Alex saw the therapist only during his access weeks. The Father analogized this to extracurricular activities. The Father misses the point. This is counselling for Alex. Both parents should know about it. The Father is intent on doing things his way and will come up with an answer, even if it makes no sense - just like this one; and

o There was considerable evidence about which parent took Alex out of school and which parent was responsible for the late school attendances. It mattered very little except that one statement struck home - the Father was critical of the Mother taking Alex out of school for medical appointments suggesting that the Mother should wait until after school or on weekends. Children's illness do not come up at convenient times as the Father would like and sometimes, especially with Children, it is better to be safe.

d) The Father made numerous complaints to the CAS alleging that they were not addressing his concerns. He suggests that the CAS file information was inconsistent, complaining to the point where a new CAS worker had to be assigned in May 2017. When it got to the OCL investigation, the Father attempted to get the OCL investigator to change her recommendations and even suggesting his own. The Father wants to control everything and everyone associated with him and the Children;

Manipulating:

a) When the Father refused to permit the Children to attend a wedding in May 2017 as flower girls on a Father access day, the Mother brought a motion. On May 26, 2017, the court ordered that the Mother have the Children for the wedding date with a 8:30 a.m. exchange at a place designated by the Mother. In return the court ordered the Father to have the following Saturday (as a makeup date) with a 8:30 a.m. exchange place designated by the Father. After losing the motion, the Father chose to go to Niagara Falls with the Children the following Saturday. The Father designated Niagara Falls as the exchange place. This was nothing more than to spite the Mother and a complete disregard for the Children's best interests. This forced the Mother to decide whether to get up at 5:30 or 6:00 a.m. with the Children and drive to Niagara Falls or to go down the night before and rent a hotel. The Mother was forced to choose the latter as it was best for the Children. Such conduct is shocking that the Father would manipulate the circumstances at the direct and clear impact to the Children just to spite the Mother;

b) The January 19, 2016 Order provided that, because the Mother was employed and the Father worked from home, during the Mother's access days when the Mother worked, the Father would pick up Kate at 8:30 a.m. from the Mother's home and parent her until the Mother "returns from work". A similar provision was agreed to for Alex but with a pick up at 2:30 p.m. from school by the Father who would parent Alex until the Mother "returns from work". When the Mother re-arranged her work schedule so that she could be home some of the school days when she was to have access, the Father refused to let the Mother parent Kate and Alex during the day and went so far as to force the Mother to wait until 5:00 p.m. "exactly" before the Mother could pick up the Children in Etobicoke (rather than Alex's nearby school).

It is important to note that the Mother's home is in Brampton not far from Alex's school whereas the Father's home at the time was in Etobicoke. The amount of travel time the Father subjected the Children to was unnecessary, unreasonable and detrimental to the Children. In total, particularly for Kate, that amounted to approximately 2.5 hours of travel a day. When asked, the Father denied that 2.5 hours in a car every day was excessive for a very young child like Kate. The Father simply misses (or chooses to ignore) the negative impact on the Children by his decisions. Selfish and spite comes to mind. Further, a parent truly interested in joint or equal parenting (as the Father says he is) would not have behaved in such a fashion;

c) The Father wanted to move Alex from the school she had been attending in Brampton to a school near him in Etobicoke. In late August 2016, the court determined that Alex should remain in the same school in Brampton. The Father was unhappy with this turn of events. As set out above, the Father changed Alex's school records to show that Alex's "home and primary residence" was the Father's home. By changing Alex's primary home address from one in Brampton to one in the City of Toronto, Alex would not likely be able to continue going to school in the Region of Peel, thereby circumventing the court order. The Father denies this. I reject his denial. It is more probable that the Father, unhappy with the court order, was attempting to circumvent it;

d) After the Father heard that Alex had confirmed an incident to the investigator, he was upset and gave explicit instructions to Kate to withdraw the "verified allegation". Clearly, the Father was attempting to manipulate the Children directly;

e) The Father attempted to have the Children refer to Ms. Salazar as "mom" or "mommy". The Father denied this. When asked by the OCL investigator what Alex called Ms. Salazar, Alex called her mother and refused to answer. There is compelling evidence that the Father has engaged in this manipulation of Alex;

f) And then there is the lack of disclosure. The Father has failed to produce many documents which were ordered to be produced and many directed to be produced by consent orders.

Disregards the best interests of the Children:

[51] I will not repeat some of the above examples and how they result in the Father disregarding the best interest of the Children and causing a negative impact on the Children.

[52] It is fundamental that a child's best interest is to maximize the amount of parenting time with both parents. As a corollary, any attempt by a party to minimize or marginalize the other party's parental time or role, is a very serious shortcoming in a party's parenting ability.

[53] Let me repeat one paragraph from the OCL Report on page 14 which, I believe summarizes this court's view, of the Father's behaviour as it relates to the Mother's relationship with the Children:

The level of intrusion, interference, lack of boundaries and parent marginalization. The amount of interference on the part of The Father in the children's right to see and have a relationship with their mother is of major concern. His behaviours are a clear indication of how little importance he places on the mother's role in the children's lives. While Mr. Pontigon and/or his partner appear to provide a high level of care to the children, the degree to which Mr. Pontigon has marginalized Ms. Pontigon in their children's eyes under the guise of care, is in fact not in the children's best interests.

[54] And then there is the conflict between the parties and how it negatively impacts the Children. This has been identified by the CAS, yet, it appears that the Children have continued to witness significant conflict. The Father, like the Mother, has used the police and CAS to escalate the conflict. Some examples include:

a) (March 7, 2016), the Father called the police because the Mother had a short verbal interaction with him at the exchange. The police did nothing;

b) (May 20, 2016) The Father refused to release the Children to the Mother until the Mother got out of the car. The police were called;

c) (May 30, 3016) the Father attended at the Mother's home demanding the Children. In total, there appeared to be three breaches of the Recognizance (but there was no finding of guilt for any of these charges);

d) (Dec 12, 2016) the Father refused to return Alexandra because he alleged the mother was being unreasonable and hostile at the exchange. The police attended. The police advised that the maternal grandmother and Ms. Salazar should not be present at the exchanges to minimize the conflict; and

e) (June 17, 2016) The Father alleged an assault by the Mother at an exchange. The police were called. The Children were present. The police found no threats, assault or injuries. There was no follow up.

[55] Clearly, police and CAS involvement does not minimize the conflict but perpetuates it in front of the Children at the access exchanges. Further, the Father simply disregards the role that Ms. Salazar brings to this conflict and has not taken any steps to address this issue. He continues not to see this as an issue.

[56] The OCL and CAS reported that both parents coached Alex as to what to say regarding certain incidents to the CAS and the OCL. As a result, not only did BOTH parents permit the Children to view the conflict, both parents thought nothing of it to bring the Children into the middle of their conflict. This shows BOTH parents have, at times, disregarded the Children's best interests and put their own best interests and the conflict first.

The Mother

[57] The Mother remains hurt and upset about the separation. This was fueled by the fact the Father now lives with Ms. Salazar.

[58] The fact one partner has an affair, or other marital misconduct, is irrelevant as to the children's best interests except to the extent the behaviour impacts on that person's ability to act as a parent of a child.

[59] In this case, like the Father, the Mother has caused the conflict between them to escalate to the extent it has had a negative impact on the Children.

[60] The Mother has also to some extent, continued or added to the conflict, sometimes in full view of the Children at the access exchanges:

a) In December 2015, Kate got very sick and was hospitalized for several days. The Mother did not tell the Father or anyone in his family about this. The Mother's explanation was feeble - her lawyer was away; and

b) The Mother sought police involvement (and even the CAS) when the matters could or should have been dealt with in a more civil manner.

[61] I am satisfied that, to some extent, the conflict arises from both parties trying to get some advantage in their custody battle. Whatever the motivation, it is clear that the Mother's actions also caused or contributed to the conflict and the negative impact on the Children. As set out above, the Mother was involved in coaching Alex as to what to say to the CAS and the OCL. Her entirely inappropriate conduct in this regard is no better than that of the Father's conduct.

[62] A few examples of the Mother's adding to the conflict includes:

a) (March 30, 2016) the Mother alleged of bruises on Kate's legs and called the police. The police attended and found there was no reason to follow up;

b) (April 25, 2016) - the Mother called the police because she went to school for a play day and the Father was there. It was the Father's access day! The police asked the Mother to leave;

c) (May 16, 2016) - the Mother unilaterally changed access time by keeping Alex at home on a day off (although she had notified the Father's lawyer of this). The Father went to pick up Alex at school and she was not there. The police were called. The school administration became involved. Then the Mother alleged that Alex was not well that day. It is entirely not clear what happened but it is clear that both parties were responsible and were content to escalate the conflict at Alex's expense;

d) (May 20, 2016) the Mother alleged there were scratches and bruises on Kate suggesting such injuries were incurred during the Father access. The police and CAS determined the Mother's allegations to be "unfounded"; and

e) (June 1, 2016) - the Mother alleged breach of Recognizance by the Father - police determined no breach because the Father had not even tried to communicate with the Mother.

[63] The Mother, like the Father, has allowed the conflict to overcome common sense and the Children's best interests.

Other Witnesses

[64] I do not find that the evidence of Icyline Graham added anything significant to the facts or analysis of this case.

[65] Mr. Lontoc's evidence was limited to a loan he made to the Father, which is described below.

[66] Leodegaira Pontigon ("paternal grandmother") testified. She was clearly a biased witness. The paternal grandmother was attempting to assist her son in this litigation by not remembering certain facts and alleging other facts which were simply not believable.

[67] I find that the paternal grandmother's evidence is not credible:

a) The OCL spoke to the paternal grandmother and reporting statements by the paternal grandmother which were not helpful to the Father. When asked about these statements, the paternal grandmother could not remember ever speaking with the OCL investigator but, if she had said the negative things reported, the statements were not true;

b) Exhibit 47 is a handwritten note, apparently signed by the Mother and the paternal grandmother. The paternal grandmother denied she signed it but acknowledged that she had discussed these matters with the Mother. The Mother testified this was an attempt to settle the custody issues. The Mother said she and the paternal grandmother came to terms and both parties signed the note. The paternal grandmother told the Mother she would insist on the Father agreeing to these terms or would threaten the Father with breaching the Recognizance because he was living with Ms. Salazar, rather than, as required by the Recognizance, at her home. I am satisfied that the note is likely a genuine note signed by the Mother and the paternal grandmother. The only significance of this note is that it painted a negative picture of the Father by his own mother and so the paternal grandmother's evidence was tainted by distancing herself from the note; and

c) The Father says there are loans owed to the paternal grandmother. The paternal grandmother alleges there are loans owed to her. However, her recollection as to details of the loans was vague. The paternal grandmother said there was a written loan agreement that was "no longer available". There are other problems with these alleged loans. Some go back more than 10 years with no evidence of advance or repayment. Most of the loans predate the bankruptcy. The paternal grandmother's loan ledger only refers to loans made to her son. But to assist her son, the paternal grandmother says the loans were to the Father and Mother. There is simply no evidence to find that there were loans to the paternal grandmother, and certainly not on a balance of probabilities.

THE OCL CLINICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

[68] The extensiveness and accuracy of Ms. Sibblis' investigation was borne out by her evidence at trial. The OCL Report also set out that the controlling and manipulating nature of the Father adding to the conflict, of which I will detail below. However, the OCL Report also sets out the actions of the Mother which caused or added to the conflict as it relates to the Children.

[69] Ms. Sibblis is experienced. She was thorough and appeared to be entirely independent throughout her investigation and in completing the OCL Report. She was not seriously challenged or shaken during her cross-examination.

[70] I will only highlight some of the significant sections of the OCL Report:

• "both parents are responsive to their Children's medical needs but are urged "to be as responsive to their children's need for peace, consistent co-parenting, tolerance of their neutrality, as well as their need for positive guilt free relationships with everyone in their lives and maximum time with each parent."

• "The actions of the parents indicate that they prioritize conflict over the children...Although the level of stress this has caused the children cannot be ascertained, it is reasonable to infer from the evidence that the children were negatively impacted and the subsequent behaviours of Mr. Pontigon have demonstrated his insensitivity to the feeling of the children and exacerbated the negative impact..." despite CAS's direction to "cease this behaviour due to the risk of harm it presents."

• ".. Mr. Pontigon's use of coercive and controlling techniques in his relationships with Ms. Pontigon and their children.... after the father found out what she [Alex] had spoken about with the worker [CAS], he became angry, spoke to her for a long time in a manner that scared her and she began to cry."

• The OCL describes Mr. Pontigon's "overbearing means of coercion" to both the CAS and OCL which is "best described as browbeating. Mr. Pontigon had sent a lengthy email with a list of his suggested recommendations. After disclosure, Mr. Pontigon "sent various lengthy emails challenging the clinician's position, and explicitly state that the investigation had been compromised ..."

• "The amount of interference on the part of Mr. Pontigon in the children's right to see and have a relationship with their mother is of major concern. His behaviours are a clear indication of how little importance he places on the mother's role in the children's lives. While Mr Pontigon and/or his partner appear to provide a high level of care to the children, the degree to which Mr. Pontigon has marginalized Ms. Pontigon in their children's eyes under the guise of care, is in fact not in the children's best interests."

• "For example, she [Alex] appeared to go into a trance and almost looked as if she were about to explode from the pressure when asked questions centred around the conflict between her parents." Alex was so upset, Ms. Sibblis ended the interview early.

• "... CAS also belies that both parents coach Alexandra, and that she is at risk of significant harm due to the conflict between the parents." The OCL concluded that both parents involved Alex in the conflict "in one way or another".

• "The material impact on Katherine is seen not only in the fact that she was caught in the middle of a physical altercation in which she was hurt, but through her excessive shuttling back and forth, spending an unnecessary 2.5 hours in transit every day. This is not child focused."

• "Alexandra reports conflict in her father's home between him and his current partner. She reported that he has employed physical discipline with her and although he has not done this in some time, she indicated that she finds his current behaviour to be scary and intimidating....More recently, the concerns for Alexandra's mental and emotional wellbeing have increased for CAS because she feels pressured due to Mr. Pontigon's unrelenting acts of coercion and inability to regulation his behaviour amidst conflict. By contract, Ms. Pontigon appears to be solution oriented."

• "Discussions with Mr. Pontigon reveal that he has little to no insight into the impact of his behaviour on the children... He also has yet to acknowledge the potential impact on the children of his relationship with his estranged wife's cousin, having her play a material role in their lives, and receiving catholic sacraments together as a family without their mother."

• "To Ms. Pontigon's concern that a balanced access schedule comes at the expense of stability does not preclude the child from developing social communities, but rather, gives them the opportunity to expand their social networks to two communities. .. Adding balance and removing acrimony is an important factor in achieving that goal."

• "Mr. Pontigon's visits to the school to change the child's clothes are not only an intrusion into the child's space, but also send her the message that her mother is inadequate, and does not dress her properly - again diminishing the mother's role and marginalizing her in the eyes of her child."

• "If the children's wellbeing was actually the focus of the decisions, the two parties would align more; however, it is evident that emotions cloud their judgment and each move between parties is a play for power and control - either reclaim it, as in the case for Ms. Pontigon, or to maintain it, in reference to Mr. Pontigon."

• "Given that domestic violence and other forms of abuse exist in the history between the parents, joint custody is not feasible. Therefore, in considering sole custody to Mr. Pontigon, it is determined that this option would not be in the best interests of the children.... That said, it is recommended that Ms. Pontigon have sole custody of the children. Ms. Pontigon is willing to support the girls' relationship with their father without intrusion."

• "Although a recommendation of joint custody would not be reasonable due to the power dynamic between the parties, Ms. Pontigon is encouraged to inform Mr. Pontigon of decisions involving the children and illicit his opinion on matters where possible."

[71] Ms. Sibblis proceeded to recommend that Ms. Pontigon have sole custody and a "true 2-2-3 schedule" be imposed before proceeding to make 32 additional recommendations. For the reasons set out below, this court disagrees that such a schedule would be in the Children's best interests.

[72] Ms. Sibblis' trial evidence was consistent with the OCL Report finding that both parents exhibited some of the same negative behaviour but concluded that the Mother's negative behaviour did not rise to the level of the Father's negative behaviour. That is consistent with this court's finding on the evidence.

[73] Ms. Sibblis was concerned that the Father has difficulty accepting authority and will do whatever he wants or believes is right, regardless of the impact on the Children. That is consistent with this court's finding.

[74] Ms. Sibblis stated that the Mother was more child focused, avoiding of conflict, more flexible to meet the Children's needs and solution oriented. The court accepts Ms. Sibblis' conclusion on this issue.

[75] Ms. Sibblis recommended that direct contact between the parties be minimized given that much of the conflict arises during the exchange meetings. This court agrees.

[76] When asked what the impact would be if the court ordered alternating weekends to the Father, Ms. Sibblis said that she could not comment on that possibility at this time. Ms. Sibblis took comfort that the CAS continued to be involved to monitor the impact of the conflict on the Children.

[77] During Ms. Sibblis' cross-examination, the Father was more intent on proving that he was right on certain issues and ignored the Children's best interests. For example:

a) During cross-examination of Ms. Sibblis, the Father took exception to Ms. Sibblis' criticism of the Father maintaining parenting time with Alex and Kate every school day until 5:00 p.m. in accordance with the January 19, 2016 court order. He suggested it was his interpretation and it was a reasonable interpretation. The Father missed the point entirely. Ms. Sibblis was concerned about the impact on the Children, the Father's failure to ensure maximum contact by both parents and the Father's minimization of the Mother's role. The Father never challenged Ms. Sibblis on these much more fundamental and significant issues involving the Children;

b) The Father challenged Ms. Sibblis as to why she did not conduct more interviews of Alex. The Father ignored Ms. Sibblis' comment that the interviews were stressful on Alex and one had to be terminated prematurely because she went into a "trance". The Father was simply oblivious to this impact when suggesting there should have been more Children interviews; and

c) The Father challenged Ms. Sibblis' comment that he and Ms. Salazar are cousins. Whether Ms. Salazar is or is not the Father's cousin is irrelevant. The Father entirely ignored Ms. Sibblis' statement that Alex has a very stressful relationship with Ms. Salazar and that it was negatively affecting Alex.

ANALYSIS

Custody

[78] The parties’ custody claims are governed by section 16 of the Divorce Act, R.S.O. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.). Those sections relevant to these proceedings are:

16 (1) A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody of and access to, any or all children of the marriage…

(4) The court may make an order under this section granting custody of, or access to, any or all children of the marriage to any one or more persons.

(5) Unless the court orders otherwise, a spouse who is granted access to a child of the marriage has the right to make inquiries, and to be given information, as to the health, education and welfare of the child.

(6) The court may make an order under this section for a definite or indefinite period or until the happening of a specified event and may impose such other terms, conditions or restrictions in connection therewith as it thinks fit and just…

(8) In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child…

(10) In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.

[79] Section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.12, provides some guidance as to what is in the best interests of the child:

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).

(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.

Sole or Joint Custody?

[80] Joint custody orders are generally preferred as it keeps both parents engaged and involved in the lives of their Children and it builds meaningful life-long relationships between the parents and children. This is generally in the best interests of children.

[81] In some cases, despite the innate benefits of a joint custody order, the circumstances are such that the Children's best interests would not be served by a joint custody order.

[82] This is one of those cases.

[83] Both parents take pride in the Children. Both parents are involved in the Children's lives. Both love the Children.

[84] The parents make assertions that they always have the best interests of the Children or explain their past actions couched in language that asserts it was done to further the best interests of the Children. Bald assertions or explanations that they put the Children's interests first, do not go very far to demonstrate that a parent actually puts the Children's best interests first.

[85] The problem is that these parents do not always put the Children's best interests forward. They permit their own personal conflicts to overcome or direct their actions even where those actions are not in the best interests of the Children.

[86] They have chosen conflict over the best interests of the Children. The Children are suffering under the current de facto joint custody. In many ways, short term and long term goals, plans and care for the Children has suffered by the parents' inability to make decisions regarding the Children.

[87] The CAS have been involved since late 2015 because of their concern about the impact on the Children of the parents' conflict. The court shares this concern. This concern is ongoing.

[88] As can be seen from the above, neither parent is innocent when it comes to the conflict or the impact it has had on the Children. There are many examples above but let me refer to one. It is clear from the OCL Report and that at times the Children appeared "coached" by both parents. The impact on the Children is devastating as it pits one parent against the other parent. It causes the Children to learn to have to lie. This has a very serious negative impact on the Children. The Children have to choose one parent over another. This action by both parents ignores the negative impact on the Children. This is a very serious shortcoming for BOTH parents.

[89] For a joint custody order the parents need to be able to communicate and reasonably and rationally discuss and agree on matters regarding the Children. In this case, the parents cannot even agree on the more basic or care details involving the Children's lives:

a) The parties could not agree on what school the Children should go to without a court order;

b) The parties cannot agree as to what church the Children should go to.

c) The parties cannot agree on which school backpack Alex is to use. So Alex uses a different back pack depending on which parent's access date it is;

d) The school project in December 2017. A month before the trial started. Alex was working on a school project which she had started with Mother. The Father decided he would do a different and separate school project with Alex. He did not tell the Mother. Alex was caught in the middle;

e) The Father did not receive the school photographs from the school photographer. The Father thought the Mother had taken his photos. They had to get the school photographer involved;

f) The parties cannot agree on indoor school shoes. The result: Alex has two pairs, one used during the period of time of Father's access and one used during the period of time of the Mother's access;

g) The parties could not even agree that Kate had potty trained. For a time, the Father used a diaper when travelling with Kate;

h) The parties could not agree when it is reasonable or necessary for the Children to see a doctor or when the Children should see a doctor or whether it could wait until after school or a weekend;

i) The parties could not agree on what winter coat, boots and lunch Alex should have at school;

j) The parents could not agree on Kate's god-parents for baptism. The result, Kate is not baptized;

k) There have been a total of 28 interventions by the Peel and Toronto police, mostly when the parents speak to or are in each other's presence at exchanges; and

l) The parties could not agree on the continuation of a gymnastics program for the Children. The result: the Children missed out on continuing gymnastics.

[90] This case goes well beyond the "inability to communicate" or "make joint decisions" that is necessary for co-parenting to work in the Children's best interests.

[91] As can be seen from the above, one other major concern regarding the Father is his inability to grasp the impact of his actions on the Children. This is very troubling. I will repeat one example from the trial. The Father was questioned why he would attend each day at school to change Alex's coat. The Father's response was that the Mother's coat was too big. He introduced photos of the two coats to prove his point. The Father entirely missed the fact that his attendance at school embarrassed and impacted Alex by taking her out of class and having to choose between coats provided by both parents. This impact was clearly set out in the OCL Report but the Father wanted to focus on him being "right". When specifically confronted with the words in the OCL Report that this was embarrassing and impacted Alex, the Father's response was that he did this because "Alex asked him". I reject his explanation which he raised for the first time in cross-examination. Again, there was nothing in The Father's answer which suggested he was aware of the impact his actions had on Alex or that he took any attempt to pursue some way to mitigate or resolve this issue. He simply wanted to prove he was right.

[92] The Father simply does not perceive his parenting shortcomings. The Father denies that he needs counselling to establish healthy boundaries. This explains much of the Father's insensitive behaviour when it comes to the impact of his actions on the Children.

[93] In Hildinger v. Carroll, 2004 CanLII 13456 (ON CA), [2004] OJ No 291(ON CA) the court made the following instructive comment, which I find is applicable in this case:

[22] Having found a material change in circumstances warranting a variation of the order, the trial judge then held that granting Ms. Hildinger sole custody was in Nancy Mae’s best interests. In so holding he relied on Baker, in which Lacourcière J.A. wrote that a joint custody order is inappropriate where the parents are not willing to cooperate in raising their child. In applying Baker, the trial judge wrote:

In making Nancy Mae’s mother sole custodial parent, this is being done in accordance with the well-known Court of Appeal decision of Baker and subsequent decisions which make it clear that a joint custody is an appropriate remedy only where the parties can communicate with each [other] without continual friction and disagreement [citation omitted].

[94] The Father says that the Children's best interests are served by a joint custody order as he has their best interests at heart. The Father says that he believes the past demonstrates an ability to jointly parent the Children. The Father's conclusion that the past demonstrates an ability to jointly parent is entirely wrong on this record and further demonstrates his inability to understand consequences to and impact on the Children.

[95] The Father goes on to say that "if the litigation is out of the picture, we can co-parent". This is not comforting when there is no evidence that these parties can co-parent on even the most minor details. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA), at para.11 stated that an award of joint custody requires more than wishful thinking for improvement in the ability of the parties to communicate.

[96] The Father suggests that the Mother makes rash and impulsive decisions but there is no evidence of this.

[97] Despite the Father's suggestion of a joint custody order, he wants to retain the decision to make final decisions when there is a disagreement. Essentially, this would, in these circumstances, be a sole custody order in favour of the Father. For the reasons set out above, such an order would not be appropriate.

[98] I remain concerned that, any order, despite the level of detail, will have gaps and not cover all situations. In this case, we have already seen that the Father takes unreasonable interpretations and uses wording in order to advance his parenting time and minimize the Mother.

[99] There will be no joint custody of the Children. It is not in the Children's best interests.

Which Party should have sole custody?

[100] This Court is not bound to follow the recommendations in the OCL Report.

[101] I am satisfied Ms. Sibblis' recommendation that the Mother have sole custody was based on extensive information gathered and a thorough, objective analysis. It is not very different from this court's conclusions regarding the Father's evidence. The Mother's actions have impacted the Children but it has been less so than the Father's actions.

[102] I do not minimize the actions of the Mother in this case. The Mother shares some of the blame on the lack of agreement on minor items such as the back pack, school shoes and coat! She shares some fault for the conflict the Children witnessed and being brought into the conflict. As best put by the OCL investigator, "residual feelings appear to be impeding the parents' ability to make decisions in the best interests of the children." This relates to both parents.

[103] In my view, the Mother is the better parent for sole custody of the Children:

a) The Mother has a stable home environment which includes the maternal grandmother providing child care in the same home the Children resided before the separation;

b) The Mother has taken and continues to take counselling programs to deal with avoiding conflict. She is clearing trying to move beyond the separation and the current state of conflict. The Father has taken no such structured courses or with a designated professional - he sometimes speaks to his priest. His view is he does not need counselling but will do it if the court orders it. This is not the best attitude going forward;

c) The evidence shows that the Mother has not tried to marginalize the Father's role with the Children. I agree with the OCL Report's conclusion that it appears the Mother is more likely to support a relationship between the Children and the Father without intrusion;

d) The Mother has not tried to circumvent orders, manipulate the school or the medical care practitioners to advance her interests in the litigation or to get more parenting time with the Children or marginalize the Father;

e) The Mother's parenting plan is focused on stability by continuing the same programs, school, medical and other Children's needs. The Father had very little in his parenting plan; and

f) The Father's deceptive, controlling and manipulating nature would become limited given the Mother's ability to make final decisions in major decisions in the Children's lives.

[104] When all of the evidence is considered, since the current de facto joint custody arrangement does not work, and despite some concerns regarding the Mother's past conduct, I conclude that the Mother is the best parent who will likely put the Children's best interests forward.

Conclusion on Custody

[105] In my view, the best interests of the Children is served by granting sole custody to the Mother.

Parenting Time

2-2-3 parenting schedule

[106] Both parties agree that the 2-2-3 parenting time is simply not workable. I agree.

[107] A 2-2-3 schedule has:

a) Caused too much friction and anguish for the Children;

b) This would result in an excess amount of travelling time for the Children;

c) The number of exchanges needs to be reduced, since they appear to be a primary focal point for conflict between the parties and a negative impact on the Children.

[108] I recognize that the OCL Report recommended a 2-2-3 parenting time. This court is not bound by that recommendation. This court found that the facts and analysis in the OCL Report were, in many ways, consistent with this court's findings. Yet, the OCL recommendation of a 2-2-3 parenting schedule would not have addressed many of the parental and child care concerns raised in the OCL Report. For example, while the OCL seeks to minimize the exchanges (which cause a great deal of the conflict), this recommendation would do nothing in that regard.

[109] I find that the OCL Report overly emphasized maximum contact to arrive at this recommendation and failed to go on to consider whether it was in the Children's best interests to have an alternate parenting schedule (other than the 2-2-3schedule the parents agreed to on January 19, 2016).

[110] A 2-2-3 parenting schedule would return the Children to all of the issues which had occurred prior to May 2017 (when the week about schedule started). I do not consider that to be in the Children's best interests.

[111] I reject a 2-2-3 parenting schedule as being in the Children's best interests.

Week About parenting schedule

[112] The Father seeks a week about parenting schedule. In other words, continue the current parenting time interim schedule.

[113] The difficulty with this submission is that many of the issues have continued after the week about parenting schedule went into place in May 2017. This includes issues at school, issues relating to medical care and extracurricular activities. There has not been a significant improvement with the week about parenting time except for the number of exchanges and the police calls. From the Children's perspective, not much changed with the change in the parenting schedule.

[114] In my view, the OCL Report which stated that the Children need "safe" zones, like school, to be away from the conflict or parental control strongly suggests that school stability, extracurricular activities during the school year are important factors in deciding parenting time. The Mother has generally respected the Children's school time, much more than the Father has. This favours granting the Mother substantial parenting time during the school year attendances.

[115] The continuation of the week about, would be "more of the same" and, in my view, granting the Mother sole custody would not ameliorate many of this court's concerns. Maximum contact by each of the parents would do nothing but continue to perpetuate the existing uncertainty and emotional harm to the Children identified by this court, the CAS and the OCL.

[116] There are a number of factors which favour the Mother having parenting time during the school year include:

a) The Mother has the maternal grandmother to care for the Children before and after school when necessary. No one has suggested that the Children do not get along with the maternal grandmother or that she is not a good care giver to the Children. The Children are familiar with the maternal grandmother since she has been involved in their lives as a care giver for years;

b) The Father lives with Ms. Salazar. Ms. Salazar has also been the focus of criticism and conflict between the parties and their respective families. Alex has a very stressful relationship with Ms. Salazar;

c) This will prevent the Father from his continued interference with the Children while they are at school in their "safe zone". The Father's manipulation and controlling nature would not affect the Children's schooling; and

d) The Mother brings stability by being in the same home, and is prepared to move if necessary to keep Kate in the same school.

[117] I have considered that the OCL reported that Alex has indicated "on more than one occasion" that she would prefer to live with her Mother. When told that the court could order her to live with her Father, "it appeared to cause Alexandra distress and discomfort". Whether this is caused by the friction between Alex and Ms. Salazar is not known. Of course, given Alex's young age, her preferences are NOT given much weight.

[118] Overall, the regular day to day care for the Children during the school year strongly favours the Mother.

The Father's Parenting Time

[119] I am mindful of the principle that it is in the Children's best interests to maximize (to the extent it does not negatively impact their best interests) parenting time with both parents.

[120] I am also reminded that Kate is very young and requires time with her Father to build a good relationship.

[121] These factors favour granting the Father substantial parenting time with the Children as follows:

a) During the school year (meaning from the first school day in September until the last school day before Christmas break starts and then continuing from the first day back to school in January until the beginning of March break and resuming on the first school day after the March break until the end of the school year), alternating weekends from after school pick up on Friday until return to school drop off on Monday. If it is a long weekend and it falls on Father's access weekend:

i. If Friday is the school day off, the Father's weekend access shall be from Thursday school pick up until Monday school drop off;

ii. If Monday is the school day off, the Father's weekend access shall be from Friday school pick up until Tuesday school drop off; or

iii. If both the Friday and the Monday are school days off, the Father's weekend access shall be from Thursday school pick up until 9:00 a.m. Monday.

b) During the school year, the Father shall have parenting time with the Children from Wednesday school pick up until 8:00 p.m. each Wednesday;

[122] Holidays, Christmas school break, March break and summer break shall be divided equally.

[123] And now to deal with the more difficult question. How to structure exchanges so that conflict is minimized and thereby subjecting the Children to less stress. During the school year, the exchanges will take place primarily at pick up and drop off and only the parent who is commencing their parenting time will be present. The problem is that Kate is not in school at this time and not expected to attend school until September 2019. As a result, and with great regret, access exchanges are going to have to continue to be a significant part of parenting. Until Kate goes to school, her exchanges will also take place at the same time and at the school drop off or pick up.

[124] However to ensure a smoother access exchange, certain rules need to be established:

i. each parent can designate another access pick up/drop off person- being a family member;

ii. only the parent or designated other pick up/drop off person may conduct the access exchange;

iii. there shall only be one person (parent or designated other) from both sides at the exchange;

iv. there shall be no videotaping of the access exchanges.

[125] When there is a change in parenting time at the beginning of a school day (school drop off) or the end of a school day (school pick up), the access exchange will have to be at the school for both Alex and Kate.

[126] On all other access exchanges, the exchange shall take place at the designated times at the MacDonald's located at 10565 Bramalea Road, Brampton, Ontario.

[127] Both parties suggested a very complex Christmas break schedule. I recognize that both parents are religious and having the Children with them during Christmas evening and Christmas day is important. To accommodate this, Christmas access time shall be divided into two parts. The first part commences on the beginning of school Christmas break until 9:00 a.m. on Christmas day. The second part commences at 9:00 a.m. on Christmas day until the Children return to school. The parents shall alternate which part is their parenting time. The Mother shall have the first part of the Christmas schedule in 2018 with the Father having the second part of the Christmas schedule. In each following year, the parents will alternate their parenting time.

[128] March breaks can be alternated each year.

[129] The Children should be with Mother on Mother's day and the Mother's birthday.

[130] The Children should be with Father on Father's day and his birthday.

[131] I have also dealt with additional details in the order attached hereto to be issued.

INCOMES

The Father

[132] The Father is an experienced banker. After leaving banking, he became a mortgage broker. He continues working in that area. He also now brokers loans.

[133] The Father states that, after leaving the bank, he took a leap to self-employment in 2008. He had a 5 year plan to succeed in this area.

[134] His T4's downloaded from the Revenue Canada site (not actually copies of the employer's T4's) showed income of:

• 2010 - $48,628

• 2011 - $36,422

• 2012 - $16,222

• 2013 - $19,127

• 2014 - $40,638

• 2015 - $23,782

• 2016 - $24,591

• 2017 - $15,642 gross earning to October 25, 2017

[135] The Father carries on a loan lending business with some of his employer's mortgage clients. The Father has not told his mortgage employer of this activity. And for obvious reasons.

The Loan Business

[136] This loan business is carried out in the most bizarre fashion: his aunt gives him money; he puts the money into his personal bank accounts; he loans money to clients; clients pay him; he gives money back to his aunt; and he says he makes no profit on these loan transactions.

[137] Most of the transactions? Cash!

[138] There is not a single piece of paper that corroborates this unusual scheme. Where are the loan agreements? Who pays tax on the profit? There is nothing to even suggest that these "loans" are the "aunt's loans" conducted through the Father but rather, the evidence suggests that these are the Father's loans.

[139] All that was produced was a letter from the Father's aunt confirming that the Father did not receive commissions for 3 private loans in 2015. The letter does not address other loans. The letter does not deal with loans in 2016 or 2017. The aunt never testified.

The Mother's Loans

[140] The Father states that he has borrowed a great deal of money from his mother, the paternal grandmother of the Children. The paternal grandmother testified.

[141] Neither the Father nor the paternal grandmother produced a single document showing the loans, repayment or anything resembling bona fide loan dealings between the two. Not one.

[142] When the paternal grandmother was asked about a loan agreement, the paternal grandmother agreed there had been a written loan agreement signed by the Father but she did not keep it or have it (or a copy) to produce in court.

[143] When was the first written demand made by the paternal grandmother ON THE MOTHER? February 2016, after the separation.

[144] And the amounts in the produced ledger (of the allegedly owed loans) ALL predate the bankruptcy. No explanation was given how these debts survived bankruptcy.

[145] The Ledger only shows the debtor as "Louis John's Account". It does not refer to the Mother as a debtor or at all. According to the paternal grandmother, all previous letters regarding the loans were only sent to the Father because he was the "head of the family". No prior letters were produced.

[146] The Mother admits that there was a signed loan agreement for $19,000 for monies borrowed from the Father's aunt, Amelia McCutcheon. The Mother contacted the aunt shortly after separation, acknowledged her debt to the aunt for half the amount and has since paid that debt off.

[147] The Mother denies any other loans from the Father's family, and in particular the paternal grandmother. I accept this evidence.

[148] To conclude, I reject that the Father has proven that the monies in his account which he loans out to persons belongs to the Aunt (except the one admitted by the Mother). Further, I reject that the Father has proven there exists any loans with his mother.

The Father's Expenses

[149] The Father's monthly expenses include:

• rent $2,350 per month

• utilities $545 per month

• vehicles $680 per month

• private health insurance $350 per month

• life insurance $294 per month

[150] The Father's updated Financial Statement alleges that his expenses are $63,542 per year. As will be seen below, this amount is woefully low and not indicative of what the Father actually spends on expenses.

[151] The Father incurs these expenses, with some help from his girlfriend. Exactly what help, was never described. Although any such help would be minimal given that Ms. Salazar is also self-employed earning approximately $2,000 to $2,500 per month according to the Father.

[152] At this point, the Father's lack of financial disclosure looms large.

[153] Now for the large inconsistencies in the Father's financial picture:

a) The Father has only produced 46 bank statements from a total of 134 ordered to be produced;

b) The Father failed to produce any bank statements regarding his joint account with Ms. Salazar or a ...332 bank account, although ordered to be produced;

c) On one occasion, the Father asked a client to pay the monies directly to his sister's bank account rather than into his bank account. The Father's feeble excuse (which I reject) was that he was concerned about a "hold" on the monies if it went into his bank account but he never explained why there would be no hold on his sister's account or using one of his other accounts;

d) There are a number of internet transfers for substantial amounts of money in 2016 and 2017 (i.e. $20,000, $10,000 or $7,000) going into and out of his account. The Father could not explain where the monies came from or went to. The Father retreated to a common refrain that these monies came from or went to his other bank accounts which had been disclosed. One might question why so many large transfers. However, when asked to show the corresponding entries into one of his other bank accounts, the Father was not able to do so;

e) The Father says that his only income was through Yellow Brick Management - the mortgage broker. As set out above, the Father testified he has made no money on the loan transactions. Yet, there is a lawyer's letter of June 19, 2015 where a lawyer sent him $2,500 for his brokerage fee;

f) The Father is in the financial business and knows the importance of papering transactions. Yet, he has nothing. The Father does not use trust accounts. All the monies go through his personal accounts! And to no surprise, there are some receipts showing the Father providing lenders cash - large amounts of cash. To no surprise, some of the loan agreements produced by the Mother, show the Father as the lender on the transaction;

g) The Father says that much of the money that has gone through his bank account is money belonging to his aunt. But there is no proof of that. The aunt did not testify or produce any documents to substantiate this;

h) When the Father borrowed $3,000 from the Mother's brother, the Father produced a GIC statement showing that he had in excess of $50,000 in that GIC account. There is no mention of this GIC account in the Father's financial statements. What does the Father say about this GIC? He says he lied to his brother- in- law that this was his money. He testified it was not his GIC. As to where the money from the Mother's brother went, the Father could not point to any bank account showing a deposit of these monies or explain what he did with the money;

i) As described above, the Father did not produce T4's but produced what he alleged was a copy from the CRA website of his 2014 T4. The CRA website showed a reported 2014 T4 income of $40,636.89. When cross-examined, the Mother's counsel produced what appears to be a copy of a T4 from Dominion Lending Centres YBM Group with a section to be attached to the Federal and Provincial Tax returns. THE INCOME WAS $140,636.89. The sole difference was the first "1" representing $100,000 had been removed. In re-examination, the Father produced what he alleged was an original T4 but, from its face, is another copy. This copy shows a 2014 T4 income of $40,636.89 but it shows a different address for the Father. If this was all the evidence, it would be difficult to come to any conclusion on what the real 2014 T4 income was. When asked about the name of the company, Dominion Lending Centres, the Father did not recognize the name! Yet, he submitted this to CRA and to this court, T4's from Dominion Lending Centres YBC Group. I reject the evidence that the Father's T4's which have been produced accurately and fairly disclose the amount of his income;

j) As stated above, the Father was ordered to produce all his bank statements and visa statements and produced a limited number. But what he did produce is very telling:

i. Based solely on the 46 of 134 statements produced by the Father, 2016 showed deposits of $114,235 and 2017 showed deposits of $161,617. Both show a significant amount of "retail purchases" not consistent with the low income alleged by the Father;

ii. In 2015, the Father spent approximately $64,000 on his Visa card;

iii. In 2016, the Father spent approximately $77,000 on his Visa card;

iv. By July 2017, the Father spent approximately $40,500 on his Visa card;

v. None of the Visa statements included his rent or many of the other expenses referred to above; and

vi. His Visa card was current as of January 2017.

What is the Father's income for support purposes?

[154] As a starting point, s. 16 of the Child Support Guidelines (CSG) requires the court to use the income reported to and determined by CRA.

[155] The other relevant portions of the CSG include:

17 (1) If the court is of the opinion that the determination of a spouse’s annual income under section 16 would not be the fairest determination of that income, the court may have regard to the spouse’s income over the last three years and determine an amount that is fair and reasonable in light of any pattern of income, fluctuation in income or receipt of a non-recurring amount during those years.

19 (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following:

(d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these Guidelines;

(f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;

[156] The amount of income to be imputed must be based on some evidence. The obligation to support children is fundamental and “must take precedence over the parents’ own interests and choices”. See Vigneault v. Massey, 2012 ONSC 3445 at para. 73.

[157] The onus here is on the Mother who is seeking to impute income to establish an evidentiary basis for the imputation of income. See Mann v. Mann, 2009 CanLII 23874 (ON SC) and Drygala v. Pauli.

[158] The Mother submits the Father's income for support purposes must be at least $122,500 per annum.

[159] The Mother arrives at this amount based on the following:

[160] The Father spent between $66,000 and $77,000 on his Visa in the last 3 years (pro-rating 2017). To this must be added the Father's ongoing expenses which are not paid through his Visa being $4,219 per month or $50,628 per annum (rent, utilities, vehicle, life insurance, health insurance) for a total expenditure of between $116,628 and $127,628 per annum. It is hard to imagine that the Father makes less than he spends on expenses each year. This amount is also consistent with the Father's lifestyle - 3 cars and renting a 5 bedroom home.

[161] Yet, there are two adjustments that, in the interest of fairness, should be made. First, Ms. Salazar contributes to some expenses. How much is not clear, was not established by the Father and was not pursued in cross-examination by the Mother. Secondly, some of the Visa statements do include some utility payments.

[162] Accordingly, I reduce the amount of income attributed to the Father to be $100,000 per year for the last few years and estimate for this year.

The Mother

[163] The Mother is a chemical engineer. Her income last year was $81,204 and is expected to be $87,000 plus bonuses for 2018 given a promotion she received. The promotion is recent. The Mother does not know what bonus she will receive in 2018.

[164] The Mother's updated Financial Statement appears to be reasonable and was not questioned during the trial.

[165] The Mother's income was not questioned at trial.

[166] In 2018, I am satisfied that the Mother's income for 2018 will be $87,000 but it is not clear what her bonus income will be.

CHILD SUPPORT

[167] Given the essentially equal child care since separation, the incomes of the respective parents, there is no basis to award any retroactive child support to either of them.

[168] The issue is child support going forward. Given the date of this judgment, child support will commence on March 15, 2018 and continue thereafter monthly until further order of this court.

[169] The CSG provides:

s. 9 Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account

(a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses;

(b) the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and

(c) the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.

[170] Having done a hourly calculation based on the above parenting time, the Father will have less than 40% parenting time over the course of the entire year.

[171] As a result the Father shall pay child support of Alex and Kate commencing April 1, 2018 in the amount of $1,471 per month. A Support Deduction Order shall issue.

SPOUSAL SUPPORT

[172] Based on:

a) The respective incomes, as found by this court;

b) The Mother's claim of no spousal support;

c) The lack of need demonstrated by either party.

[173] I dismiss the Father's claim for spousal support.

[174] There shall be no order for spousal support.

CONCLUSION

[175] An order shall issue containing the terms and conditions set out in Schedule A attached hereto.

COMPLETION OF THE TRIAL

[176] Initially, it was expected that this court would, after hearing evidence and submissions on this part of the trial, would proceed to schedule and try the remaining issues. In my view that is no longer possible for the following reasons:

a) Given this court's findings regarding the ongoing impact on the Children, it is necessary to put into place the custody and access immediately. The continuation of the remaining trial issues will result in a considerable delay of many months before a trial date can be scheduled by the Trial Coordinator's Office; and

b) Given the credibility findings above, it is appropriate that another judge hear the balance of the issues needed to be tried.

COSTS

[177] Any party seeking costs of the action related to the issues tried shall serve and file written submission on entitlement and quantum within three weeks of the release of these reasons. Written submissions shall be limited to 5 pages, with attached Costs Outline and any authorities.

[178] Any responding party shall have two weeks thereafter to serve and file responding submissions. Written submissions shall be limited to 5 pages with any authorities relied on attached.

[179] There shall be no reply submissions without leave.

Ricchetti, J.

Released: March 9, 2018

THE ORDER - SCHEDULE A

[180] This Court orders:

Custody

1. Renee Rose Pontigon (the "Mother") shall have sole custody of the children, Alexandra Paige Pontigon, born May 8, 2010 and Katherine Belle Pontigon, born January 28, 2015 (the "Children").

2. The Children’s primary residence shall be in her home. Louis John Pontigon (the "Father") shall have the parenting time set out herein.

3. The parenting time set out herein cannot be varied except by written agreement of the parents.

4. The parenting time below applies to parenting for both Children, even though Katherine Belle Pontigon is not yet in school.

Parenting time – School Year

5. The school year shall mean from:

a) the first school day in September until the last school day before Christmas break starts;

b) and then continuing from the first school day after the Christmas break until the last day before March break starts;

c) and then continuing from the first school day on the return from March break until the last school day in the school year.

6. The Father shall have parenting time as follows during the school year:

a) alternating weekends from after school pick up on Friday until return to school drop off on Monday.

b) if it is a long school weekend and it falls on Father's access weekend:

i. if Friday is the school day off, the Father's weekend access shall be from Thursday school pick up until Monday school drop off;

ii. if Monday is the school day off, the Father's weekend access shall be from Friday school pick up until Tuesday school drop off;

iii. if both the Friday and the Monday are school days off, the Father's weekend access shall be from Thursday school pick up until 9:00 a.m. Monday.

c) during the school year, the Father shall have parenting time with the Children each Wednesday from school pick up until 8:00 p.m. each Wednesday.

7. Where there are events or performances at the school in which the Children or either of them participate, both parties may attend the event or performance. If there is more than one performance, the Father shall attend the earlier performance and the Mother shall attend the later performance. If there is only one (1) performance, the Father may attend but shall not interfere during the event or performance, but will be permitted to have up to a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes after the performance to take pictures of the child, without any interference from the Mother.

Parenting time - March Breaks

8. March Break shall be from the end of the last school day before March break begins until school starts after the March break.

9. The Mother shall have March break for 2018.

10. The Father shall have March break for 2019.

11. The parents shall continue alternating March breaks each year.

Parenting time - Summer School Break

12. The Summer School Break shall be the period of time from the last school day for the academic year until the first school day of the next academic year.

13. The Mother shall have parenting time from the end of the last school day for the academic year until a week the following Monday at 8:00 a.m. (to be clear this will be more than a full week).

14. The Father shall have parenting time from Monday 8:00 a.m. until the following Monday 8:00 a.m.

15. The Mother shall have the following week and the parents shall continue alternating weeks for the balance of the summer school break.

16. This shall continue for the summer school break.

17. Each party may enroll the Children in week-long summer camps or any other activities that they choose and that the Children wish to participate in during their parenting weeks only. The party who paid for the summer camp expenses shall be entitled to claim the full amount of those expenses when filing their Income Tax Returns.

Parenting Time - Special Days

18. The Children shall be with the Mother on Mother’s Day and her birthday each year. If Mother’s Day or the Mother’s birthday (January 20th) falls on a day that is not her parenting time, the Mother's parenting time shall be from 8:00 a.m. on Mother’s Day or January 20th until 8:00 a.m. the following day at 8:00 am.

19. The Children shall be with the Father on Father’s Day and his birthday each year. If Father’s Day or the Father’s birthday (October 13th) falls on a day that is not his parenting time, the Father's parenting time shall be 8:00 a.m. on Father’s Day or October 13th until 8:00 a.m. the following day at 8:00 am.

20. Each child will remain with the parent that they would be with pursuant to the parenting schedule set out herein for their respective birthdays.

Additional Terms

21. Unless it is a medical or other emergency, neither parent shall attend the school during the school day. Other emergency will include any reason when the school calls and requests a parent to attend the school.

22. As the Mother has sole custody and parenting time during the school attendance, the Mother shall decide what clothing the Children shall have to/from/during school. The Father shall not interfere with the Mother's selection.

23. Neither parent shall ask, suggest or encourage the Children to call their partners any paternal/maternal references such as “Mama/Papa”, “Mommy/Daddy”, “Mom/Dad”, “Ma/Pa”.

24. It is up to the parent who has the parenting time to arrange for other reasonable and appropriate child care when the Children are to be cared for by someone other than the parent who has the parenting time. Such alternate child care person must be a member of the family of the Mother or Father (older than 16 years of age). If such a person is not available, the parent shall first offer this period of time as additional parenting time to the other parent.

Parenting Exchanges

25. When there is a change in parenting time at the beginning of a school day (school drop off) or the end of a school day (school pick up), the access exchange will be at the school. Until Katherine is attending school, this exchange shall also include the access exchange for Katherine at the main entrance of Alexandra’s school. Once Katherine commences school, the access exchange shall be at the school.

26. For all other access exchanges (when the access exchange does not take place at the school), the exchanges shall take place at the designated times at the MacDonald's located at 10565 Bramalea Road, Brampton, Ontario L6R 3P4.

27. Each parent shall ensure that they attend on time for the access exchange. In the event of an emergency, such as car trouble or an extraordinary traffic situation, the parent who is late shall inform the other party as soon as possible by text message.

28. Each party may designate other family members or persons known to the Children to deliver the Children to the other party or pick the Children up from the other party where the party is unable to attend the parenting exchange in person. No person other than the party or the person designated by the party shall attend the parenting exchanges. Specifically, only one adult from each party shall be in the presence of the Children during the exchanges.

29. Each party shall return items of the Children’s personal property sent with the Children by the other party when the Children are delivered for the next parenting transfer.

30. The parties shall refrain from conflict and explicit hostility during access exchanges. Neither party shall communicate or behave in a negative way towards the other party when the Children are present.

31. There shall be no videotaping or voice recording during the exchange.

Extracurricular Activities

32. Unless agreed to in writing by both parents, neither parent shall enroll the Children in extracurricular activities which infringe on the other's parenting time.

Information

33. The Mother shall keep the Father informed of major decisions made regarding the Children.

34. The Mother shall be the primary emergency/early dismissal contact person for school purposes. In the event that the school cannot reach her, the school shall contact the Mother’s third party listed with the school. The Mother shall arrange for the Children's pick up.

35. All school information required for the Children shall reflect that the Children reside primarily with the Mother and her residence shall be listed on all such documents, including school verification forms.

36. The Father shall have the same rights to the release of information concerning the Children, as if he were the party having custody, including but not limited to matters of education, extracurricular activities and health, directly from the relevant source without the necessity of any Release.

37. The parties will reasonably promptly share with each other, any information with respect to the Children’s or a child’s health, education and social activities and shall not impede the flow of information between the school or health professionals and the other parent.

38. If either parent chooses to keep a child or the Children home from school or withdraw them from school due to illness, they shall promptly advise the other party.

Children’s Documents

39. The originals of all the Children’s documents, including, but not limited to government-issued documents, school works, extracurricular certificates, awards, and medals/trophies/ribbons, shall remain in the possession of the Mother. Certified copies of the government-issued documents shall be provided by the Mother to the Father. Photocopies or photographs (if it cannot be photocopied), of the Children’s school work, certificates and awards will be provided by the Mother to the Father, unless the child or Children wishes to give the original school work, extracurricular certificates, awards and metals/trophies/ribbons to their Father or keep them at his home.

40. The Mother shall provide the original documents necessary to facilitate any travel, and any documents provided to the Father for the purposes of travelling with the Children shall be returned to the Mother promptly when the Children are returned to her after travel.

Travel

41. If either party wishes to travel outside of Ontario with the Children, they shall provide an itinerary and contact information to the other party at least 20 days in advance of the departure date and the particulars shall include the destination, departure and return dates, mode of transportation and contact information, which shall only be used in the case of an emergency.

42. The non-traveling party shall provide a written Consent Form to Travel within seven (7) days of receiving the request to travel, provided the proposed travel is to a country that is a signatory to The Hague Convention.

43. Travel cannot interfere with the other parent's parenting time unless both parents agree to the specific travel in writing.

Communications

44. Except in the case of an emergency involving the Children the parties shall communicate only by email with the Father to send emails to reneelontoc09@gmail.com. The Mother shall send emails to the Applicant/Father at louis.pontigon@outlook.com. In the event of an emergency affecting the Children, or in order to notify the other party of a delay or emergency situation, the other party may text the other party or, as a last resort, call the other parent.

45. Communication shall be limited to topics regarding the Children, including but not limited to information about the Children’s health, education and extracurricular activities, any significant achievements and requests for changes of parenting time. Communications shall be respectful, non-accusatory, non-controlling and civil.

46. Neither party shall denigrate the other to or in the presence of the Children, nor shall they allow third parties to do so.

47. The Father shall not cancel, replace or in any way change any of the Children’s documentation without the Mother’s prior, written consent.

48. The parties shall enrol Alexandra in play therapy as recommended by the clinician at the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and shall share the cost of such therapy equally.

Child Support and Spousal Support

49. There shall be no retroactive child support payable.

50. The Father shall pay child support to the Mother for the Children Alexandra Paige Pontigon, born May 8, 2010 and Katherine Belle Pontigon, born January 28, 2015, in the amount of $1,471 per month, based on an imputed income of $100,000.00 per annum, commencing April 1, 2018. A Support Deduction Order shall issue.

51. The Respondent/Mother shall maintain the Children on her medical and dental plan so long as that is available to her through employment.

52. Each party shall bear the cost of any extracurricular activities and summer camps that they choose to enrol the Children in.

53. Any other special expenses agreed upon by both parties in writing shall be shared by the parties proportional to their income.

54. No spousal support shall be payable by either party by the other.

COURT FILE NO.: FS-16-85270-00

DATE: 20180309

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Louis John Pontigon, Applicant

-AND-

Renee Rose Pontigon, Respondent

COUNSEL: Applicant/Father, self-represented J. Hyndman for the Respondent/Mother

JUDGMENT ON CUSTODY, ACCESS AND SUPPORT

Ricchetti, J.

Released: March 9, 2018